The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-04 00:00:00

they would come and look in at the door and then
go away. He had seen the plaintiff take money
out of the till and put it into his pocket. He did
not put any money into the till in lieu of it. Wit-
ness used to fetch him luncheons nearly every
morning. The plaintiff got the money out of the
till. Sometimes he took it out of his pocket. Wit-
ness had seen the plaintiff make up small parcels of
cigars and put them into a drawer. He used to put
them into his pocket at night. This occurred some-
times twice a week. Persons would come outside
the shop and whistle, and then plaintiff would give
them a parcel and say, " Be off as quick as you can."
This occurred very often, but it did not happen
after the defendant went to reside on the premises.
Witness had seen plaintiff weigh half-a-pound of
snuff, do it up, and put it into his pocket. The
parcel witness took to the Parcels' Company's re-
ceiving-house in St. Paul's-churchyard looked like
alO lb. parcel of tobacco. Witness had missed a
10 lb. parcel of tobacco, and said to the plaintiff,
" The tobacco has gone very quick this week."
Plaintiff said, " Yes." Witness told his father
what he had seen, and by his direction told the de-
fendant. One evening witness saw plaintiff put
f c
up two parcels oigars, about six dozen. He put
them into a drawer, and at night into his pocket.
On Monday morning, when the plaintiff's brother
came, he said, " Go up stairs and see if there is
anything to be done in the house." Witness went
and came back again by way of the private en-
trance in at the shop-door. As he went in he
heard plaintiff say to his brother, " I got off nicely
last Wednesday night with five dozen and nine."
Mr. Mayhew stated at length what had occurred
when he saw the plaintiff. Among other things he
asked what the parcel sent by the Delivery Com-
pany contained ? Plaintiff said, " 11b. of tea."
Witness
said, " How can that be, when you paid 6d.
with it." Plaintiff said he had forgotten that there
was also a coat. Witness asked him how he came
to senditto St. Paul's-churchyard, when the defend-
ant's own shop was a parcels receiving-house for the
company. Plaintiff said all the parcels had left the
shop, and he was desirous that his wife should have
the parcel by a certain time. Witness reminded him
that the parcels had not then left the defendant's
shop. Afterwards the plaintiff said, " It is quite evi-
dent after these suspicion Mr. Phillips and myself
cannot remain together, and I had better go." Wit-
ness told him defendant was determined to prosecute
him, and had sent for a detective officer to give him
in charge. Witness interceded at the plaintiff's
request and at witness's intercession the defendant
agreed to let the plaintiff go. The plaintiff then
asked if he would give him a character. Witness
said he could not ask the defendant to do so.

['His lordship, in summing up, impressed upon
the jury that the case before them was one of con-
siderable importance, and was well worthy of their
serious consideration. His lordship then detailed
the circumstances of the case, and left it to the jury
to consider first, whether they were of opinion that
the plaintiff had dismissed himself ; and if not,
secondly, whether the plaintiff had been guilty of
acts of dishonesty that justified the defendant in
dismissing him.
The jury found that the plaintiff had not dis-
missed himself, and they stated that they did
not place reliance on the boy's statement.
A verdict was accordingly entered for the plaix-
tiff for £2O 16s. 6d., but leave was given to the .de-
fendant to move the full court upon certain ques-
tions of law.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
COOPER AND SPARKS V. MOSS AND MOSS.
In this case the defendants had disputed the
validity of a will, by which the testator, Mr. Hill,
late of Derby, had left a considerable portion of his
property to local charities and dissenting chapels.
The defendants alleged that the instrument had
been procured through the undue influence of Mr.
Gawthorne, who was formerly the minister of the
chapels benefited.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., contended that the costs of the
next of kin might be paid out of the estate.
Sir C. Cresswell thought that as a general rule,
the costs ought to follow the result of the case, and
he should therefore decree probate of the will, con-
demning Mr. and Miss Moss in the costs.
ALLEN V. ALLEN AND DARCY.—ALIMONY.
Alimony, pendente lite, at the rate of £250 per
annum, was allotted to the wife, the income of the
husband, an army clothier, being taken at £1,25 0,1
VICARS V. VICARS.—INCEST.
This was a petition brought by a wife against
her husband, on the ground of his desertion of her,
and of his cohabitation with an illegitimate daugh-
ter. The respondent denied both charges.
Dr. Addams, Q.C., and Mr. Jones appeared for i
the wife ; Dr. Swabey for the respondent.
The respondent was the son of a person who
many years ago carried on the business of a cotton.
spinner at Bolton-le-Moors. The respondent, who
acted as his book-keeper, formed an intimacy with
Agnes Leach, who worked in a factory at West
Leigh. This girl, becoming pregnant, went in
1831 to Chorley to be confined, after which the re-
spondent fetched her back, had the child named
Mary Ann after his sister, and adopted her as his
own. In 1837 the respondent married his present
wife, a widow named Naomi Westwell, with whom
he had been lodging. Shortly afterwards he took
his illegitimate daughter into his house, and when
she grew old enough he apprenticed her to a mil-
liner. Afterwards he left his wife and took a house,
first at Southport, and then in Edge-lane, West
Derby, Liverpool ; at both of which places his
daughter went to live with him. The evidence of
the incest was furnished by a number of servants,
who spoke to finding Miss Vicars' room unoccupied,
to seeing her in her father's room, and to observing
traces of two persons having slept in the respon-
dent's bed. In 1853 Miss Vicars was confined of
an illegitimate child, which was baptised at St.
Peter's church. Mr. Vicars was one of the god-
fathers ; and the child was named Frederick Robins
Leach. It died in 1854. In 1855 another child, a
daughter who still survived, was born, to which the
respondent also acted as sponsor. - A third child was
born in the following year, and two of the witnesses
declared that they let the service of the respondent
on account of his peculiar connection with his daugh-
ter. There was no evidence of wilful desertion,
the parties having apparently separated by mutual
consent.

