The Sun.
London, England, 1871-01-18 00:00:00

BONUS YEAR.-SPECIAL NOTICE,

ei LE RICAL, M EDICA L, AND GENERAL
LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
ANNUAL INCOME, steadily 'increasing.... £230,355.
ASSURANCE FUND, safely invested...... L 1,707,769.
The NINTH BONUS will be declared inJanuary, 1872, and all
With-Profit Policies in existence on the 30th June, 1871, will
participate ; so that persons who complete such Assurances
before June 30th next will share in, that ➢ivision, although
one Premium only will have been paid.
Report and Balance Sheets, Forms of Proposal, and every
information, can be obtained of
GEORGE CUTCLIFFE,
Actuary and Secretary.
13, St, James's-square, London, S.W.

GUARDIAN FIRE AND LIFE OFFICE.
Established 1821.—Subscribed Capital Two Millions.
11, Lombard-street, London, E.C.
DIRECTORS:
ICK IL JANSON, Esq.
MES GOODSON, 'Esq.

CHAIRMAN-FREDER]
DEPUTY-CIIAIRMAN-JA

J. G. Hubbard, Esq.
G. J. Shaw Lefevre, Esq., M.P.
John Martin, Esq.
Augustus Prevost, Esq.
Abraham J. Robarts, Esq.
William Stevens, Esq.
John G. Talbot, Esq., ➢I.P.
Henry Vigne, Esq.

Henry Ifulse Berens, Esq.
Henry Bonham Carter, Esq
Charles Wm. Curtis, Esq.
Charles F. Devas, Esq.
Francis Hart Dyke, Esq.,
Sir W. R. Farquhar, Bart.
Archibald Hamilton, Esq.
Thomson Hankey, Esq.
Richard M. Harvey, Esq.
SECRETARY—T. Tallemach, Esq. ACTUARY—SamueI Brown, Esq
N.B.—Fire Policies which expire at Christmas must be renewed
at the Head Office, or with the Agents, on or before the 9th of
January.

Prospectuses and forms of proposal, with the Actnary's valua-
tion and statement of the assets and liabilities in the Life
Branch, free on application to the Company's Agents, or to the
Secretary.

TELL GREAT MANCHESTER SCAN DAL
CASE.

In the Divorce Court, the cause of " Milne v. Milne
and Fowler " has been again before his lordship. It will
be remembered that the co-respondent, Robinson Fowler,
was formerly stipendiary magistrate for the city of Man-
chester, and the respondent was the wife of the chairman
of the Quarter Sessions for the Salford Hundred. At the
original trial there was practically no defence, and Lord
Penzance granted a decree nisi for a dissolution of the
marriage. Mr. Milne then asked for damages, but it
was agreed that they should be assessed at £1,500, and
for that amount the jury found. The question of costs
was then .reserved, and it was with reference to them that
the cause now came before the court.—Mr. Hawkins,
Q.C., now moved that both the respondent and the co-
respondent should be condemned in the costs of the suit.
He pointed out that none of the pleas of connivance,
wilful neglect, or cruelty had been persevered in.
Mrs. Milne had a large amount of property,
whilst the petitioner had only a limited in-
come, and the co-respondent had no money.--
Sir 'John Karslake, Q.C., in a long argument, doubted
whether the court had power to condemn a respondent in
costs. He also pointed out that Mrs. Milne's property
was left for her personal use, and that it would practically
be encumbered with her husband's debt to his attorney.
—Lord Penzance did not doubt that the court had the
power to condemn the respondent in costs where she
had money. He would make an order that the respondent in
this case shouldpay them. The only reason against it was
that wives generally had their costs paid ; but that was
only because the Court presumed they had not any moue y.
If the respondent objected to any of the items in the costs
she could come before the Judge in Chambers, and he
would decide whether she ought to pay them or not.