The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JUNE 4, Thou.

near Black Halls was covered with pieces of the
wreck. The owner of the vessel, Mr. John Tully,
shipowner, of Sunderland, yesterday received in
telligence that another of his vessels had foun-
dered in the gale. The Vernal, a brig of 214 tons
register, bound from Sunderland to New Dieppe,
with a cargo of coals, had received such injuries
during the storm that the crew had to abandon
her near Texel, and they have since landed all safe
near Yarmouth.

LAW- INTELLIGENCE. June 2.

it-

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES.
(Before the Judge Ordinary, Mr. Baron Martin,
and Mr. Justice Willes.)
CALLWELL V. CALLWELL AND KENNEDY.
Mr. Justice Hill, who was one of the judges be.
fore whom this case was tried in May last, came
into court this morning to hear an application on
the subject of the settlements.
The jury had returned a verdict for the petitioner,
and had assessed the damages against the co-re-
spondent at £3,000.
Dr. Phillimore, Q C. (with whom was Dr. Tris-
tram), for the petitioner, stated that Mrs. Callwell
would be entitled to £1,384 on the death of her
father, which was settled absolutely upon the hus-
band. Mr. Callwell had settled £4OO a-year on
Mrs. Callwell. Mr. Callwell proposed that the
£1,384 should -now be settled on Mrs. Callwell
without power of anticipation, And after her death
that it should go to the children ; that the £4OO
a-year should be returned to Mr. Callwell, and that
the damages should be settled upon a child of Mrs.
Callwell's of whom he believed Mr. Kennedy to be
the father.
The Judge-Ordinary said if it was not Mr. Call-
well's child he could not ask the court to make a
provision for it. What was Mr. Callwell's income ?
Dr. Phillimore said he was instructed that it was
between £3,000 and £4,000 a-year.
Mr. Serjeant Pigott said he appeared to watch
the case for Mr. Kennedy, and he would only sug-
gest that any order which the court might make
with refence to the damages might be limited to
£1,500, in pursuance of an understanding which
had been come to between himself and his learned
friend.
The Judge-Ordinary said it would be most dan-
gerous to recognise anything like an arrangement
between the parties, and the court could not do so.
Mr. T. Jones, for Mrs. Callwell, said that she
neither desired alimony nor any benefit from the
£4OO which had been settled upon her, but she did
claim to have the absolute disposal of the £1,384.
He reminded the court that it did not appear
on the trial that Mrs. Callwell had been guilty of
any turpitude, that she had been cast from an ele•
vated station in society, and that it was desirable a
respectable position should be assured to her.
The Judge-Ordinary said that the performance
of the duty cast upon the Court was attended with
very considerable difficulty. The act gave the Court
power to direct a settlement to be made, but it pro-
vided no machinery for carrying that direction into
effect, Time must be taken for consideration.
IRVINE V. IRVINE AND GILL.
Dr. Dean, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey appeared for the
petitioner, who charged his wife with adultery ;
and Mr. Pritchard for the respondent, who denied
the adultery, and pleaded condonation and a coun-
ter charge.
The case was part heard on Tuesday last, and
was then adjourned for the amendment of the pe-
tition and for the production of farther evidence.
The marriage took place in 1845 at Hartlepool,
and there were two children. The petitioner was
the mate of a vessel trading to Australia. In July,
1858, he left England, and returned in April, 1859.
He lived with his wife for a few days at Limeheuse,
and then discovered that she was seven months gone
with child, and separated from her. She was de-
delivered of a child in June, 1859.
Two witnesses, a friend of the respondent named
Forster, and a daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Irvine,
were called this day by Mr. Pritchard, and proved
that after Mr. Irvine's return he slept with his wife
for a few nights, and it was contended that the
Court ought therefore to presume condonation, in-
asmuch as he could not have been ignorant of his
wife's condition. It was, however, elicited in cross-
examination that there was a quarrel about her
pregnancy a few days after his return, that it had
not been mentioned before that-quarrel, and that
immediately afterwards he went away from the
house.
The Judge-Ordinary said the Court had no doubt
that the respondent had failed to establish her plea
of condonation, and there appeared to be no ground
whatever for the plea of recrimination. The mar-
riage would, therefore, be dissolved.
ROGERS V. ROGERS AND HOLMSHAW.
Mr. Jacob appeared for the petitioner, Dr. Wad-
