The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-19 00:00:00

I) ON, 111.URSDAt, NOtEMBER 1, 1840

regarded Mehemet Ali as the founder of a new Empire
of the Eat, which wsi.x destined to fill in the world the
place of the fallen empire of Consiant:hoPle. 1N re should
have let him extend his power from the borders of the
Red Sea to those of the Black Sea ; and we ought not
to have suffered the Allies to meddle in the war kindled
between the Viceroy and the Sultan, and thus violate the
principle of non intervention:" It is eesy to see what
trump-card this non-intervention principle is calddlated
to become in the hands of players like these. It means
non-intervention against whatever dominion a conquer-
ing rebel, under French protection, may assume over
the great European roUte3 to the East. That England
has an interest to refuse recognition to such a principle
—which is nothing but the principle of unlimited con- ,
quest over regions which are becoming so important to
the commerce of Europe, as well as to our communica-
tion with our Indian possessions—will hardly be denied
in auy impartial quarter. That in this course we
have every principle recognised in Europe on our side,
we hold to be an element very essential to solid success.
If any reason can be given for concluding that we
have acted on wrong principles, let them by all means
be abandoned ; it is never too late to do right. But if
we do not think ourselves in the wrong, we ought not
to make ourselves so, by concessions inconsistent with
the grounds of our past proceedings. We would make
every practicable concession for the sake of peace and
friendship with France ; but we would make no con-
cession in a form involving a surrender of principle—
unless the Pacha's friends can exert more force in argu-
ment than he has in action.

MILLIGEN V. WEDGE.
This was an action to recover damages for an injury done
to the plaintiff's property by a bullock, the property of the
diknelatit, Ipt.t v..hch at the moment of the injury committed
was being driver !ii±otgb the streets by a boy in the ser-
vice of a drover named Ings. Thtt ttue.tion at issue was
whether Wedge, the butcher, or Ings, the dfotei rras lia-
ble to the plaintiff for the damage done. The Learned
Judge reserved leave to move the Court on this point, but
took the opinion of the jury on the damages which ought
to be given should the Court be of opinion that the action
was maintainable. The jury returned a verdict of 25/.
damages.. A rule had since been obtained to enter the ver-
dict absolutely for the plaintiff for the amount of damages
found by the jury, cause against and for the rule having
been shown.
Lord DENMAN said that where a party employed a per-
son to do something for him in a business which was lode
pendent of his own, and of which business he himself had
no knowledge, the person so employed could not be con•
sidered as the agent and servant of the employer, nor was
the latter answerable for his acts. Such was the case
here. The defendant was a butcher, and in all probability
knew nothing of driving bullocks, but employed legs, who
might be considered as carrying on an independent busi-
ness, to drive this bullock from the market to the slaugh-
ter-house. Ings was therefore a person acting in his own
business, independent of the orders of the defendant, and
liable for his own acts and the servants he employed under
him. His Lordship was therefore of opinion that the rule
for entering a verdict for the plaintiff could not be supported.
The other Judges concurred, and the rule was discharged.

ARCHES' CO UR T, Nor. 18.
LOCKWOOD V. LOCKWOOD.
This is a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty brough
by Lady Julia Lockwood against Mr. R. M. Lockwood,
her husband. The cause Was originally brought in the
Consistorial Court of London, and the Learned Judge of
that Court (Dr. Lushington) pronounced the sentence of
divorce as prayed for by the wife. From that decision an
appeal has been entered in this Court. The arguments
were heard during the course of last term, and Sir H. Jen-
ner now gave his judgment. Having stated the proceed-
ings in the cause, the Court proceeded to consider the
allegations brought against Mr. Lockwood, and the evidence
by which they were supported. It considered that his con.
duct on several occasions amounted to legal cruelty. Such
was his behaviour to Lady Julia at Lady Aldborough's, in
dragging her up stairs, which no levity on her part or sus-
picions on his could possibly justify. In 1834 was enother
act of cruelty committed at Paris. It was alleged that,
having agreed to have separate rooms, Mr. Lockwood had
entered into Lady Julia's chamber, and had there kicked
and ill-used her. There was no direct proof of the extent
of violence, but the evidence was sufficient, under the cir-
cumstances, to establish legal cruelty. At Versailles, in
the summer of the same year, he was charged with using
abusive language to Lady Julia, and thrusting his fist into
her face, but this fact was not established, and there was
nothing in his conduct towards his wife on this occasion
harsh or severe. At the same place it was alleged that once
he ran after Lady Julia with a stick, and threatened to
run it down her throat, which so frightened her that
she jumped out of window, and that, being reproached
for such conduct, he had replied that "he would drag
her out of the room by the scuff of her neck." He sub-
sequently, however, confessed that " he had acted very
wrong, and that he had been a brute to Lady Julia." The
evidence of his conduct and his subsequent declarations re-
specting it, clearly entitled Lady Julia Lockwood to pro-
tection and redress. At this time, at any rate, there was
no imputation on her character, nothing in her behaviour,
to justify or even to extenuate such harshness and cruelty.
Articles of separation were shortly after this drawn up
between the parties, and a hope was entertained by their
friends that their disputes and disagreements could have
been settled without referring to a legal process.
These negotiations, however, unfortunately failed, and
Mr. Lockwood subsequently took forcible possession of
Lady Julia's residence at Tunbridge Wells, and com-
pelled her to seek the protection of the law. This step
proved that Mr. Lockwood had not then learned duly to
discipline his temper and his passions. The letters found in
the possession of Lady Julia, written by certain gentle-
men, though not leading to the necessary conclusion of an
improper familiarity, ought to have received a fuller and
more satisfactory explanation. They could not, however,
have had any effect upon the conduct of Mr. Lockwood,
as they were not discovered by him until after such con-
duct bad been adopted. On the whole, the Court thought
the decision of the Court below was a sound one. Ac-
cording to the principle which regulated the decisions of
these Courts, Mr. Lockwood had been guilty of legal
cruelty—of such cruelty as would render the further coha-
bitation of Lady Julia with her husband unsafe. The
Learned Judge accordingly affirmed the decision of the in-
ferior Court, and was bound, under the cicumstances, to
condemn Mr. Lockwood in the costs.
The facts of the case having been already published, we
have merely given a brief summary of the judgment, which
occupied two hours in its delivery.
MAY V. MAY.
This was a suit for divorce, on the ground of adultery,
Promoted by Captain May against Mrs. May, his wife.
Dr. PHILLIMORE said that he could not offer any oppo-
sition to the prayer of Captain May. He was bound also
to state that they were usable to establish adultery on the
Part of the husband.
The Coen r—There is no doubt of the adultery of Mrs.
May, and not the slightest proof of any such offence by
the husband. I therefore sign the sentence of divot ce as
prayed for, but I cannot make any order as to costs.

