The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-14 00:00:00

claim was established; but before the decision was
given the plaintiff's father died, leaving his widow
sole executrix. The original probate of £3OO had to
be increased to a sum under £25,000. The widow
lodged £20,734 14s. Bd. in the Bank of England, as
executrix. The £20,000 was left under the will of
the plaintiff's father, one-half to his widow and the
remainder in moieties to his two sons, the plaintiff
and Thomas Wood, and to the account of the latter
in the London Joint-Stock Bank the widow paid
the sum of £5,683 13s. as his share of the £20,000,
inclusive of a gratuity of £5OO for his perseverance
in fighting the battle of the codicil to a successful
issue. No legacy duty had ever been paid upon
this sum. In 1845 the plaintiff's brother Thomas
died, and some time afterwards his widow became
the wife of the defendant. In 1854 the plaintiff's
mother died, leaving him all her estate and sole
executor. In 1855 the Solicitor of Stamps and
Taxes wrote for payment of the legacy duties on
plaintiff's as well as his late brother sshare of the
£20,000 bequeathed to them under their father's
will. The plaintiff accordingly paid £79 12s. 4d.,
and now contended that as one-fourth of the estate
had been paid over to his brother, during his life-
time, without having the duty deducted from it, he
was entitled to recover from his estate the propor-
tion of the legacy duty amounting to the sum now
sought to be recovered.

Tie jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.

GARDNER V. KRAPP.
Mr. C. Pollock and Mr. H. James appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Macaulay and Mr. Prideaux
were counsel for the defendant.
This action was brought to recover a sum of
money for work done as a chromo-lithographer, and
for printing copies in oils and otherwise from the
original drawing. The defendant is the proprietor
of extensive works for making cast steel, at
Essen, in Rhein Preussen. The case occupied the
whole of the latter part of the day, presenting no
facts worthy of recording, and was adjourned till
to-morrow morning.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Special Jury.)
KEATS V. KEATS AND MONTEZUMA.
Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Dr. Adams, Q.C., and Mr. Gif-
fard were counsel for the petitioner; Dr. Phillimore,
Q.C., and Mr. Thring for Mrs. Keats; and Mr. J.
P. Murphy for Don Pedro de Montezuma.
The trial of this petition for a dissolution of mar-
riage on the ground of adultery was resumed at the
sitting of the Court.
Mr. J. P. Murphy addressed the jury in mitiga-
tion of damages, which were claimed by the hus-
band from the co-respondent. He submitted that
damages were not to be awarded as a punishment
for the misconduct of the adulterer, but as a com-
pensation for the injury sustained by the husband,
and that the conduct of the husband in this case
had been such that a nominal sum would be suffi-
cient, especially if condonation were established.
No evidence had been given by any member of Mr.
Keats' family as to the terms upon which they
lived or as to the circumstances under which the
co-respondent was introduced to that family.
Evidence was then given on behalf of the re-
spondent, and it was proved by Mr. Marett, a
cousin of Mrs. Keats, who had been employed by
Mr. Keats first to superintend his property at Bra-
zier's, and afterwards to accompany his son as tutor
upon a continental tour, that at Basle, in the autumn
of 1857, Mr. Keats had spoken to his children about
his wife as a " vile woman," and that during their re-
sidence in Westbourne-terrace he accused her of
having misconducted herself with other people
besides Don Pedro. The respondent's aunt, Miss
Amelia Janrin, produced a correspondence which
took place last Oct. between herself and Mr. Keats,
in which he expressed his wish that some arrange.
ment should be made to avoid further litigation,
and his belief that he and his wife had been de-
ceived, and that she had teen the victim of a family
conspiracy. Miss Janrin, believing her niece's in-
nocence, spoke of her in that correspondence as
bearing her sufferings in silence, with Christian for-
titude, and living happily, because her conscience
was light. Anxious to bring about a reconciliation,
Miss Janrin came to London from Jersey, where she
resides, in Nov., and had an interview with Mr.
Keats. He received her very kindly, and they
started for St. Leonard's, where Mrs. Keats was
living with her mother. On the road to the station
they called at the office of his solicitor, Mr. Guy,
who said he could not allow Mr. Keats to act on
the supposition of his wife's innocence after the evi-
dence he had received from Ireland relative to her
conduct with Don Pedro. He thereupon refused to
proceed with the negotiation for a reconciliation,
and Miss Janrin returned to St. Leonard's alone.
On the morning of the 27th Nov. the Rev. Henry
de la Cour de Breazy, the husband of Mrs. Keats'
called upon Mr. Keats, who again expressed
a wish to avoid exposure, and to settle the matter
quietly. They went down to the carriage where
Mrs. Dc Breazy and Mrs. Keats were waiting, Mr-
Keats not knowing that she • was there, and Mr.
Keats took Mrs. De Breazy into the house, and
Mr. De Breazy followed with Mrs. Keats. She
asked, after a pause, whether he did not intend to
speak to her. He replied, " Well, Esther, I have not
seen you so long that I don't know what to say."
A long conversation then took place, in the course
of which Mr. Keats abused his relations and his
lawyers, and asked verious questions of Mrs. Keats
as to her conduct in, Ireland. She said that could
not much matter after the manner in which he had
sent her out of his house, and added that she had
not seen Don Pedro since she left Dublin. They had
lunch, and it was arranged that Mr. Keats and Mr.
De Breezy should go to Mr. Guy and put a stop to
the legul p roc e dings. Mr. Keats, on taking leaving of
his wife, shook hands with her, and said, " Well,
my dear, I hope we shall understand one another
better ; but we must not revert to the past." She
asked him to go and see her at St. Leonard's, but
he replied that the matter was so nearly settled he
would not go at present. He went with Mr. De
Breazy and called on Mr. Guy, but, not finding
that gentleman at his office, they made an appoint-
ment for the following Monday. On that day Mr.
De Breazy called on Mr. Keats, and found a note,
saying that he would meet him at Mr. Guy's. Mr.
De Breazy went to Mr. Guy's, but Mr. Keats never
arrived, and Mr. Guy remarked that if Mr. Keats
did such things as he had lately been doing he
would wash his hands of the whole matter.
At the conclusion of the case for the respondent,
Mr. Phinn tendered evidence in reply, for the
piirpose of showing that Mrs. Keats and Don Pedro
had met since their departure from Dublin, and
contended that this would get rid of any condona-
tion by the husband in ignorance of that circum-
stance.
•
Dr. Phillimore objected that evidence of facts of
adultery not alleged in the petition was not ad-
missible.
Sir C. Cresswell said it was a very difficult
question. His impression was that the evidence
ought to be rejected, and *as, if he acted on that
impression, the doubts that he entertained might
be set at rest by the full Court he should refuse to
receive it. The evidence as to fresh adultery might
be made the foundation of a new suit, although it
was not now admissible.
Evidence was then called for the purpose of show-
ing that in consequence of a fall from a chaise in
1852 the mind of Mr. Keats was somewhat affected,
but Mr. Fennell, the medical man who attended
him, only proved the fact of the accident. The
solicitor for the petitioner, Mr. Guy, was then exa-
mined, and described the conversations with Miss
Janrin and Mr. de Breazy when they had called on
him. He gave in substance the same account of
what passed as the other witnesses, but added that
Miss Janrin at the first interview told him that
she had convinced Mr. Keats of her niece's inno-
cence, to which he replied that he could not allow
Mr. Keats to act on that presumption, as he had
just received evidence which left no doubt of her
guilt

