The Sun.
London, England, 1865-11-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice and

Justices Mellor, Shee, and Lush.)
IN RE MADAME VALENTIN.

This case, which has assumed so many protean forms
before the law courts, was again brought before this court
to-day, in the shape of an application, by Mr. Coleridge,
Q.C., to have an indictment against Mr. Hall and Mr
Lafourcade brought by certiorari into the Court of Queen's
Bench, to be tried on the ground that it arose out of the
same transaction as the misdemeanour for the trial on
which a certiorari had been granted ; and that, therefore,
they ought to be tried together.
Mr. Metcalfe opposed Wie application on the ground that
it was not usual to remove a felony by certiorari, and
also because the prosecutrix had been at great expense
in bringing witnesses from France, and ought not to be
put to that expense again. If the order were made he
hoped there would be a condition attached to it that
the defendant Hall should give security for the costs in
both prosecutions.

Mr. Coleridge opposed the application, and said that the
true bill must have been found before the certiorari could
take effect, and therefore the witnesses must have come to
London in order to obtain the indictment.
The Lord Chief Justice said the defendant must have
the rule for a certiorari made absolute, and, with regard to
costs, they must follow the order of the Court in the usual
way.
. Rule granted.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde.)
YARRINGTON V. YARRINGTON.

This was a suit instituted by the wife for judicial sepa-
ration, on the ground of her husband's cruelty.
Dr. Wambey appeared for the petitioner, and there was
was no defence.

It appeared that the parties were married in 1853, and
that the petitioner was possessed of a property of between
£4O and £5O a year, as well as large a stock of household
furniture, which she had by her first husband. The parties
were in the same position of life, respondent being a mas-
ter builder, and the petitioner the daughter of a respectable
seafaring man.

The evidence was to the effect that the respondent be-
came intemperate and ill-used his wife. The acts of vio-
lence deposed to were of the usual character, namely,
striking the woman in the most brutal manner, and inflict-
ing injuries of a character that prevented the wretched
petitioner from discharging her domestic duties.
The evidence fully proved the case, and the Court made
the decree with costs.

THIS DAY.
HOUSE OF LORDS.

Parliament standing prorogued until to-day, the
Lord Chancellor, and the other royal commissioners,
cook their seats before the throne.

The Usher of the Black Rod having been directed
to summon the Commons to the bar of the House
of Peers, in a few minutes after the "faithful Com-
mons," in the person of their clerk, attended.
The royal commission was then read, and at its
conclusion,
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in the usual formal man-
ner, declared that the Parliament was further pro-
rogued until December 28.
Another prorogation will therefore take place be-
fore the two houses meet for the despatch of public
business.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

WESTMINSTER.

ROBBING A MASTER.—Sarah Spencer, a well-dressed
married woman 32 years of age, was charged with stealing
four pairs of sheets, four pairs of pillow cases, a table-cloth,
children's clothing, &c., value £lO, the property of Mr.
Richard Lee, her master, a surgeon, residing at 3, Great
Queen-street, Westminister.
Prosecutor said the prisoner was the wife of his coach-
man, and had been in his service six months. All the
family linen was entrusted to her charge, it was in a box
in the front dining-room nailed down, and yesterday morn-
ing at 11 o'clock prosecutor and his wife, in the absence
of the prisOner, opened the box with a hammer and chisel,
and discovered the property had been stolen. He called
the prisoner and asked her about it, and she did
did not deny it, but expressed such surprise that suspi-
cion did not light upon her, and she was accordingly
ordered to fetch her husband, who was accused of the
felony. The prisoner immediately exculpated him, and
said she had taken the things, and pawned them, but
did not know the shops. She added that the money
had been sent to her mother, who was in distress.
Prosecutor then came to the court, and having obtained
advice returned home, but prisoner had left. She re-
turned in the evening, and was given into custody.
William Balstone, 298 B, proved taking prisoner into
custody. She said the things were pledged somewhere
in the Edgeware-road.
She was remanded for a week.