The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-01 00:00:00

it

for home consumption 245 puns 47 hhds, and exported 22/
Puns 16 hlads The stock in the same places is 11,762 pans
1,271 lihds.
t 1110 E.-931 bags East India was about half sold at 13s di
0 14s 64 for low yellowish Madras, Bengal grain ; yellow
and mid white Bengal were taken in at 153 64 to 16s, being
Previous quotations:but at which there were not purchasers.
SALTrETRE.-400 bas Bengal sold at 25e 6cl for a per
Od.
cei‘s l.nt.
6 Lowrefraction, which ihs barely the former value.
• .C. is 4Ss percwt. on the spot, and Town
TEA.--The market is rather duller.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in the old hall, Lincoln's
, ,“, to-day, it being the first seat after 'Michaelmas
buttna• His Lordship took appeal motions tend apocals,
nothing calling fur a particular report came before
'll3 Lordship during the morning.

-'-,-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the
VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
l'hits being the first seal after Michaelmas Term, His
ear the Vice-Chancellor of England sat in his court
Lincoln's Inn to-day.
ea_Ris
rtiLionn" NEATE 7:. PINK.—JUDGMENT.
OUR, gave judgment to-day in this case, which
_ !le before him during last term at Westminster, upon
praying that a reference might be directed to
;re Master with respect to certain funds in court, the
reference
of estates in Jamaica. his Honour directed a
whvereoce
k to the Master to inquire and state to the Court
co tu'r any and what sum of money had been paid into
rellrt in the cause by William Horsley Pelmer, the
theeiver, and whether it had been paid in respect of
littenProfits and proceeds of the moiety of the Bindley
the estate ; and his Honour further ordered that, until
,ta Master sh(uld have made his report, no money
to ailing g in the oause should be paid out without notice
tire e Petitioner. The Master was also to state special
114astances, and any party to have liberty to apply.
11is RUSSELL V. SMITH.—JUDGMENT.
Victe h oNotnt also gave judgment in this case, which
dd tart heard during the last term, upon a motion on file
bee the
defendant to dissolve an injunction which
slat fn granted some time ago, restraining the defend:
illesl.`°te singing certain songs, which formed part of the
the ea entertainments of Mr. Henry Russell,
ehti celebrated vocalist, and in which Mr. Russell
idneitituisairttn
upona
exclusive property under the Copp% right
The -;;"' the Act with respect to Dramatic; Performances.
previous application to dissolve the
Withnti°o, had directed the plaintiff to bring action
the i r.esPeet to certain of the songs, and had dissolved
broionction with respect to others- The plaintiff had
won
pt no action with respect to several of the songs,
Aing,g which were " The Ship on Fire" and "The Sea
so &c.; to the others the record had been
WifiehaPecl as not to be calculated to try the question
eireu the Court was anxious to have tried. Under these
luefi looking at the course that had been pur-
tk 7 the plaintiff, his Honour thought that the con-
rd "3' h had •
° e displayed in not complying with
.the
the the Court, must be followed up by dissolving
Th"Junetion with costs.
hie: Court then proceeded to hear motions, none of
ties e Possessed any point of interest except to the par-
oneerned.

(Before Sir J. 'MGRAm.)
hllia ss KNIGHT V. KNIGHT.
i. .11.0NOUR delivered judgment. in this case to-day.
ilaestiowas an administration suit, and there,h were two
Whether sat issue between the parties. 'r he first, .
...
ed gift claimed under anlViill
mhaaddenuotndbeerenallurl.
kitge Y another gift subseque
the 4nel:tient, and whether a poyrtion of the answer of
ed that
the te unstant was not impertinent.,
It appear
theetn•fit.ttter, George Knight, who washisseidliaourgphatertrn,ehryian
will h-e'ss in Poster-lane, had left to . .
epee heal
date July, 1840, an annuity of 1001. per
441,42 in case of her mother's death, or of her (the
theiii',2) Marriage. This latter event teak place during
le ee °time of the testator, and a sum to the atmo oauff.nort odft3h,e33i3o/..
