The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-16 00:00:00

LAWRENCE V. LAWRENCE.

This suit was instituted by the wife against the husband
for a dissolution of marriage by reason of cruelty and adul-
tery.

The case was first heard in November and the allegations
fully established, but the case had been postponed in order
that the means of alimony might be inquired into. The
respondent had offered a gross sum of £75, which had been
accepted by the petitioner.

The Court ordered tha abovenamed sum to be paid within
a week.

BANNISTER V. BANNISTER.

This suit was commenced by the husband for dissolution
of marriage on the ground of adultery on the part of the
wife, who charged cross adultery by the petitioner. The
case had been part heard, and had been put back for further
evidence, and Mr. M'Queen moved for a further postpone-
ment, in order to amend the petition, so that other acts of
adultery on tho part of respondent might be introduced.
The Judge Ordinary said, when the case was before the
Court on the last occasion, there were charges of recrimi-
nation of adultery by the wife against her husband, and it
stood over for the purpose of allowing further evidence to
be produced ; but the evidence on the occasion was stronger
as to the recriminatory acts of adultery by the husband as
against the wife, and it was then asked that the case might
stand over to produce the witness who, it was alleged,
could prove the adultery, but there was no
evidence that the witness could prove it. The
attorney does not state that ho had examined the witness
and had taken her evidence, and it was now asked to amend
the petition, and introduce fresh charges of adultery against
the wife upon the evidence of two women who, looking
tkrough a window, stated that they saw the respondent
committing an act of adultery with a hawker. If the Court
were to allow such a course it would be a gross injustice.
What the Court would do was to dismiss the respondent
from the suit with costs.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
MR. SPURGEON AT A DISCOUNT.-DAMM V. YORK.

This was an action to recover a sum of money for some
fancy boxes, with portraits of celebrated living persons on
the lids.

Plaintiff produced a variety of boxes, on the lids of which
were portraits of Mr. Sergeant Sheb, Miss Amy Sedgwick,
and Mr. Spurgeon. Defendant had ordered these boxes
upon approbation. They were used for sweetmeats. De-
fendant refused to take them. He pointed out which por-
traits he would have before they were put on the boxes.
Defendant did not at all object to Mr. Sergeant Shee.
But plaintiff had put five Spurgeons in each dozen, and
that was too many.
Plaintiff—He ordered Spurgeon.

His Honour—And Sergeant Shee too. One is a Roman
Catholic and the other a Dissenter. What is the price of
a box?

Plaintiff—Tenpenee. He ordered one of Puncha.
His llonour—Who is Puncha?
Plaintiff—Oh Ihe was very famous.
His Honour—What for ?
Defendant—His abilities. Defendant said he had a strong
objection to so many Spurgeons. (Laughter.)
His Honour—Well ; I confess I do think five Spurgeons
teo many in every d6zen.
Defendant—Why, I couldn't sell one. (Laughter.)
His Honour—Do you moan to say that Spurgeon is un-
saleable ? (Roars of laughter.)
Defendant—Yes.
Mr. 0. B.C. Harrison (afrnicus curie)-1 should think
Mr. Spurgeon very much old of place over sweetmeats.
His Honour (looking at one of the boxes)—This is Ser-
geant Shoo. It is a capital portrait. Where did you get
it from ?

llefondant—lt is published by the Illustrated Netes of
!lie World.

His Honour—It is very like the learned sergeant.
Plaintiff observed that defendant himself marked a list of
the portraits, and no objection was made at the time to
Spurgeon.
His Honour said ho must have the list.
Plaintiff said he had not the list with him.
Defendant said the goods were quite unsaleable, and were
returned the moment they were sent in.
Hi 4 Honour advised plaintiff to take the boxes back and
sell them to somebody else.

Plaintiff said he couldn't think of such a thing.
His Honour— You see I quite agree with Mr. York that
five Spurgeons are too many. In fact, defendant says that
Mr. Spurgeon is out of date and quite unsaleable. (Roars
of laughter.) You can have an adjournment to produce
the list.

Adjourned accordingly.
A TERRIBLE ISLOW TO TILE TALLY TRADE-BAWDON V.

EAL.

This was a summons to recover a sum of money for some
cobourg and lining supplied to Mrs. Neal.
Plaintiff declared that Mrs. Neal had her husband's
authority to order the goods.
His Honour—There she is—ask her.
Plaintiff then put the question to her.
Mrs. Neal-- I had not my husband's authority.
Plaintiff then declared that Mr. Neal was present when
the goods were sent home, and witnessed a payment of
ls. 6d.
His Honour—Ask her.

Mrs. Neal—He did not. He found me drosses to wear.
"His Honour—l cannot help you, Mr. Bawdon. There
will be a verdict for defendant with costs.

This verdict prevents plaintiff cueing again, though he
can apply for a new trial.

MR. G. RENNIE.—Ws are happy to learn that
Mr. Rennie, the eminent engineer, is so far recovere I from
his serious accident that ho was able to be removed from his
bed, to which he had been confined for six weeks, to a sofa,
on Thursday last. Mr. Rennie continues to progress favour-
ably, but slowly. One of his legs was so fearfully lacerated
that some weeks will elapse before he can possibly walk.
COLONY OF VICTORIA.—The following relates to
the information received of the intention of the Govern-
ment of the colony of Victoria to appropriate a portion of
the further debenture loan of £3,000,000, to be raised in
April, to the discharge of their liabilities on the Geelong
and Melbourne Railway :--" Geelong and Melbourne Rail-
way Company, 36, Canaon-street, Jan. 14.—Sir,—Rofer-
ring to your notice in the City Article of yesterday relating
to this company and the Colonial Government, I beg to
annex an extract from the Governor's opening speech to
the new Victoria Parliament on the 18th of October last
The negotiations between the Government and the direct-
tors of the Geelong and Melbourne Railway Company hat, n
been brought to a satisfactory termination, and all that
remains is to ascertain the amount of liabilities which will
require to be provided for under the resolutions of the late
Assembly. The taskof examining the accounts has been.
ae.igned to the Commissioners of the Audit Board, on re-
ceiving whose report a bill for the purpose of ratifying the
purchase of the line on the terms agreed upon will be laid
before you. It will not be necessary to ask the Assentbly
for any vote of money, but merely for legislative autho.-ity
to charge the cost of the Geelong line upon the railw.ty
loan.'—l am, sir, your obedient servant, S. J, Coon 1;
Managing Agent."