dilove for the respondent, and Mr. Forster for the
co-respondent.
The petitioner charged his wife with adultery.
She pleaded a denial, and the co-respondent pleaded
that he should not be 21 years of age until April
next, that he had no property, and that he had
lost his situation.
Mr. Rogers was a tanner in a large way of busi-
ness at Stourport, in Worcestershire. In February,
1850, he married the respondent, his age being
then 28, and hers 21, and they lived happily to•
gether until September last. Mrs. Rogers was
fond of music, and the co-respondent, George
Frederick Holmshaw, who was an organist and a
teacher of music, visited at her houses. On the
24th of September last Mrs. Rogers went, as she
represented, to pay a visit to an aunt at Wakefield.
A few days afterwards Mr. Rogers followed her to
Wakefield, but was surprised to find that she had
never been there. He instituted inquiries, and at
last traced her to London. She was then cohabit-
ing with Holmshaw in Albany-street, Regent's-
park, and they passed as man and wife under the
name of Mr. and Mrs. Russell.
The Court dissolved the marriage, with costs
against the co-respondent.
SAVORY V. SAVORY.
Mr. Field appeared for the petitioner.
This was a petition by a wife on the ground of
adultery, coupled with desertion. The respondent
was a licensed victualler, and had kept several
publichouses in different parts of Lydon. He was
married in 1834, and cohabited with his wife until
1840. He became embarrassed in circumstances,
and in 1840 he left her in a house in Baker-street,
and has never since provided a home for her or con-
tributed to her support. She has been maintained
by her family. The respondent has cohabited with
a girl named Elizabeth Fletcher.
The Court granted a decree.
HEATH V. HEATH AND LONGLEY.
Mr. Macqueen was counsel for the petitioner.
The marriage in this case took place in October,
1852. Mr. Heath is a scourer and dyer in St. Pan-
cras. He and his wife lived happily together for
about six years, and had two children. In August,
1858, Mrs. Heath asked permission to visit two of
her aunts at Brighton, as she was not. in good
health. Her husband allowed her to go, and she
stayed away for six weeks and then returned..
About a fortnight afterwards she went away again,
under the pretence of paying a visit to a relation
at Woodford. In consequence of information that
he received from his father, the petitioner made
inquiries, which resulted in the discovery that his
wife, instead of going to Brighton and Woodford,
had been living in lodgings at Hoxton with the
co-respondent, a clerk in a mercantile house in the
city. He thereupon separated from her.
The Court dissolved the marriage.
WEST V. WEST AND PENNEFATIIER.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks conducted
the petitioner's case ; Dr. Swabey appeared for the
respondent, and Mr. Garth for the co-respondent.
Lieutenant-Colonel John Templer West prayed
for a dissolution of his marriage with Mrs. Marge.-
retta Jane Maria West on the ground of her adul-
tery with Captain Pennefather. The respendent
and co-respondent pleaded a denial of the adultery.
Dr. Phillimore stated that the petitioner was
married on Feb. 1, 1849, to the respondent, who
was the daughter of a Mr. Delapole, a gentleman
of ancient family in Devonshire. They lived to-
gether happily at Malvern, Ryde, and other places,
and had two children—a son, born in September,
1850, and a daughter, born in June, 1853. Five or
six years ago, Colonel West sold out of the Guards
and travelled upon the continent with his wife. In
May, 1859, they were staying at Malta. On the
23d of that month, Colonel West was obliged to go
to London upon business, and he left Mrs. West at
Malta. In the following August he received infor-
mation that Mrs. West had eloped with Captain
Pennefather, of the 41st Regiment. He and his
brother went in search of them, and found them at
Duonao d'Ossola, Piedmont. A duel took place be-
tween Captain Pennefather and Colonel West, and
on Colonel West's return to England he commenced
this suit.
The following witnesses were examined:—
Henry Wyndham West.—l am a cousin of the
petitioner. After his marriage he resided at Ches-
ham-place, then at Malvern, then at Ryde. As far
as I could observe, lie always behaved kindly to his
wife.

Major Frederick West.—l am a brother of the
pFtitioner, and I was present at his marriage. I
visited my brother and his wife from that time
down to 1858. They lived amicably together. In
1859 I went with my brother to Italy. We went
to Duomo d'Ossola. About the 22d of August we
saw Captain Pennefather and the respondent. They
were together. A duel took place between my
brother and Captain Penefather. We returned to
England. In December, 1859, I went to 107,
Jermyn-street, St. James's, with the solicitor, and'