The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 26.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
ST•CREI W. SMETTO.

The plaintiff sought compensation in damages against the
defendant for criminal conversation with his wife. Judg.
ment was suffered to go by default, and a writ of inquiry
was executed to assess the damages, which damages were
laid at 2001.

The plaintiff, whose case was conducted by his attorney,
bad resided at Birmingham, and occasionally slept at a beer-
shop, about two miles from his own residence. The defend-
ant is an Italian, travelling about with a hurdygurdy, and
the cause of action was alleged to have occurred about four
years ago. The defendant had been thrashed by the plain•
tiff for his alleged criminal conversation, and about two
months back had been served with process in the present
action. Some witnesses were called, and it appeared that in
1843 the defendant played the hurdygurdy in the plaintiff's
house, and dancing took place in the kitchen.
The plaintiff's attorney, in stating his case, claimed a
reasonable compensation for the injury sustained, and as he
was going to the House of Lords for a divorce, their
Lordships would consider the amount the jury had awarded.
Mr. MILLER, on the part of the defendant, stated that he
unfortunately had not pleaded to the action, or he could have
satisfied the jury that he was not the party liable ; he was,
in fact, a poor Italian, travelling about with a hardy.
gurdy, and the plaintiff, who had committed an assault
upon him four years ago, now sued him for damages to
enable him to get a divorce from his wife, no doubt
wishing to marmarryanother woman. The jury would consider
the loss the plaintiff had sustained, and he confidently anti-
cipated that they would consider that one farthing was more
than compensation for the injury committed on his character
and feelings.
The Learned UNDER-S,ERIFF told the jury, the defen-
dant by not pleading had admitted that he was. the party
liable to damages, and they would, therefore, pay no atten-
tion to what his learned counsel had stated as to his inno-
cence of the charge imputed to him. The question for them
was, the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was en-
titled. It would have been more prudent for the plaintiff
not to have left his home and have slept at a beer-shop, and in
considering their damages they would take into account
how far he had been a party thereby to his own dishonour.
The defendant was said to be an outcast, a poor foreigner ;
but if he had injured the plaintiff the latter had a right to
claim compensation at the hands of the jury. The jury
would also take into consideration that the action was not
brought for three or four years after the occurrence, and with
respect to the statement about the intention of the plaintiff to
go to the House of Lords for a divorce, they (the jury) had
nothing to do with the matter. They had to assess the
amount of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled for the
injury complained of, which injury defendant by not plead-
ing had admitted he had committed.
The jury assessed the damages at " One farthing."

PETITIONS ON PRIVATE BILLS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
(Room 22, before Mr. Examiner SMITH and Mr. Assistant-
Examiner FREES.)
UNOPPOSED LIST.
GLASGOW, KILMARNOCK, AND ARDROSSAN
RAILWAY.
This case was resumed, and occupied the Examiner during
the remainder of the day.
(Room 23, before Mr. Examiner MAY and Mr. Assistant-
Examiner GuNsELL.)
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY.—(No. 1.)
The petition was opposed by several memorialists, includ-
ing the Lancaster and Carlisle, the Maryport and Carlisle,
and the Caledonian Company. Two allegations, impugning
the correctness of the notices and the accuracy of the sec-
tions, were not sustained, and the case was adjourned till
to-morrow.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
The Committee to whom are referred the petitions against
the Bills that the Examiners have reported not to have com-
plied with the standing orders met at one o'clock.
READING, GUILDFORD, AND REIGATE RAILWAY.
GLASGOW, DUMFRIES, AND CARLISLE, AND
GLASGOW, PAISLEY, KILMARNOCK, AND AYR
RAILWAY (No. 2).
In each of these cases the standing orders were allowed to
be dispensed with.
GLASGOW, PAISLEY, AND KILMARNOCK RAIL-
WAY, AND AYRSHIRE AND BRIDGE OF WEIR
RAILWAY (No. 3.).
The parties were allowed to proceed in this case.
The Committee then adjourned.