The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-28 00:00:00

COURT OF DIVORCE,

(Before Sir C. Cresswell, ➢ir. Justice Hill, and Mr.
a
Justice Keating.)
PEARMAN V. PEARMAN AND BURGESS.

I at the time of her marriage, and even then she saw her
the worse for liquor, though not actually intoxicated. She
had a quarrel with her in consequence of her having ad-
mitted that she placed a needle in the soiled linen, in order
to lame her hand which was effected, and she was lila
up for fourteen weeks. Mrs. Pearman never complained
to her of being affected with spasms, and her only bodily
ailments were produced by her intemperance. She had never
seen Mr. Pearman raise his hand to his wife, and he treated
her always with kindness.

Mr. R. W. Freer, a surgeon, said he attended Mr. and
Mrs. Pearman since their marriage, and had frequent oppor-
tunities of witnessing Mr. Pearman's conduct to his wife,
which was very kind. He attended her when she was
suffering from the effects of drunkenness, and Mr. Pearman
appeared very anxious about her. He heard her abuse him
without any provocation. She never consulted him relative
to spasmodic affections, and he was not aware that she was
troubled with any complaint that required stimulants. He
never saw then quarrel more than once, and he was not
aware that she was suffering at any time from the effects
of his ♦iolence.

Elizabeth Jones, who had been in the service of Mr.
Pearman, corroborated the evidence as to Mrs. Pearman's
intemperance and other misconduct. She received money
from her at different times to conceal frosa her husband the
familiarity between her and Burgess, which she did not
communicate until Mrs. Pearman's departure from her
home.

Elizabeth Smith gate similar testimony, but added that
she had seen Mr. Pearman knock his wife down, but it
wars in consequence of her being drunk and endeavouring
to force her way into the shop.

Letters from Mrs. Pearman, expressing regret for having
offended her husband, entreating to be taken back, and
denying the commission of adultery, were read, which
closed the petitioner's case.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott addressed the jury en behalf of the
respondent, and called witnesses to prove the alleged cruelty
of the petitioner.

The cue wits proceeding when we went to press.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
SINGULAR ACTION FOR DAMAGES—SAWYER V. GOODALL.
Plaintiff lets out traps, and defendant is a commercial
traveller. The action was brought to recover damages as
compensation for a broken trap and injured pony while in
the defendant's possession and under his charge.
Mr. Beard, for the defendant, said the accident causing
the damage occurred through a circumstance entirely be-
yond the control of the defendant. He and his wife were
in the trap, and he descended, leaving it under the lady's
care. The pony bolted, as it had done before, and hence
the damage.
His Honour—Was defendant upon hie master's busi-
ness P

Mr. Beard—Yes.
His Honour—Did his master know he had the lady with
him ?