COURT OF PECULIARS, Nov. 16.
Sir H. JENNER Bat also in this Court.

ELDRED V. ELDRED.

This is' a suit of divorce on the ground of adultery
brought by the husband against the wife.
The COURT, thinking the adultery clearly proved,
signed the sentence of divorce.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, NOV. 18.
IN THE MATTER OF JASPER WIGHTMAN.
This was the day fixed for the last examination of the
bankrupt, described as a silk and woollen printer, of
Jewry-street. The inquiry was one of a complicated
nature, and involved several points of legal nicety and
importance.
It appeared that the bankrupt traded in Bread street
under the firm of " Wightman and C 0.," while he had a
partner superintending the silk works at Mitcham, and the
trading there being carried on under the title of " Wight-
man and Collins." Separate sets of books were kept at
each establishment, the firm in London debiting the ad-
vances made for the payment of rent, wages, and other
outlays at Mitcham, while the Mitcham firm debited that
of London with the price of the work done for them and
other persons in the trade. The plant, engines, &c. were
stated to have cost nearly 17,0001., but in October, 1839,
the firm of Wightman and Collins, finding themselves to
be embarrassed, executed a deed by which it was agreed
that the two estates should merge into one, there being
large liabilities between them, and of course the deed
being intended for the general benefit of the creditors.
The bankrupt and his partner Collins covenanted to pay a
composition of 10s. in the pound, of which 4s. 6d. bad
been actually paid before the issue of the fiat ; and as the
creditors were anxious to carry on the business, certain
trustees were appointed to act as inspectors, to direct the
outlay and receive the produce of the works ; and Wight-
man and Collins were each to be allowed 3501. a year for
the management of the joint concern.:
Mr. TILSON, as solicitor for certain creditors, appeared
to prove for the difference between the 4s. 6d. they had
been paid and the 10s. promised to be paid under the deed
of composition, and was also of opinion that, as the terms
of the deed were not complied with, he might legally
prove for the full amount of his clients' respective claims,
less of course the 4s. 6d. in the pound which they had re-

ceived.
Mr. READ, as solicitor for the assignees, objected to the
claim, as the deed assigned away the whole of the pro-
perty of Wightman and Collins, which was of itself an act
of bankruptcy.
Mr. WALDRON, for several creditors, stated that at the
moment when the creditors were anxious to do everything
for the bankrupt's interest, Mr. Wightnaan bad procured
his sister-in-law to put his name into the Gazette, and
thus shift from himself a load of responsibility to the
amount of from 11,0001. to 17,0001.
The bankrupt said he had carried on the business until
they had no Longer a shilling to work with.
Mr. TILSON contended that so far from the deed being
any act of bankruptcy, it expressly pro4d;Sd that its object
was for " carrying on the business."
A very lengthened discussion ensued, in the course of
which it transpired that the creditors, since October, 1639,
intended to sue the " inspectors" under the deed for the
amount of their respective debts, and that the whole case
was already the subject of a suit in Chancery.
The Learned COMMISSIONER directed that a copy of the
deed should be left with him, and also an abstract of the ac-
counts, and he would hear further arguments upon this very
important case, and be then prepared to give his judgment.