The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-20 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn and a Special Jury.)

ACTON V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., was counsel for the plain-
tiff, and the Solicitor-General for the defendants.

The action was brought to recover compensation
for injuries arising out of a collision on the Not-
tingham and Birmingham line. The defendants
merely pleaded that the plaintiff had accepted £3l
10s. as compensation for the injuries he had sus-
tained.

It appeared that the plaintiff was travelling from
Nottingham to Birmingham, on the 16th March,
1863, when the collision took place. He was under
the care of Dr. Robertson, the company's doctor at
Nottingham, for a fortnight, and was persuaded by
him to accept the £3l 10. s. in full compensation,
and to give a receipt for the same. The plaintiff
afterwards became gradually worse, and was com-
pelled to give up asituationwhich he held as foreman
to take another as relieving officer of the union
at Nottingham. The duties of this situation also,
though comparatively light, he was incompetent
to fulfil, and was obliged to appoint a deputy.
Finding that his health was so seriously affected
he applied in March, 1866, to the company
to give him such compensation as the
circumstances of his case warranted, but
was informed that his claim could not be enter-
tained, as the company acted on the principle that
when a party accepted a given sum in full compen-
sation he was not entitled to any more.

The medical evidence was to the effect that the
injuries ,of the plaintiff were of a nature that
rendered it doubtful whether he would ever recover.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and
assessed the damages at £1,500.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Right Hon. Sir J. P. Wilde.)
INWOOD V. INWOOD, BARNES, AND BASFORD.

This was a suit instituted to procure a dissolu-
tion of marriage on the ground of the wife's adultery.
It appeared that the parties were married at St.
Barnabas, St. Luke's, Middlesex, in Sept., 1843.
The husband was a builder, and had after his mar-
riage lived with an uncle until 1856, when the
petitioner was obliged to go and manage a sister's
farm about 14 miles from London, and left his wife
and five children in London. During the time he
was away it appeared that the alleged adultery
was committed.

John Inwood said that he was the uncle of the
petitioner, and they had lived in his house. He be-
came bankrupt during the railway mania, but he
still continued to live with them. They removed to
Birmingham, and the petitioner used to come to see
his wife once a week. He allowed her money suffi-
cient for her use. In 1857 he was suddenly called
to hear rumours about his niece and one of the co-
respondents. She protested her innocence, and he be-
lieved it, but she afterwards confessed that she was
guilty. Her husband forgave her, and they went to
lire in another house. He still lived with them,
but her conduct became so bad that he was obliged
to take separate lodgings. She would be out till
12 and 1 o'clock, and did not seem to care for any-
thing. On one occasion he saw Barnes in a private
room with her. She often had what she called
"female friends" to tea. After he had left her
three or four days she brought her son to him and
the key of the house, and went to live with Mrs.
Bragg. He called a day or two after and found
her crying, because she was afraid of Barnes's wife.
She said she was truly sorry that she ever left
her home, and begged him to take care of her little
boy. He sent her up a few shillings occasionally
when she begged very hard. He went down to
Liverpool, and saw Mrs. Inwood in the presence of
Mrs. Galloway, and saw the co-respondent Basford
in town. He said that " was all right, but that he
did not know that she was a married woman."
Mrs. Bragg, Mrs. Galloway, and others gave con-
firmatory evidence.
It was urged on behalf of the co-respondent Bas-
ford that he was not aware that she was a married
woman, and therefore trusted to be excused from
the costs.

The Court granted a decree nisi, with costs
against Barnes.

LOFTUS V. LOFTUS.

This was a petition on the part of Lord Loftus
for restitution of conjugal rights.
Mr. Coleridge applied for a postponement of the
case on the ground of the absence of a material
witness.

The case was accordingly postponed for a week.

SULLY V. SULLY AND ANOTHER.

This was a petition presented by the husband,
praying for dissolution of marriage on the ground
of adultery. It appeared that the respondent
some time after marriage gave way to habits of
imtemperance, and eventually so conducted herself
as to lead to the institution of the present suit.
His lordship granted a decree nisi.

POLICE INTELLIGEACE.—This Day.

WARLBOROUGII-STREET.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF WANTON DAMAGE.
—John Clare, described as a jewel case maker, of
9, George-street, Laugharn-street, and Elizabeth
Clare, his wife, were charged, before Mr. Knox
with wantonly damaging some panes of glass, the
property of Mr. George Lines, printer, of No. 2,
Middleton-buildings, and also some panes of glass
at other houses in the same place.
Mr. Lines stated that several panes of glass in his
windows had been cut during the past two or three
nights, and some of the windows in other houses
near him.

Mr. Chas. Sheppard, of No. 11, Middleton-build-
ings, said that in consequence of several windows in
the place being cut lately, he sat up last night to
watch, with the view of detecting the person doing
it. He saw the male prisoner, who was accom-
panied by his wife, first cut the window of the
previous witness's house, then the window of the
next house, and just as he was going to cut the
window of the third house he caught hold
of him, and told him that he would
have him locked up, upon which be ran
away. He then gave the prisoner and his wife into
custody. The female prisoner took a ring from her
husband, and had an opportunity of getting rid of
it. The male prisoner was extremely anxious for
him not to press the charge.
The male prisoner said therewas only one window
cut, but the witness stated that he saw him delibe-
rately cut three.

The male prisoner said that when caught by and
struggling with the last witness, he had his gold
watch stolen.

Mr. Knox said it served the prisoner right, and
he would like to know what business the prisoner
had to destroy persons property as he had done. •

The IN itness said that on Monday night four
windows were cut, some of the glass nearly through,
no doubt by a diamond ring the male prisoner was
wearing, and last night he distinctly saw the pri-
soner do it.

The male prisoner said he was very sorry, and
was willing to make compensation. It was a fool-
hardy case he would admit. In answer to Mr.
Knox the prisoner said he was a jewel-case maker.
Mr. Knox said the female prisoner did not appear
to have taken an active part in the matter, and as
there was not enough to convict her, she would be
discharged.
Police-constable llolder, 161 E, proved taking
the prisoners into custody. Nothing was found on
the male prisoner with which a window could be cut.
Mr. Knox said that no doubt that was got rid of.
He would not ruin the prisoner by sending him to
prison without the option of paying a fine. He
should order him to pay 3s. for the damage, and a
fine of £5 or a month.
THAMES.

EXTENSIVE ROBBERY BY A SOLDIER IN THE
OWER ,--Charles Stewart, aged 19, a very tall