The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-21 00:00:00

actually presented hiMself in our camp and made
his submission. Nothing now remained but to
compel this misguided chief to surrender what he so
much valued. His demand that the General should
see his Vakeel, was, no doubt, but an excuse to gain
time. The General will not grant an interview to
his Vakeel, nor will he now take any notice of his
letters, for his Excellency has informed the Rajah
that he must come in and make his submission,
dismantle his fort, disarm and disband his followers,
on which conditions alone he will receive the bene-
fits of the liberal offers made to him by the Govern-
ment. It is probable that the Rajah thinks he can
adopt a middle course, although distinctly apprised
that he will not be permitted to do so. He pro-
bably calculates on firirg a few shots and making a
show of resistance to save his honour, and then
surrendering to receive the advantages which are
promised to him only on the condition of his not
firing a shot. The Vakeel would on his return be
able to inform the Rajah that our heavy artillery
had actually crossed the Saae. The troops are in
fine spirits, though reduced by sickness, sun-stroke,
and casualties since the time I last saw some of
them. They are well dressed, and now the cold
weather has arrived they are provided with excel-
lent protection for the head against coup de sokil.
But—alas, those buts! how they do interfere with
Utopia—there are some one or two points to be
mentioned to you in confidence, which may as well
be disposed of here and now, as I have time, not
knowing when I may have so much leisure again.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 20.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
TUBBS V. PROUT AND OTHERS.
This was a testamentary cause, in which issue
had been joined upon a question arising out of the
massacre at Cawnpore, A husband and wife hav-
ing both perished in that massacre the question in
dispute was which of them had survived the other.,
On the motion of. Dr. Pritchard his Lordship
ordered the case to be tried before a special jury.
TYSON V. WESTROPE AND OTHERS.
This testamentary cause was tried during the last
sitting, and resulted in a Verdict establishing the
validity of the will and codicils propounded by the
plaintiffs. The codicil was disputed by Mr. West-
rope, a legatee under the original will, and by the
heiress-at-law, who also disputed the will. An
order having- been made for, the payment of costs
by the defendants,
Dr. Twiss, Q.C., for the heiress• at-law, moved
for a limitation of that order to Mr. Westrope, on
the ground that the heiress-at-law had been com-
pelled to appear ; that she had not imputed fraud to
the parties propounding the will ; and that she had
withdrawn her opposition as soon as Mr. West-
rope's opposition was withdrawn by his counsel,
who had the chief conduct of the cause.
Mr. D. D. Keane appeared for Mr. Westrope,
and Dr. Deane, Q.C., for the executors.
His Lordship said he would make an order,
analogous to a rule nisi, calling upon the executors
and upon Mr. Westrope, to show cause • why the
decree for the payment of costs should not be
limited to Mr. Westrope.
ALLEN V. ALLEN AND D'ARCY.
Dr. Spinks, for the wife, moved for an order
directing-the petitioner, the husband, to give up to
her the custody of one of the children, a boy aged
41 years. The wife was charged with adultery,
which she denied.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., appeared for the husband.
Sir C. Cresswell thought that, after reading the
wife's admission in her answer as to her own con-
duct, he could not interfere.
BROOKES V. BROOKES.
This was a petition by a wife for a judicial sepa-
tion on the ground of desertion. The husband did
not appear. At the hearing before the Judge
Ordinary sitting alone it appeared that seven or
eight years ago an offer had been made by the
husband to return to cohabitation, and an adjourn-
ment took place, as his lordship doubted whether
the Divorce Act was so far retrospective in its
operation as to apply to such a case. It had been
held in " Cargill v. Cargill" that an offer to return
to cohabitation made since the passing of the Act
did not deprive the wife of , her right to a separa-
tion. _ _

Dr. Wambey now submitted that the rule laid
down in " Cargill v. Cargill" was applicable to a
case like the present, and referred to Bishop
.on
Marriage and Divorce for the purpose of showing
that it had been held to be so applicable in the
American courts.
Sir C. Cresswell said he should be glad to have
the assistance of the decisions of the American
courts, although he must ask how many States had
decided in one way, and' how many, in another.
The material question he had to solve in these cases
was whether the separation was caused by the hus-
band's refusal to live with his wife, or by the -wife's
refusal to live with her husband. If the husband
returned before the passing of the Act it seemed
to him, at present, that the offence of desertion was
not completed, but he would take time to consider
the question.