- The learned Judge postponed his summing up
until to-morrow (this) morning., as it was then past
6 o'clock, and the Court adjourned.

ASSIZE• INTELLIGENCE.

NORTIIERN CIRCUIT—LivERrooL, Dec. 13.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
THE FORREST EMBEZZLEMENT CASE.
John Forrest surrendered to take his trial upon
an indictment charging him with having embezzled
£3OO from Mr. 11. B. Blundell, the proprietor of
several collieries at and near Warrington. Mr.
Simon appeared for the prisoner, who upon arraign-
ment pleaded Guilty.
Mr. Cross, who prosecuted, intimated that Mr.
Blundell's whole loss was nearer £7OO than £3OO.
Mr. Simon stated that the prisoner's wife kept a
shop for the sale of baby linen in Warrington, and
that as she had been rather unfortunale and had
made several bad debts, the prisoner had from time
to time advanced out of his master's money various
small sums in order to enable her to meet her en-
gagements, and satisfy more urgent creditors. At
first the prisoner regularly repaid these advances,
but gradually the sum accumulated to the amount
in question, which he was unable to pay. Wit-
nesses were then called as t) character.
Mr. Peter Rylands, of Warrington (a county ma-
gistrate, an alderman of the borough, and ex-mayor),
said he had known the prisoner since his childhood;
and had always considererl him strictly moral,
'sober, and industrious. He believed that he com-
mitted the present offence rather through weakness
than from depravity, and tkat he intended at first
to refund the money.
Mr, T. Glazebrook Rylani (present Mayor of