The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-16 00:00:00

CATrERALL V. CATTERALL.

This was originally a cause of nullity of marriage,
promoted by the husband against the wife, who is resi-
dent in New South Wales. That suit was abandoned, and
the husband then proceeded on the ground of adultery.
Dr. ADDAMS (with Dr. Robertson) appeared for the
husband, and submitted that the case was clearly estab-
lished, there having been a child born twelve months
after Mr. Catterall left his wife in New South Wales,
and proceeded via India to this country.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE (with whom was Dr. R.
Phillimore) called the attention of the Court to two or
three technical objections with regard to the marriage ;
but,

The Learned JUDGE thought they had no weight, and
prominent d fur the divnri.e.

AIMIRAL7 Y ('Olin , July 14.
(Befure Dr. LIISHINGTON.)
THE MELLONA—COLLISION.

This case, which was partly heard on Saturday last,
was brought to a conclusion.
The brig George, of the burden of 108 tons, bound
from Newcastle to Cowes in the Isle of Wight, and the
schooner Mellona, of 106 tons, proceeding from Shields
to Guernsey, came into contact with each other while
passing through the Cockle-gat on the night of the s:h
of March, 1845. Both vessels were coal laden, the brig
close hauled on the starboard, and the schooner on the
larboard tack. The wind was blowing from the E. N.E.
There was considerable dispute as to the character of
the night. The brig represented it as starlight, with
occasional snowstorms; the schooner as thick and hazy
' between the storms. The George was a very old vessel,
and, after the collision, ran upon the Barber sand, where,
striking heavily, she went to pieces, and three of the
crew, including the master, were drowned.
The QuXEN'S ADVOCATE (with whom was Dr. Bayford)
contend, d, on behalf of the George, that the accident
arese from the want of a good look out being kept on
board the schooner.
Dr. ADDAMS (with whom was Dr. Robinson) appeared
on the part of the Mellona, and submitted that the
collision arose from unavoidable accident ; that at the
period when it occurred the night was so dark that with
every precaution and care it was impossible to prevent
the vessels coming in contact. Ile also contended that
the runnine upon the sand was not attributable to the
collision, but to the want of skill on the part of the
person at the helm.
The Learned JUDGE submitted to the Trinity Mas-
ters (by whom he was assisted) three questions—first,
whether, considering the state of the weather and the
part of the sea where the two vessels were sailing, and
ihneg r e t
hae goodtat
e
hth
the chance of meeting with other ships, the master of the
Pil f•Ilona ought, to admitted, to have left the deck with
only two seamen—in other words
—was
out kept? Secondly', w —cown,aisdert
w,
of the weather, if
.a good
look out had been kept, there
lity
was a possid
of av oiding the collision? Thirdly,
whether there
was sufficient evidence to justify the c.a.
elusion that the George was subseqnently lost by the ig-
norance or misconduct of her master?
ellona; that if there
, MThe TRINITY MAsTEAS were of opinion that there was
'net a good look out on board the
had been a good look out, there was a possibility of the
• collision being avoided; and that the sebquent loss of
se
the G,orge was not attributable to any want of skill on
the part of them .s er or crew.
The Learned JUDGE, having expressed his concurrence
its the views entertained by his assessors, pronounced tbr
resultt d aomfatghe withis investigation co costs; and
would added, o p e
rt
ah
taet
nh
some
hoped
degreeth e
to prevent that utter carelessness which the Court every
day perceived to exist in colliers tradu g from the north
and thaty
to she south. These v, sieli must not tor ge t that they
had in many respects a dangerous navigation,
from the multitude of vessels that now occup,ed that
part of the oceen the danger of elusion was iufinitely
increased beyond v. • ' /eienerly.

SHERIPI- coU it , July 15.
(Before Mr. linclor-Sh. riff Burtcau.l.)
NoortE V. CAMPBELL

The plaintiff in this action, Is a b:Cer in the Vassall-
road, Brixton; the claim was fur 101. Bs. 4d. rl• gouds
8)1d.
The defendant pleaded enverture, and in support of
the plea called defendant's brother, named Baulter, who
s s ore that he was present at the marriage of his sister at
Bawtry, in Yorkshire, in 1809, to a Mr. Willi",
Duncan Campbell, and that he was still alive. witness
could not tell where he resided. Defendant had not lived
with him tor se.me years, and she had a separate income
of 2001. per annum.
In crow examiration he said he could not remember
wh,thf.r or not he s.,:uve h ~, v, He !!: : : got

certificate.
A juror said that he could not believe that a Man did
not remember such a circumstance,