The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-07 00:00:00

Tag SItN, LONbON, FRIDAY gVENENG, MARCH 1, 1862.

Price.

Paid.

Business dux

70 75
100 i tOl
6 bid
8} 81
5_ fl

100
all
all
all

I iP

10 101
102 102}
100 102
I,lli 1021
102 103
1031 1041,

261 27i
74 78
63 65
45 47
46 50
41 44
40 43
101 102
pr ip
100 101
13171 13i
7
100 104
94 96
100 101
91 95
90 92

5 7

all
flOO
15
all
100

4 6
102 103
i b

C 8
$ $

101 l

1021 i

27i
76t
65 I

101i1iii

131 I

991
94i 4

L A TV .I.24TELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

-

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
Their lordships were engaged the whole day in hearing
the arguments in Mr. Scott Rutsell's case.
The petition of Mr. 'Windham stands over.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)

DURROL GLIS V. InTDROLTGIit3 AND SILCOCK.

This was a suit instituted by Mr. Thomas Proctor Bur-
roughs, a solicitor, practising at Stalham, in Lincolnshire,
for a:divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with the
co-respondent, who is in business at Stalham with his
father, a wino and spirit merchant. The petitioner also
claimed damages for the alleged injury he had sustained.
The respondent denied the charge, which she recriminated,
pleading adultery by the petitioner with three females, and
the co-respondent merely pleaded denial. It will be remem-
bered that there was a cross suit, in which the respondent
petitioned the Court for restitution of conjugal rights, and
the learned judge deferred judgment until the issues in the
present case were decided.

Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., this morning opened the case for
the co-respondent, Mr. Silcock, and said it was the first case
in which he had been engaged in which a claim had been
set up for damages in which not the slightest evidence had
been given to show the terms upon which the two parties
lived after marriage. He intended to call witnesses to re-
fute the evidence given by the Rev. Mr. White, and
although his learned friend had said Mrs. Burroughs could
not be acquitted of the charge made against her without
finding Mr. White guilty of perjury, he could not assent to
that doctrine, and he could not understand how that
gentleman could have received Mrs. Burroughs into
his house after she had conducted herself in the
manner he had described. Mr. White had also stated that
he saw the act of adultery committed on the 16th of March
between the hours of three and four; but he should call
witnesses to prove that at four o'clock on the afternoon of
the day mentioned, Mr. Silcock was at the house of an
elderly lady named Weeds, seven miles from Stalham, as
late as four o'clock in the afternoon, so that he could not
have returned to Stalham before five o'clock at the earliest ;
and, therefore, it must have been well dusk when the scene
Mr. White had spoken to as having seen it Mn-Rurrouglas'
house could have occurred —certainly it could not have been
daylight as he had described.
The case will not conclude to-day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RE FRANKSON.

This bankrupt was a builder in Westminster• road, and
came up for his last examination and discharge. 'no bank-
rupt was in custody. The debts and liabilities amount to
about £B,OOO, but the assets are nearly or fully to that
amount.

Mr. Sorrell, Mark-lane, applied for the bankrupt's dis-
charge from custody, and asked for an adjournment for six
weeks to enable the bankrupt to furnish accounts.
His Honour said that the examination had been once ad-
journed for that purpose.
Mr. Sorrell submitted that this case ought to be taken as
though it were the first meeting, as the bankrupt had been
adjudicated to be so, against his urgent protest, on the first
'visitation of the registrar under the new act. The bank-
'-'rupt objected to the adjudication, inasmuch as he being a
builder had entered into certain contracts, and the whole of
the property would become forfeited in the event of the ad-
judication in bankruptcy taking place. He (Mr. Sorrell)
had on the last occasion obtained enlargement of the time
until this day for the bankrupt to surrender, to give him
an opportunity , but on investigating
the affairs ho (tMo su
nSpoerrsreeldle) found that the pay-
ment of the creditors w
hefor
de.m
epeenndtineoontbd ; and although
the realiasaltthioonohf
tmhoerbtgaangkerdupptrowpaesrt &c.,
anxious to do all he could for the benefit
of his creditors generally, and to prevent any particular
creditor from obtaining the advantage of the forfeiture, yet
as an ant of justice to himself, seeing that he had been in
prison several months, he submitted to the adjudication.
His Honour, therefore, could see that this was not an ordi-
nary case of a bankrupt acting contumaciously.
His Honour granted the release, and adjourned the exa-
mination till the 28th April.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Potter and a Jury.)
LEDIARD Y. COLLIHR-ExTRAORD/NARY CASE OF THE

TIPPLING ACT.

This was an action brought in the Court of Common
Pleas to recover £2 7s. 6d. for champagne, brandy and gin-
and-water, and cigars.
Defendant pleaded never indebted except as to 155., the
Tippling Act, and payment of 15s. into court.
Mr. Robertson Griffiths appeared for plaintiff, and Mr.
Philbrick for defendant.

