The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-27 00:00:00

your choice falling upon them. But you always told
me it was natural you should prefer your own brother;
you have even stated that this preference had often been
expressed by the Queen, your daughter, and that we
should have been wanting in our duty as parents and
friends, if we had not contributed, as much as it de-
pended on us, to facilitate an union which you appeared
to desire, and which appeared also to us sates actory in
all respects.
But the thought of imposing anything, ether upon
you, the Queen, or upon Spain, never entered into my
mind, nor into that of my Government. We defy the
production of any trace of it. Still, I will not close
this letter without again calling your attention, as I
have already done so many times, to the dangerous con-
sequences which may follow upon calling a prince, an
entire stranger to Spain, to share the throne of the
Queen, your daughter, or to transfer the Crown into a
family other than its own. It is for the interest of the
Crown, for yours, and for that of Spain, that I solemnly
repeat this counsel to you. It is not less the interest of
France, which is so deeply interested in the greatness
and the prosperity of Spain, to preserve that lively
friendship which has united the two countries to this
day, which is now so precious to both, and so neces-
sary for the maintenance of the peace and repose of the
world.
I pray you, my dear niece, to be my interpreter both
with the Queen and the Infanta, your beloved daugh-
ters, in expressing to them, on my behalf, my wishes
for their happiness, and the affectionate friendship
which I entertain for them from the depths of my
heart ; and, for yourself, believe the sincerity of the
sentiment with which I subscribe myself, my very dear
sister and niece, your Majesty's most affectionate brother
and uncle,

tained. It is because I have a conviction of the sad
consequences which this union will produce for the
future happiness of the Queen your daughter, for that
of your family, and, not the least, for that of the Spanish
monarchy also, that I do not desire to bear the responsi-
bility of my silence in a circumstance so grave,
and in
which, on the contrary. I have wished to give you, with
all the solemnity that I can attach to it, counsel to ab-
stain from it.
Believe always the sincerity of my regard for you,
and of the friendship which I bear towards you, and
repeat to your beloved children that I love them tenderly,
and that the constant object of my wishes and my
efforts is their happiness and the prosperity of Spain.—
I am, my dearest sister and neice, your Majesty's very
affectionate brother and uncle,
LOUIS PHILIPPE.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
QUEEN'S BENCH, April 26.
The Court resumed its sittings this morning at the
usual hour.
In the course of the day his Royal Highness the Prince
of Prussia, accompanied by Lord Brougham, paid a visit
to the court, and occupied a seat on the bench with the
Noble and Learned Lord for upwards of ten minutes.
BRIGGS V. THE MERCHANT TRADERS' SHIP, LOAN, AND

TO HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE FRENCH.
Madrid, January 3, 1847.
Majesty—l hope that your Majesty will pardon my
constant devotion, if I venture to trouble you with this
letter ; but my heart, which is devoted to your Majesty,
would commence the new year with pain, if I had not
the happiness of renewing to your Majesty the sincerity
of the motives which animate me in praying for your
Majesty all the blessings of Heaven.
Deign to accept, also, my dear uncle, the felicitations
and the respects which, on this occasion, the Duke of
Rianzares and all my little family present to you. Be
always sure of our tender arid respectful affection, and of
our constant prayers for your happiness, and that this
new year may be for you and for all your dear family the
happiest ; and that any trouble, however small it may
be, that may afflict your excellent heart, or sadden your
days, may be very far off for the happiness of all, but
especially of your children, to the number of whom I am
proud to belong.
Accept, my dear uncle, these sentiments, dictated
by affection the most tender, and by gratitude the most
constant. I kiss your Majesty's hand, and subscribe
myself your Majesty's most affectionate and devoted
niece, MARIA CHRISTINA.

