The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONITON,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Nov. 19.
(Before Sir J. Wicßaxt.)
lIARDEY V. DARTNILL.

This was a motion by one of the defendants in this
case to stay further proceedings in equity until the
judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench had been
delivered as to the crime of the plaintiff, who had
been indicted at the Central Criminal Court fur per-
jury, but whose case had been removed by writ of
certiorari to the Queen's Bench for trial.

His HONOUR' at the conclusion of the arguments,
said that he did not think there was any precedent for
the present application, and there had been offered
no proof of the alleged criminality of the plaintiff.
He must therefore refuse the application.
The motion was then dismissed with costs.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 19.

THE NEW COUNTY COURTS-IMPORTANT APPLICATION,

Mr. CnAayocK moved for a rule, calling upon the
Judge of the Chelmsford County Court, to show cause
why a writ of prohibition should not issue against him,
to stop all further proceedings in the case of Ackworth
and Hughes v. Dawsett. lie stated that the plaintiffs
were linendrapers, carrying on business at Chelms-
ford, and that the defendant was a farmer, of humble
circumstances. In the year 1843 his wife contracted
a debt with the plaintiffs, amounting to upwards
of fifty pounds, which sum had been reduced by
various payments to 26/. The defendant became em-
barrassed, and offered his creditors 10s. in the pound,
which they refused. He heard nothing of the claim
until July last, when the plaintiffs served him with
two bills, making up the sum claimed, and subse-
quently he was served at their instance with two sum-
monses to the County Court. The defendant remon-
strated with him, and urged the illegality of the pro-
ceeding, but they persevered in their suit. He did
not appear, as he thought it would be more advisable
to bring the matter before this Court.
Mr. Justice PATTESON inquired if the two separate
sums were charged for separate bills of parcels, or
whether the entire sum had been simply divided to
bring each within the jurisdiction of these Courts?
Mr. CHARNOCK said two plaints were issued for
one sum charged in a single bill of parcels. Both
were taken out on the same day, and as the defendant
did notlattend, a writ of fi. fa. had been issued,and a dis-
traint had been levied in consequence on goods which
were supposed to be his, but they belonged to his son.
The defendant, who had no effects, resided now at
Waltham.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said he considered the de-
fendant entitled to a rule.

Mr. CHARNOCK—The fact, my Lord, is, these County
Courts, in the way their decisions have been given,
will supersede the necessity of holding courts at
Westminster Hall, because it will be more profitable
to attorneys to carry their suits there. The decision
of Mr. Palmer, at Bristol, has led to the institution
of 3,000 writs against railway contractors, the costs
of which might be calculated at about 54,0001.,
and no doubt the precedents thus created had led to
the suit in question.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said the question raised
was a most important one—too important for the de-
cision of one judge. The defendant might have his
rule, but the case must be argued before the full
Court.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 19.
BURROWES AGAINST BURROWES.

This was a suit for a divorce, by reason of cruelty
and adultery, by the wife against the husband. The
charge of cruelty was, however, abandoned. The
parties were married on the 19th of May, 1842, and
cohabited until the 17th of February, 1847.
Dr. BAYFORD, on behalf of the husband, admitted
that there being a confession of adultery by the
husband (which was otherwise very slightly proved),
he could not oppose the sentence ; but he regretted
that the case should have been brought before the
Court, and that the wife's brothers should have pur•
sued the course they did instead of using their endea-
vours to promote the reunion of the parties. The
marriage, which had been clandestine, was against
the wishes of the family, and the wife's eldest brother
admitted that previous to the marriage he had written
to the husband, that if he came to the house he would
be kicked out of it. But for the spirit shown by
the wife's family the Court would not have heard of
the case.

Dr. ADDAMS (with whom was Dr. Twiss), for the
wife, observed, that without the confession of the
husband there was the fullest proof of his adultery ;
and with regard to the conduct of the wife's family,
here was a husband seducing a girl of tender years
(fourteen or fifteen), carrying on a lewd intercourse
with her in his own house and under the eyes of his
wife, and meeting this girl at a brothel ; conduct
which fully justified the course pursued by the
brothers. And what was the sequel ? An arrange-
ment was about to be made between the parties, and,
at the moment when the wife was about to condone
his past offence, the husband had admitted that he
had gone down by the railroad, and been guilty of
adultery with this young girl. No wonder that the
wife's brothers should advise her to separate herself
from such a husband.

Dr. LUSHINGTON said, he had no doubt, and it was
not denied, that the evidence fully established the
charge of adultery against Mr. Burrowes. There
was proof of familiarities between him and a young
girl, a servant in his own house, followed up by
proof of this girl's going to a common brothel,
where she was met by Mr. Burrowes, who remained
with her there a considerable time—a circumstance
of itself, unless explained, sufficient to establish adul-
tery. The Court, therefore, had no other duty than
to sign the sentence, for he was not entitled to take
into his consideration the motives of the wife, or
those by which her family might be influenced in
any advice they might have given to her. He had
nothing more to do, after proof of adultery, than to
see whether there was any legal bar to a sentence,
and none having been stated he was bound to sign
the sentence of divorce.

WILLIAMS AGAINST WILLIAMS.

This was a suit for divorce, by reason of adultery,
by Mrs. Sarah Williams against Mr. Benjamin Wil-
liams, her husband.

Dr. ADDAMS, for the wife, was about to open the
case, when

Dr. I3Avroan, on the part of the husband, said he
should offer no opposition to the sentence.
Dr. LUS/lINGTON—After 30 years of marriage the
husband has, in this case, been clearly proved to
have been guilty of gross and abandoned adultery,
perhaps as gross as in any case ever brought before
this Court.
Sentence of divorce was signed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.