ote,,sela Was settled in trust for her use,
the to' 100/. ayear. It appeared further, thaptneatrhlye-
dinevliBs4e(s
Nib stator died, and an assignment betwes
under the will
took „elhilsband of their testamentary rightstlie handwriting
eithe" ace shortly afterwards. A
'bathe test had been found inphaipsecralsnh box after his de-
lieppo ut without a signature or date, and this document
Slisttlecl to be his will. A devise of 1001.. a year to his
'a het be Was specified in this will, and it was contended
d
by 441: behalf that the intention of the testator, as i
3,00/.1„4 deeilnient, was to give her an additional incomes of
utt ger annum, which she set forth in her aeswer,
ant's
Wthe, faster did not consider this paper pertinent, ke
ieersls.re, Yeetdd not allow its insertion. (Sir J.
that th";_having read both bill and answer,. considered
I..xcepti 'letter way would be to decide in favour of the
N.▪ , te °133 Pro forma, though he felt satisfied that the,
zee. rtitas parti right and partly in error in his deci-
illeitl,,-' considered it better also to defer theewftusr,thtedrl
ttt the of the case, together with the
hen
of the entire case.
QutDi„. g
tsatt '4.'"4'S BENCH.—(THIS
s U. MAY.
71i81.121. TO SIAINTAIN A WIFE.—JEFFERc pied b ~as
them
ii,ooard yeik-plaintiff'
toto retheoevedref7eBoLdafonit-,ns ewleis:_ts,arnieasmseulpy-,
'he aid,
°tiling, and lodging,
dial. endant '' is retired tradesman at Sheffield,
ed his ant, , who a for a considerable period.
elv '4 liability on the ground that his
aNd% ifoeomhamditlteefdt
Mel lth°llt his consent, and that she had hillste,,' and consequenily forfeited all legal claim upon
!shildr "
eie e 37 were married in 1826, but had had no
'eerie Mrs. May was a governess before she was
leStie tth Mr. May had been previously married, the
fere thl"lell was three children. For scene timgeethbeer:
kethey fie end of 1842 they had lived :Inebseapopciclyasitoons
Mr.
hely,,equeutly quarrelled, and on h
often struck his wife. Oa one
ofoccasion
141,1),(4 of doors. In consequence repeatedh ei
I It- 'tirrenaetd-
in
September, 1842, and
took 00 his part she left him.
'` tip her
et , . abode tiff, who is a relation,
with the plain ' t time, had sup-
beristol, and who, up tothe present
laid in h ,ed her with necessaries.
.The venue was laid in
ests,
t 0 ~, but had btereinalr.emoved into Middlesex in order
The case had been tried before,
6.yotain a speedy
"the verdict was not satisfactory to the plaintiff.
(with whom were Mr. Butt,
(~
'COk r. CROWDER, QC.
and two other Learned Gentlemen), having stated
the
facts, proceeded to deal wills the defence set up by,
I°,o defendant, and with the law on the subject.
No
rilht it would be set up on the other side that the. de-
Zdant had inserted an advertisement in some of the
lv-rf._BPapers, cautioning persons. not to give credit to his
tie: as she had left hire without his consentli ; but this
if.uld not avail, as it had been expressly ad down that
treatment
sent
s ',rife
compelled to leave her husband on account
rot% tre
,and against his will, that such.. an act on
set,art did not remove his liability to furnish her. with,
ainsaii4ies• In the case of Harris v. Morris, which was
4114 t° the one before the Court, Lord
.Kenyon
ohne,ld.
blit at pvirtZre a man sent his wife away from him, and c las
"I'llilsi' anything against her which would remove his attire:l%llle was liable to furnish her with the necessaries
and the cle that case the wife was turned out of doors,
izait 114.4nee set up was,
.that she had eloped, and
""-1 cent; 44band had advertised her in the newspapers,
Lrealle ,"elled the public not to trust her. If Mr. May
11141 "sired his wife to live with him, and' she
to
rio left hi,s.