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 27, 1848•

tion in these parties. In reference to Mr. Geils taking
possession of the property, he states they spent 8001. or
1,000/. a year for their common expenses ; 600/. was
expended in diamonds, but Mrs. Dickenson says she
advanced this money for the purchase of these dia-
monds. The complaint of residence at Dumbrick is an-
swered by its being stated it was by their mutual consent.
While at Dumbarton, the family consisted of Colonel
and Mrs. Geils and three children, and it was stated she
was kept there against her consent. She knew what the
family consisted of before she took up her residence
there, and was not compelled to remain there, and yet it
appears she occupied three rooms. I therefore think
she could not complain of a want of accommodation
while at Dumbarton, The sixth article complained of
the terms on which she lived; that she was frequently
left alone, or else forced into the society of people be-
neath herself; that he used bad language to her, and ex-
ercised great violence to her. He replies he was often
forced to leave her society, and seek that of his family,
in consequence of her violent temper ; that she would
frequently make severe attacks upon his family, and
speak most disrespectfully of them. He denies using
coarse language, or exercising violence towards her, or
having threatened violence. In speaking of Mrs. Nepean,
his sister, Mrs. Geils said that ,he could not associate
with her, as they were like oil and water, though she
was very kind. Mrs. Dickenson said her daughter took
a dislike to Mr. Nepean at a very early period, and
other branches of the family, from the circumstance
that Mr. Geils paid more attention to them than to her,
that Mrs. Col. Geils did not treat her daughter as she
should; this was three years after the marriage, and
there was a marked difference in Mr. Geils's conduct to
her and to his own family; she thought he treated her
daughter with some harshness ; there appeared a
jealousy on both sides. On the other side, it is stated
Mrs. Geils called her husband a contemptible wretch, a
brute, and a tyrant, which was used towards him on
many occasions, which often forced him from her
presence. She would follow him about the house and
continue her violence towards him. Three witnesses were
examined on this point, and I have no doubt but that
they gave their evidence with strong feelings in favour of
the family. Mr. Geils's sister gave evidence of this, and
that on one occasion Mrs. Geils struck her brother (a
youth), and called him names. In reply to this Mrs.
Geils states, she boxed his ears lightly on one occasion
because he opened her chamber door while she was re-
tiring to rest, and made some observation to her ; it was
was soon after that she had been a bride. She denies
following her husband about the house. The Court
could not justify such conduct ; that she did not receive
the protection of her husband from such conduct. No
doubt she had some violence of temper, for in a letter to
her mother she writes she was acting wrong towards her
husband, and promises to be better, hoping he will soon
return to her. It was evident she was an accomplished
lady, for she knew French, Italian, and German, though
they say she acted with childish simplicity. A complaint
was made that the Examiner had exceeded his duty in
taking down these answers to the interrogatories, but
the Court does not think so ; he was bound to take them
down. The words " childish devotion" towards her
husband were complained of, but I feel the Examiner
has done no more than his duty ; he could have no
object in exceeding his duty, and I feel that he has not
departed from that high character he has hitherto held
in the profession. I feel it my duty to say so much of
the Examiner. In reference to the strong language used
towards her husband—it may be true, it may be false—
but, if she felt a strong affection for her.husband, she
might have been jealous of her husband's attention to
his family. She might have been also disappointed in
the expected attention from her husband, she possessing
so large a fortune ; but no conduct on the part of th
wife can justify his conduct towards his wife ; nothing
could extenuate it ; blows are sufficient to justify the
Court in sanctioning a separation, if they inflict an
injury. The Learned Judge referred to the case of
Holding v. Holding, and commented at some length upon
it. Walker is a witness who states the conduct of Mr.
Geils was not what a husband should exercise towards
his wife, and on one occasion it is said he pushed
violently into the room, and called her a —, and such
was Mr. Geils's conduct towards her, that she stated to
her mother, that if it were not for her children, to whom
she was strongly attached, she would have left long
since. On one occasion his violence was of such a
nature that he compelled her to go down upon
her knees before him, and that she suffered
from his blows ; but the Court has no proof
of this. In the 14th article she is said to hava
expressed a wish to separate, when ho replied in strong
language she should never have the children, and that
they should never darken her mother's doors again. If
his conduct justified a separation, the law will grant it.
The servant had said she had seen him very violent on
one occasion. It was when Mrs. Geils placed a smelling
bottle to the nose of one of the children, the salts were
too strong, and the child stepped bask, when be seized
the bottle and threw it into the fire, and with violence
said if ever he saw another in the house it would share
the same fate, but there was no personal violence. The
16th article states that he threatened to kill her, and
turned her out of the room. Mr. Geils admits he did
turn her out of the room, but not with any violence ; in
this attempt she caught hold of a shelf, which was torn
away. Here is proof 'of actual violence, and would on
that ground prove a case for separation, but the
parties continued to live together. This is an act
of condonation. lie is charged with adultery with
three different parties. M'Queen was one, who
lived in his father's family previous to his mar-
riage, but this intimacy was renewed after the mar-
riage, and the wife became acquainted with the acts of
criminality, but forgave him on his promising he would
not do so again, and living with him afterwards; this
was also an act of condonation. The other was a
monthly nurse, who proved in the family way, but she
swore John Webb was the father of the child; the female
was discharged in consequence, and the intimacy was
afterwards renewed; and there was strong evidence to
prove that he had criminal intercourse with the woman
Campbell. In reference to the charge of unnatural
practices, Mrs. Geils charges' her husband with re-
peated attempts to have unnatural intercourse with her,
but did not succeed until the 6th of September, when she
informed her mother, at the same time expressing her
ignorance of the act. She then expressed her disgust
of her husband, at the same time stating that she will
never cohabit with him again. Friends are consulted,
and a communication is made with Mr. Geils to bring
about an amicable separation; but when Mr. Geils is
charged with this crime, he declared that none but the
toulest fiends in hell would make sueh a charge ; and, as
Mr. Hume states, although he did not directly deny it,
yet this gentleman says he shook hands at parting with
Mr. Gulls after having been the agent to convey the
charge to him, and even sat down and took wine with
him. But if Mr. Hume had been cross-examined
as to the language employed, it might have
a different effect to that now attributed to it.
However disgraceful it was to Mr. Geils to enter upon
the discussion referred to, he (the Learned Judge) could
not on that account pronounce a sentence which must
have the effect of driving him from society and making
him an outcast. He was not satisfied in his own mind
that the charge was established against him. He should
feel extremely reluctant, even for the sake of Mrs.
Geils, to pronounce that she had been a partaker with
Mr. Geils in his guilt, for a partaker in his guilt she
must be, if the story told were true. He was not prepared
on her account, and on account of those descending from
the marriage union, to hold that upon the evidence be-
fore him he could say that Mr. Geils was proved to
have been guilty of unnatural practices. The medical
evidence which had been produced proved that if the
least resistance had been made by Mrs. Geils the offence
could not have been committed. That Mrs. Geils might,
as had been suggested by her husband, have been mis-
taken was very possible. He thought it was not possible
that she could have acquiesced in the commission of' the
offence. There was no violence complained of, and the
case rested, therefore, entirely upon the confession said
to have been made to Mr. Hume. In his (the Learned
Judge's) apprehension the proof was not sufficient. He
was of opinion that Mr. Geils had been guilty of adultery
both with M'Phee and with Campbell, but he was not sa-
tisfied that the charges of cruelty would entitle Mrs.
Geils to a sentence on that ground. He therefore
pronounced that Mr. Geils had been guilty of adultery,
and that Mrs. Geils was entitled to a sentence of sepa-
ration.
The REGISTRAR—Does the Court make any order as
to costs ? It is part of the prayer.
The COURT—The bond has been given, I presume ?
The Registrar—Yes, Sir.
Mr. PucKLE (the proctor for Mrs. Geils)—Does the
Court give the costs ?
The COURT—The whole costs ?
Dr. ADDAMS —lt is the first time that I remember a
wife succeeding, and the costs being divided. Mr. Geils
has 1,2001. per annum.
The COURT—Have the whole been given where a
party has failed in part of tho case ? Dr. Addams—
Certainly.
Dr. JENNER—Never in such a case as this, where so
large a part of the expenses has been incurred by a
charge of so gross a nature, which is not proved.
Dr. ADDAMS—Which is held to be deficit probatio.
The COURT—I am inclined to condemn the party in
the whole of the costs of the proceedings. Two-thirds
of the case have been made out. I shall condemn Mr.
Geils in the costs of the proceedings.
The Learned Judge occupied seven hours and a half
I in the delivery of the sentence.
ie

