The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-14 00:00:00

TOPHAM V. TOPEAM.

This was a petition presented by the wife against the
husband, praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty,
adultery, and desertion. The parties were married in 1851,
and after this resided in High-street, Gravesend. The
respondent neither appeared nor answered the petition.
Mrs.MaryAnn Foster, the sister of the petitioner, proved
the marriage, after which the parties lived in the High-
street, Gravesend. Her husband used to treat her very
unkindly after marriage. In September, 1852, she heard
him threaten to take her life, but before that she saw him
strike her a violent blow with a stick at the railway station.
He ceased to reside with his wife in October, 1852.
Mrs. Emma Topham, the petitioner, said—l am the

petitioner in this cause. After marriage I resided with my
husband in High-street, Gravesend. We afterwards went
to live at Northfleet, where we remained until 1852. At
that period he took a situation, since which he has not
lived with me. He went to sea in 1855 as a butcher:
While living in High-street my husband was in the habit
of getting drunk and Musing me. On one occasion he
Etruck me at the railway station. I have lived with my
father at Northfleet since my husband has been away.

By the Judge Ordinary—ln addition to striking me at Ihe
railway station, about a month before he came home drunk
and threw me across the room. His father used to assist us
while we lived at Northfieet. I could not go with him
when he went into his situation, as he had to reside in the
house. After this he went into the service of Mr. Levy,
but in 1855 he went to sea. I have met my husband acci-
dentally in Gravesend since he left, but he never came to
Northfieet to see either me or his child. My husband was
imprisoned for 21 days, in consequence of the disturbance
he made when he threatened my life ; but after that he
resided with me. In 1855 he went on board ship to_ India,
and I have only seen him once since, and then it was by
accident.
Mrs. Lamb, of Stone-street, Gravesend, said the respon-
dent came to live in her house. He brought a lady with
him, but it was not the person who has just given her
evidence.
Decree nisi, with costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Their lordships were occupied the whole of the sitting
of the court in hearing enlarged rule causes. The case of
Kennedy v. Brown and wife did not come on to-day.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the Recorder and a Jury.)
IMPORTANT TO THE PRINTING TRADE.-WILSON Y.

BELDING.

This was an action to recover the balance of an accoun
for printing, publishing, and advertising a certain pamphlet
entitled, "Do we want a record of the Exhilition."
Mr. Wills was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Howard
for defendant.
Mr. Wills, in opening the case, stated that his client was
the well-known Effingham Wilson, of the Royal Exchange,
and defendant a clerk in an American commercial house in
this country. The present claim was for work done, and
he (the learned counsel) was at a loss to know what the
' defence could be.
Mr. Harmer said that he told the defendant the cost for
500 copies would be £5 55. per sheet, with a reduction for a
second edition.
Mr. Wilson, sen., deposed that he had carte blanche in
reference to the advertisements, and the prices charged were
fair and reasonable,—Mr. Howard called for the papers in
which the advertisements had been inserted, but Mr. Wil-
son said he had not brought them. Ile had never been asked
on any previous occasion for newspapers.
His Lordship pointed out that while he had no moral
doubt that the advertisements were inserted, yet the jury
must be satisfied.
Mr. Wilson—l can swear that I inserted them.
His Lordship—No doubt ; but the papers must be pro-
duced.
Mr. Bailey, an advertising agent, proved that plaintiff's
charges were fair and reasonable.
Defendant then said that he had been charged too much.
Cross-examined— I will not swear that Mr. Harmer did
not say the charge would be £5 ss. per sheet.
His Lordship—That ends the case so far as the printing
is concerned.
A. printer said the charge was excessive; but his Lord-
ship in summing up said, that this was not a case in which
what was a fair charge was the question. If the jury found
that there was a specific agreement, plaintiff was entitled to
a verdict for the printing.
The jury immediately found for the plaintiff for the print-
ing account, observing that they were sorry they could not
give him more, and that the case ought never to have been
allowed to come here.