0 ." without his consent, the proper
rmets,tdie.
statio 8:43 to sue in the Consistorial Court for a
tue jail. -',"aill°al rights, when the whole matter would
geld leiltEgated? In the case of Emery v. Emoeir'yt",,
to him
'ad sh at if a husband required his wife to r.e_t
the hade refused to do so on account of the ill-treatment
iithl4y4biieitxyP.erienced, that the husband did not get
irid orf.
h; IL should show that the conduct o
that
he
1141 bee4-‘l.B Wife compelled her to leave him ;rdtshaher
"At* uound over to keep the peace towards lease,vio ,er
she ,ee had left him on account of his personal
tilitto, ane offered to return, and went to his house for
%Ile:Pose, but he pushed her out of doors. Unless
not ill-
teem,/ could be shown, and that she
'lPPreh' ancl had no ground for leaving herwhaissband, he
vertlietesndeel that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to to a
entita for such a sum as they thought she was
101 l led to foe ks , d and ePig Mrs. May in clothes, boar
s,
and
viits g• The defendant was in good circumstance_ ,
was
iv'll abl justly
Itelter, e a to support his wife ; 255. per week
t iattiet on one occasion, and the plaintiff charged at
lite •
thefak examran , wife of Mr. Wrang, a draper, of
11,111ht.qthillente,
rtr.annded:rbsy.
May, Mr. BintrreTnn—seShe
endeeepoofsedesidthinagt
gear:, next cause to them in Pond-street, Sheffield.
ey in January, 1842, cry for help frtohme
ititeitarr,l°l:!r• Saw her two ory three hours after at
was
she observed that her face was
tisoe'ea, and that one of her ees was very black., Some
f when
she heard Mrs. May cry " Murder,' and callln
40404aanse for assistance. Went to the kitchen
vt,,,ads
ty4.41.• and Mrs. May quarrelling. Mrs.
baek.°' her cap was torn, and her hair hung dOwaynwheor
;was .02! eard Eliza Jones, Mr. May's daughter,
1111_, ,1110` :sent, say, " Many aman would have cut you up
kr, re rneat before this for less than you have done.
allt the4ms es Ilay, his son, in corning across the yard 'lid 4,-, Alse, said, " Don't murder the woman." She
,„4artt,
tb'' in They did not live long in the
.ho, use
,1111-,,s'at. Sometime after the occurrence in the kitchen
Vtlit. `tY, cense into her house, about eight lock at
tuet o„,"'ne Was composed, and said Mr. May
.hoaletur_t_aeyd
4earks'''' and asked permission to stop until Mr. AI the eff.lesa cruel. She remained until ten o'clock, when
all -ii" The next night she heard a disturbance,
olie,th'eand that Mrs. May had brought . a
hometl'i h -nahn' .in the hope that his intervention
t ","!alli admission for her to her husband's
°e,ieet th'ne did not know whether she succeeded in her
1+4%4 . at night. She might, however, have obtained, Ilever B,l°ll, as a short time after she left the house and es • ettlriatd.
, oss_
'444 s "aintried by Mr. MARTIN—Did not know the
Mrs. 7,,,,.°' the policeman, or whether he was in attendance.in
titiest,Z4l did not break any windows on the night
agent '''' She left in September, 1842. She had ser-
.Par-,tesof the time, but she could not recollecta her
t
,at eights Rot think she was in the habit of going out
ease "48) nor thathersistes, Mrs. Wortley, kept a public-
-I:.,iin Sheffield. - '
and o,4l:lined—Had known Mrs. May for nine years,
kr !ft. Itnew anything against her character.
in
_op.
teemto dohn Arnold, of Sheffield, deposed thatt_
obine
t!hr, 1842, the defendant and his wife lived a
hilt,
re:
this'PN att some talk took place in his presence
Ma Mr* May allowing her some maintenance.
Y1n,,,-Y Said, " Thou knows that it is no use
stick
t°
its''''e t° this paper, as thee does not intend to utting
not, as
he eh
,Ile said she ,might either consent to it or u
e ,2,,111 not live withher-any more, and she consented.
c'l do 'aided hina with cruelty, and with tinning her out
lettei:rejilmost in a state of nudity. He accused her of
11% at him, and of going to places against his consen..
two .greeraent was to allow her 201. a year and he paid
krs.nstaltnents to him (witness) which ho handed to
Pert ItY• Mr. Ala was a man of considerable pro-
stkela'ci '3 ?fail hnpiyin the hetter, trede; he I!VP'/ 1-
~ Party
):' ~.aild like a man ef property.
Arty fie aIARTIN—Knew that he was a man of pro-
elf. hiauself. lie believed he did not keep a