The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-20 00:00:00

press it against Mary Grant, and a verdict of acquittal was therefore
taken as to her.
The examination of witnesses was then proceeded with. The case is
expected to occupy two or three days.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.

JOHN V. HOOPER.

Mr. PLATT (with whom was Mr. Butt) stated that this action was
brought to recover the sum of 151., the balance of a sum due for board
and lodging from the defendant's wife. It appeared that a number of
years ago Mr. Ilooper married and lived for a few years with his wife.
He afterwards chose to turn her off, and live with another woman.
Mrs. Hooper went to live with her father, but on his death she was re-
duced to great distress, and the plaintiff who had married one of the
daughters of Mr. and Mrs. Hooper, took the latter into his house, in
order to save her from starvation. The plaintiff had protected and
taken care of her, and being refused compensation, now asked it from
a Jury. —He then called
Amelia Sims, who was examined by Mr. BUTT.—Witness knew
Mrs. Hooper, who was her husband's cousin. Mr. and Mrs. Hooper
were married nearly 40 years ago. They had two daughters. He lived
with her some years, when they separated, but she had lost sight of
them for many years. Mrs. Hooper was taken down to her father, who
was now-dead.

Francis Sims, examined by Mr. PLATT.—Was brother to Mrs.

Hooper, who had been married 35 years ago. Mrs. and Mr. Hooper
lived together at Pentonville for several years. She went down to the
country upon the illness and death of her mother, and on her return she
found that Mr. Hooper had another woman living with him.
They then separated, and witness had never spoken to him
since. On the death of her father Mrs. Hooper continued to
reside in the village with her two daughters until their marriage.
He lost sight of her for a long time, and the next time he saw
her, she applied to him in great distress. His wife took care that she
wanted for nothing. Mr. Hooper was a clerk in the India House.
Cross_examined—Witness was not present when his sister found
another woman in the house, and only knew it from hearsay.
Thomas Jennings, a blind man, examined by Mr. PLarr—Was a
coal dealer, and had been blind ten years. Mrs. Hooper came to lodge
at his house about five years and a half ago ; she then came out of
Bishopsgate workhouse. While she resided with him Hooper often
came, and witness told him that the ten pounds he al..
lowed his wife would not make up five shillings a week
which he wanted for her board and lodging, and he said he would
make it up every half year. He was losing money, and he wished her
to go. She then went to her brother's house.

Cross.examined.—Hooper told him that all he had to depend upon
himself was an annuity of 50!. left him by his father, and he made an
allowance of 10/. On one of the occasions when he called along with
the woman who lives with him, he asked Mrs. Hooper if she wonld come
back and live with him, and he would then give the other woman her
discharge. Mrs. Hooper said as he had lived so long with another,
and had a large family by her, it was unlikely that he would erer make
a bed-fellow of her again. The other woman was present, and fell
into fits.

-- John, a brother of the plaintiff; had also married the other sis.
ter. In 1333, he saw Mr. Hooper, and an arrangement was made
that he should allow her JO/. a year, by which arrangement she was
taken out of the workhouse. After failing in keeping a school she went
to reside with his brother, where she lived as one of the family.. Th c
woman who lived with Hooper was a married woman, and had an allow.
once of 1001. a.year. Mrs. Hooper was a very infirm old woman, and
could not be maintained under 20/. a-year.
Cross-examined--Mrs. Hooper received 5/. every half year, and paid
hover to his brother. The allowance of 100/. to Mrs. Bedwell was
withdrawn.

John Newman had boarded and lodged with the plaintiff in January,
1837. Mrs. Hooper was residing there at that time. He would not
suppose 25/. a.yezr too much for her board and lodging.
Richard Fleming fitted up a bed-room for Mrs. Hooper when she
went to reside with the plaintiff. He had seen the manner in which
she was treated, and he thought 25/. a-year would be a very reasonable
recompense for her maintenance.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. HUMPORCY addressed the Jury for the defendant, and contended
that, according to the cases in the books, the husband was not liable
for necessaries to any person who was aware that the wife had a separate
maintenance. In the present case the plaintiff had a perfect knowledge
of the separate allowance. As to the question of the amount of that
separate maintenance, the jury were to bear in mind that the defendant
was old—nearly blind, and had only 50/. a-year, to keep himself
and a family of children. Out of his pittance, surely the
10/. was an adequate allowance. Again, it was in evidence
that the defendant had been willing and was anxious that the
wife should return. It had been laid down in the case of Hind_
ley v. the Marquis of Westmeath, that under such circumstances
the husband Was not liable to be sued by any tradesman who
gave her credit. With these observations he would leave the case in
the hands of his Lordship and of the Jury.
His LCTDSHIP summed up, and left it to the Jury to say whether 101.
was a sufficient allowance for the innocent wife, while the guilty and
immoral husband was enjoying 4el. out of his income.
The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
with 151. damages, being at the rate of 20/. a-year.
His LORDSHIP ordered the amount of the verdict, and 20/. for costs,
to be paid into Court within a month.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(THISDA Y.)

OLD-COURT.

James Cross was indicted for feloniously uttering a forged cheque for
71. 10s., well knowing the same to be forged, with intent to defraud
John Richard Blackburn.

It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner lived as coachman in
the service of J. K. Clement, Esq., a gentleman of independent property
residing in Essex, and that he went to the shop of the prosecutor, a
linendraper, and ordered some goods, value 2/. 10s., for which lie pre-
sented the cheque in question, and Mr. Clements stated that he left his
cheque book where the prisoner might have had access to it; that a leaf
had been torn from it; that the cheque produced was the leaf he had
lost; and that lie had not written a word upon it.
The jury returned a verdict of "Guilty of utteting."
Mr. CLEMENT recommended the prisoner to mercy.

THE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY).
CORN EXCHANGE.

There is very little English Grain fresh up this morning, but several
new vessels have arrived with Oats from Ireland. Not having much
Wheat for sale to-day, the factors demanded higher prices, and rather
more money than Monday was obtained. In Barley, Beans, and Pease
there is little doing. Oats are more firm than of late, and Monday•.
prices have been well supported. The advance on Flour is maintained
with a moderate demand.