Plaintiff said an innkeeper, of Colchester,
and defendant hw
waeaaats formerlyravelle
traveller in the employment of a firm
which supplied plaintiff with spirits. Plaintiff owed this
firm an amount, and defendant called for payment. As
usual in such cases, defendant gave an order, and that was
for four bottles of champagne. It was very good and went
off with a "pop." (Laughter.) He went away without
paying, and subsequently, upon a future occasion, he par-
took of cigars and brandy and gin and water to the extent
of 19s. 6d. The champagne was eharged at 7s. per bottle.
Cross. examined—l had been married about six months
before tr,js affair..., I did not stand a bottle of champagne.
He did not tender me half-a-sovereign as payment of the
wine. He paid nothing towards the champagne. I never
said, " You've stood one, and I've stood one, and now I'll
stand another." Nor did I say, "If you pay half-a-sove-
reign that will be sufficient." He did not pay half-a-sove-
reign in my presence to my daughter, who was barmaid.
I did not refuse to accept payment for the brandy and water
and cigars upon any occasion. Mr. Collier gave evidence
against me upon a trial, and so far as that trial is concerned
I have failed, and after that failure I brought this action.
I have never gone by the name of Leonard.

Mr. Philbrick—l believe there has been some dispus
about a wife of yours—about a double wife ? (Laughter.)
Mr. Griffiths objected, and the question was not pressed.
Mr. Philbrick urged that this was a spiteful case brought
because defendant had ventured to give evidence against
the plaintiff. Such a case as this ought never to have been
brought in the superior court, and it was evidently taken to
the court above for the purpose of making casts out of de-
fendant. By the tippling act it was clear that plaintiff could
not recover, and whatever slur might be cast upon it, it was
a time immemorial statute, not yet repealed.
Defendant said that when he called upon plaintiff, that
person insisted upon " standing" a bottle of champagne
before anything was done. That was drunk, and then plain-
tiff refused to settle unless witness stood a bottle. Then
witness stood one, and finally a third was brought, but wit-
ness refused to partake of it. Witness threw down 10s. as
payment of the bottle he stood, and plaintiff took it up and
kept it. Plaintiff refused to settle the account until the
wine was stood. Witness never had more than Is. 6d.
worth of brandy and water, and then plaintiff would not
accept the money for it. Witness gavo evidence against
plaintiff in a Chancery suit.

Cross-examined—ln reference to the Chancery suit, my
principals gave bills to the extent of £7OO for the Angel,
and that was the agreement. I do not know that a great
sum was lost in cashing the bills. Ido not know if plain-
tiff went to Australia as an actor. He went to the gold
fields.

Mr. Griffiths—Yes, and you have some of his gold.
Mr. Miller, one of defendant's employers, was called and
examined as to the spirits consumed upon the occasion of
his visit.

Cross-examined—The gin was not as I sent it, It was
adulterated, and was not nice. Ido not know about sugar,
but there was a great deal of water in it. (Laughter.) I
advised him about the adulteration. The house was a dis-
reputably conducted one. I was in it for three hours. I
am not ashamed of myself, as I wont to buy the house. the
tills I gave are due in July and December, and will then
be paid.

i'laintiTs daughter said he was barmaid to her father,
and :-,he proved taking the half-sovereign paid by de-
fendant.

Croee•eaamined—l have had a difference with my
father. He knocked me about.

Re-examined—l left through his ill-usage, but I have
sworn the truth today.

Mr. Philbrick then argued that he had made out his case,
and Mr. Griffiths said this wasp most painful case, but
plaintiff had certainly made his out.
The learned Secondary, in summing up, remarked that
the plaintiff's daughter had come here under subpama, and
though it might be called hard, she was bound to speak the
truth, and it was improper to oast a doubt upon her evi-
dence. The learned Secondary said that the plaintiff could
not recover the spirits, but the cigars did not come under
the provisions of the act.
The jury found for the defendant.
The costs in this case will be above 420.

-
PROTECTION OF LIFE FROM FlRE.—Last night,
at the chain cable and anchor works belonging to Messrs.
Brown, Lennox, and Co., Millwall, Poplar, experiments
were tried for the purpose of further testing Bradbrook's
smoke and noxious vapour respirators. Among those
present
P.R.S., the patentee of the
newly
were
invented
fire-engine
n
Mr. Gordon, the inspector of
e-Ren
the Royal Society for the Protection of Life from Fire ; and
conductors Samuel Wood, Preston, Horton, and Cooke.
The whole of these persons took part in the experiments. In
an iron fire-proof oven, about the size of an ordinary room,
a large charcoal fire was made, which was fed for some
Roberts,ob
ge ;
time with paraffin oil, turpentine, assafeetida, gas tar, and
wet straw, when a dense and suffocating smoke was pro-
duced. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Roberts, and his sons, with the whole
of the escape men, with the respirator on their mouths, en-
tered the oven. They remained for a period of 131 minutes.
In addition to the above ingredients a large quantity
of sublimate of copper, a deadly poison,
was also put upon the
furnaces, and yet the whole of the persons in the oven were
enabled to breathe without the least difficulty. The only
inconvenience they e?Lperienced arose from the excessive
heat. The Royal Society for the Protection of Life from
Fire were so satisfied with the experiments that they have
ordered a number of the respirators for the use of the CPU"
d uotors. The apparatus is exceedingly light and any one
wearing it can speak freely without the least danger of in-
jialing 494.!4 smoke Uezions vapour.