Defendant—Oh, yes. It would not have been safe to
have left the trap without some one to take care of it.
The damage was then analysed, and his Honour found
for plaintiff for £1 17s.—the original claim being £4 17s.
CAUTION TO SUITORS—BURKE V. WHITEHEAD.
This was a claim for £1 16a., balance of an account for
money lent.
Mr. Buchanan, for plaintiff, said his Honour would re-
collect his client a short time back to have been a defendant
in this court, and that the now defendant sued him in refer-
ence to a check, and then his Honour decided in favour of
Mr. Burke. Now the claim was for money advanced to
Mr. Whitehead. The matter was a very simple one. The
original sum was £7 125., and this was a balance, after
crediting defendant with various sums.
Mr. Whitehead urged that ho was entitled to particulars.
It was true that £1 16s. was a balance, but the sum from
which that sum was derived was above 405., and particu-
lars ought to have been anneved.
His Honour—l think go, too. lam of opinion that de-
fendant is entitled to particulars. This case had better be
adjourned, and then referred.
Defendant—ln the next case my partner, who is ill, is
the defendant, and that had better be adjourned, too.
Mr. Buchanan—Then we can adjourn the two without
saying a single word about coats ? (Laughter.)
His Honour—Yes ; they will both be refused.
BROCK V. THORLEY—ADVERTISING.
This was a claim for £5 17s. for advertisements inserted
in a periodical belonging to plaintiff, defendant being the
well-known cattle food proprietor.
Mr. Beard said the advertisements had been duly inserted,
and the periodical in question as duly forwarded to Mr.
Thorley, who had not countermanded the order.
The insertion of the advertisements being proved, Mr.
Buchanan, for defendant, urged that a gentleman named
Hotson should be called to explain the matter, He nego-
tiated the business, and be alone could throw any light
upon the subject. Mr. Thorley had paid for some of the
advertisements, but only for those ho authorised Mr. Hot-
son to get inserted.
Mr. Beard (to witness)—When you called abort these
advertisements, what were you told P
Witness—That it was all right.
Mr. Buchanan—By whom ?
Witness—Hotson.
His Honour—You must be nonsuited, Mr. Beard, unless
Mr. Hotson is here.
Mr. Hotson was not present, and plaintif was nonsuited
with costs.
BILLS OP EXCHANGB—STONB V. RICHARDSON.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange for £l2 15s.
9d., upon which
Mr. George plaintiff had rendered himself liable.
(George and Downing) said the bill had been
dishonoured, and no notice of such dishonour given to de-
fendant, who had admitted his debt.
Defendant said he only wanted time.
His Honour—.That is for the plaintiff. As far as lam
concerned I must snake a ten day order. The instalmentary
process was never intended for persons signing bills. You
make your own agreement to pay at a certain time, and
bills should not be dishonoured.
Mr. George applied for his costs, which were allowed.

THE COLLECTIONS OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM.—
Last week a very important decision was arrived at by the
trustees of the British Museum. The separation of the
natural history collections from the books and fine arts'
collections was carried by a narrow majority of one. All
the Ministers, who are included among the trustees, voted
on the question, and unanimously, I believe, for the separa-
tion. The old and unofficial trustees, as a general rule,
voted against the separation. Thanks to this decision, we
may at last hope to see both the natural history specimens
and the fine art treasures of the Museum properly located.
At this moment each of these collections incommodes and
crowds on the other. There is about as.much in the way
of zoology and sculpture stowed away in damp, dark,
and inaccessible vaults, holes, corners, cupboards, and
cellars as there is visible to the public, or rather
to the students, for theirs is the interest to be mainly con-
sidered .—ifenchester Guardian.
Noun' SHIELDS, Friday Night.—During the
gale the Sharp and the Medium, from Liverpool, went
ashore. The Hebe, Athens, John and Isabella, and the
Mouarola b vo bce4 loet, orewe wore gavel

This case, which commenced on Thursday, was resumed
this morning.
The petitioner, Henry Pearman, prayed for a divorce
from his wife on the ground of her adultery with the co-
respondent, Charles Frederick Burgess. Mrs. Pearman
denied the adultery, and set forth various acts of cruelty on
the part of the petitioner; and the co-respondent also denied
the offence imputed to him.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and another learned gentleman
were counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Sergeant Pigott,
Dr. Wambey, and Mr. Garth for the respondents.
It appeared that the petitioner was a chemist, and had
formerly carried on business at Stourbridge, in Worcester,
and that he married the respondent in 1854. They co-
habited until 1858, and had four children, three of whom
are living ; but in the November of the latter year the
petitioner became acquainted with circumstances that satis-
fied him as to his wife's criminalty with the eo-respondeat,
who was his assistant and about 21 years of age.
Maria Hawthorne, a laundress living near Steurbridge,
proved the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Pearman, and
stated that the former was very kind to his wife, who
treated him and her children with great brutality. She
was addicted to intemperance, and was in the habit of
abusing her husband and children in the grossest terms.
The witness had seen her intoxicated as early as nine
o'clock in the morning, and the children were left by her in
the most filthy condition. In December, 1857, about four
days after her confinement, she saw her down stairs in a
state of drunkenness and Burgess behaving towards her
with the greatest familiarity. Mrs. Pearman was 18