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, April 26.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE W. NORMAN.

This bankrupt, a builder, applied for his certificate.
He was supported by Mr. Bagley, and opposed on
the part of a ➢ir. Wright, on the grounds—l, misre-
presentation, upon the advance of money by Mr.
Wright; 2, improper disposition of property; and, 3,
no books. •

His HONOUR, upon looking over the proceedings, said
that there appeared to be a quantity of mortgages, but
whoever dealt with speculative builders might expect to
meet them.

The bankrupt having been examined,
Mr. BAGLEY submitted that none of the allegations
urged against the bankrupt were substantiated by evi-
dence, but, however, he was willing to admit that re-
gular books had not been kept, and the cause was that
he .vas an illiterate man.
His HoNoun, said that this case was as unsatisfactory
as all others when there were no books—no books, no
vouchers, all conjecture; accounts altered over and over
again, and profits put down to meet expenses. How-
ever, in this case, it was true that the material
point of opposition had -failed. The bankrupt had
mortgaged his property, but it was well known that
such was the course adopted by speculative builders,
and when creditors found a man meddling with
bricks and mortar, they ought to ask, " Are you med-
dling with parchment and wax?" On the 3d of
December the bankrupt gave a Mrs. Proctor security
for money previously advanced, and made himself a
'bankrupt. on ,the 14th of the same month. That so-

- ''.•1O1 46, „