The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-21 00:00:00

LAW IN2'E.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lords Justices.)
IN RE THRRINS.-BANKEUPT PETITION.

This was a petition and appeal from a decision of Mr.
Commissioner Sands, of Birmingham, disallowing an
offered composition by the bankrupt of 2s. 6d. Their lord-
ships refused the petition with deposit costs (£10).

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
ADSHEAD V. NEEDHAM.

This cause came on to be mentioned this morning.
His Honour said—On further consideration of this case I
have come to the same conclusion I expressed yesterday. I
am of opinion that whore a water-cut or sluice is made in
the lands to conduct the water from the property in the
neighbourhood it is competent for the proprietor through
whose land the water passes to make it serviceable to carry
the water from his lands. It never was intended to oppose
or shut up the sluice. They might add to it, provided they
did not throw the surplus water on the lands of the other
party. This sluice is within the line of boundary of the
defend ant's property, and it was used for the purpose of drain-
ing his mine. The defendant asserted that it was used for the
purposes of the mine, and ho did not alter more or less its
natural course. There was no impediment for that purpose,
therefore the bill must be dismissed with costs. But then
I must consider what I am to do with the costs of the
motion heard before mo on the Ist of August last. His
Honour considered the conduct of the parties highly
honourable; for when it was discovered that the workings
of the now mine penetrated into the old mine, contrary to
the spirit of the understanding, they were immediately
stopped.
His Honour allowed no costs of affidavits filed before the
Ist of August.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barone Bramwell and

Martin.)

GENERAL BEATSON V. SKENE.

This morning, Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., moved for a
rule to show cause why the verdict which had been given
for the defendant in this cause should not be set aside, and
a new trial granted, on the ground that the verdict was
against the evidence, misdirection—the learned judge hav-
ing left the question as to whether the communication made
by defendent was a privileged one or not, whereas, that
being a question of law, the judge should have decided R—
and also that the documents material in the plaintiff's case,
held by a public officer, should have been produced. At
the conclusion of the learned gentleman's argument,
The Court took time to consider its decision.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary, Baron Channell, and Justice
Keating.)

WOOD V. WOOD.

This was a suit instituted by the wife for a dissolution of
marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
Mr. Mainsty and Dr. Spinks were for the petitioner, and
Mr. Kemp appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner was the daughter of a licensed victualler,
who carried on business in London, and the respondent was
a distiller, residing in Mile-end-road. The parties were
married in 1848, and cohabited till 1850, when they sepa-
rated in consequence of the ill-usage of the husband.
Mr. Walker, the father of the petitioner, said the re-
spondent was in the constant habit of ill-using his wife.
His conduct was most brutal. His wife left him and re-
turned to him on his promising to act more kindly to her
for the future. His promise he did fulfil, and Mrs. Wood
left him and did not again return. He (witness) had had
an interview with a female named Drake in the presence of
respondent after the final departure of his daughter and
learned the nature of his intimacy with another woman.
Mrs. Sarah Ann Wood, the petitioner, said—l am the
wife of the respondent. Six weeks after our marriage he
began to ill-use me. He began by finding fault with
everything I did. In 1849 he refused to speak to me or to
sleep in the same bed. Some time after he used to act with
great brutality towards me. On one occasion he twisted
my apron string so tightly round my neck that I thought
he would kill me. I sent to my father and told him of the
respondent's conduct. My husband promised my father to
act more kindly towards me, but he did not keep his word.
We used to quarrel about his familiarity with the servant.
My father wished me to leave him. My husband said if
the servant left, and we provided ourselves with another,
we could live comfortably. This was the last week in the
year 1849. The servant left, and in a week afterwards my
husband told me I could go as soon as I pleased as the
marks of ill-usage had disappeared. He used to "bump"
me as he called it. Ho used to tell me to go away every
night for some time, as he wished me to quit him of my
accord, as then he would not have to allow me anything.
Hecontinued his ill-usage for some time longer. A short
time before our separation he called me the most opprobrius
names before a person named Kendal. I then sent for my
father, and he took me away.
Cross-examined—l was not in the habit of remaining out
late without my husband's permission. He said I ought
not to go out without his leave. It was not in consequence
of my mother's interference that my husband acted with
cruelty towards me. It was not necessary for my husband
to be out late at night. He did not follow any other avoca-
tion but a distiller. The servant saw the marks on my
neck after my husband had attempted to strangle me.
Ann Sullivan—ln 1849 I was in the service of Mr. and
Mrs. Wood. Ho used to treat her very unkindly. I have
seen him strike her on four different occasions. The mis-
tress never appeared to please him. He threw a candle-
stick at her, which hurt her very much. I remember him
dragging her into the hall. When I went to see
what was the matter, I saw Mrs. Wood's mouth full of
►lood. I recollect on one occasion his returning home
early- in the morning. Mr. and Mrs. Wood quarrelled,
and on my going upstairs Mrs. Wood showed me
the marks of her apron-string 'round her throat.
I told Mr. Wood if he continued his ill-usage I would call
in the police. He made no reply, and I left the room.
Mrs. Caroline Newman—My name before marriage was
Baldry. I know Mr. Wood very well. I used to see him
In Cleveland-street in 1853. I became intimate with him
and became a mother. The child was born in Feb., 1855,
and died is the same year. While it was alive I applied to
Mr. Wood for support. I had to go to a magistrate before
he did so. Mrs. Drake had charge of the child after its
birth. Mr. Wood on one occasion paid Mrs. Drake £4 for
the support of the child.
Mrs. Drake proved the payment, and also the agreement
oh the part of Mr. Wood to pay 10s. a month.
Mr. Kemp, en the part of the respondent, said he could
not struggle against such evidence. _ _

_
The Judge Ordinary pronounced a decree dissolving the
marriage, with costs against respondent, and giving the
mother charge of her child until it arrived at the age of 14

SHOREDITCH COUNTY COURT.
(Before Mr. Decent.)

THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY V. ASIITON

This was an action to recover the sum of 2s. 6d., the dif••
ference of fare In travelling in one of the company's
carriages.

Mr. Ashley appeared for the company, and stated the
case. On the 9th November last defendant took a return

ticket by an express train to Cambridge. On arrriving at
Stratford, on his return, he was asked for his ticket, which'
was for a second-class, and he was in a first-class earriago,
but he refused to pay the difference, and complained that
there were no warm water pipes for his feet, and said that
the ctrriage he was riding in was not superior to that for
which he had a ticket—the up-train being an ordinary
train. He was applied to formally and made the same re-
ply, and was then summoned for the amount. The com-
pany had no hot water in such carriages, and on other lines
they were paid for extra.
Defendant did not appear, and his Honour considered
neither of the grounds a sufficient defence, and ordered the
amount claimed to be paid to the company.