Dr. Swabey contended that the evidence of iden-
tity was not sufficient. There was in reality no-
thing in the facts proved before the court from
which to infer that the persons whom the servants
represented as cohabiting together were those who
were now charged with the horrible crime imputed
to the respondent and his natural daughter.
The jury, by his lordship's direction, acquitted
the respondent of desertion; but they found, with-
out hesitation, that he had been guilty of the inces-
tuous adultery with which he stood charged.
COULTHART v. COULTIIART AND GOUTIIWAITE.
In this case the wife had not put in any answer
to the charge of adultery, but the co-respondent
pleaded certain matters tending to show connivance.
Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey appeared
for the petitioner ; Dr. Spinks for the co-respon-
dent.

No evidence being adduced in support of the co-
respondent's allegations, they were at once nega-
tived by the jury.
TISDELL V. TISDELL—ADULTERY.
The petitioner, Mrs. Eleanor Tisdell, sought a
judicial separation from her husband Mark Antony
on the ground of adultery.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Thompson were
counsel for the petitioner; the respondent appeared
in person.
The marriage took place at Milford, in South
Wales, on the Bth of December, 1842, and there
were three children born of the union, the eldest
being a boy about 14 years of age, a daughter about
three, and another daughter who had died. The
respondent, who was a clerk in the shipping trade,
cohabited with his wife in various places, but she
left him on more than one occasion, on account,
as she alleged, of his misconduct. She finally
quitted him on the Bth of July last, having dis-
covered that he had an intrigue with a person
named Mary Ann James. Witnesses were called to
show that the alleged paramours had lived toge-
ther in Drummond-street, Sidney-street, and War-
rington-street, Somers-town.
The respondent then addressed the jury at some
length, contending that his wife had condoned
everything up to the Bth of July, when they were
living together. His avocations about that time-
kept him away from home for two or three days,
and on his return he found that she had deserted
him.

The learned judge said the jury had nothing to
do with any question of condonation, the respon-
dent having put no such plea on record, and raised
no such issue. They had simply to say whether he
had or had not committed adultery with a person
named James.
The jury found this issue in the affirmative.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.
(Before the Chief Commissioner.)
IN RE GEORGE JAMES PHILLIPS—BREACH OF
PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
This insolvent, a' shell fishmonger, whose case
was before reportedo,sea
spfeoarred to receive judgment,
.e
t MacraeEu s
;opanpd Mr. Siritaa supported.woman, named
Harriett
Harriett Ellis, after thea-riage with
a widow, brought an action agaiilitstahni for breach
of promise of marriage, and obtained a verdict,
with £75 damages, which, with the costs
£lOO. The case stood over to see whether any.
er any.
thing could .be done for the young woman.
Mr. Macrae informed the learned
Commissioner
,sg.yiedn g,