The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-12 00:00:00

COFFIN v. MORRIS.

This was an action against the defendant for the
maintenance and support of his wife by the plaintiff,
who obtained a verdict. The defendant was taken
in execution for the damages and costs, but he sub-
sequently compromised the action for 54/. with the
conducting clerk, a person of the name of Bowiield,
and an attorney of the name of Mahony. The
discharge was signed by the plaintiff's attorney, a
Mr. Franklin. On a former day the plaintiff applied
to the Court for a rule calling on Mr. Franklin, his
attorney, to show cause why he should not pay the
amount of the damages and costs.

Mr. Sergeant JONES to-day showed cause against
the rule, and, after reading numerous affidavits, it
appeared that Mahony, who is since dead, brought
the action in Mr. Franklin's name, and he prevailed
on Bowfield, his clerk, to be a party to the compro-
mise. Mahony received the 541., not one shilling
of which came to the hands of Mr. Franklin.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE supported the rule.
The COURT were of opinion that Mr. Franklin,
after deducting his own costs, should pay over the
balance to the plaintiff, as well as the costs of the
application.

ARCHES COURT, Nov. 11.

KILPIN V. KILPIN.

This was a suit commenced by Mrs. Anne Kilpin
against her husband for a divorce, on the ground of
cruelty and adultery. The parties were married
clandestinely in March, 1824, both being minors at
the time. The wife alleged that her husband had
committed adultery, soon after marriage, with a fe-
male named Clewer, and afterwards with Mary
Wilson, Anne Allen, Mary Duffil, Harriet Williams,
arid finally, in 1829, he eloped with his wife's sister
from Worcester to the Continent. The husband,
in reply, alleged that his wife had had an illicit inter-
course with a medical student at 'Worcester, who
had noted down each interview in a pocket-book,
and also with a Mr. Workman, and that she had
been guilty of various gross acts, which Sir J.
Nicholl would not allow to be detailed in open Court.
--The arguments in the case were not concluded.

TALE RING.—On Friday se'nnight, at
Aldhorough, a verdict of " wilful murder" was re-
turned against -- Hackney, the principal, and the two
seconds, for the death of G. Brown, killed in a pugilistic
contest. On Saturday last, at Ely, a verdict of " man.
slaughter" was returned against William Arongier, of
Littleport, for the death of -- Bennet, of Downham,
!idled in a like brutal affair.

ADJOURNED INQUEST AT BEDFONT.-.-On
Saturday the inquest: on the body of Thomas Monks, the
King's waterman, was resumed at the Duke's Head, E ,s•
Bedfont. Mr. Huntley, the surgeon, of Staines, said that
he and Mr. 'frogley had made a post mortem examina-
tion of the deceased, an .I they had ascertained that the
injuries received were not of the extent at first supposed ;
the wound up the nose had not penetrated the brain; and
the deceased had most probably died of weakness, the
effect of old age, and of excitement caused by drink. The
wound on the nose had perhaps been the effect of a fal.
and the injury in the interior had every appearance of
having been caused by some person forcing sotnething up
the use after death. Mr. 'f rogley, surgeon, of Houns-
low, corroborated this evidence. There was no evidence
how the wound up the nose had originated, nor was there
any account of the deceased after be bad left the omnibus,
at ten o'clock. Under these circumstances the Jury re-
turned the ft Mowing verdict:—" That the deceased per-
son, Thomas Monk, was found dead in a water course
by the side of the road near Bedfont, with a wound below
the nose ; but by what means he came there, or how the
wound was inflicted, no satisfactory evidence has been
adduced to the Jury."