The Sun.
London, England, 1867-11-15 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Before Chief Justice Bovill and Justices Keating
Willes, and Byles.)
MISS FRAY AGAIN.

Miss Fray this morning made an application to
the judges to strike out one of the attorneyspractising
in the court off the rolls. She said she hopeddili-ai
Justice Bovill would not take part in the proceed-
ings, as he had been against her for the last 14 years
whilst carrying on the case for the Earl and Countess
of Zetland. She had been most unjustly treated
and cruelly illused through the instrumentality of
the solicitor against whom she complained, and that
her incarceration in prison was not for the purpose
of justice, but to appease party vengence. She
handed in her affidavit, which, having been read,
she proceeded to argue her case.
The Judges told her she had made out no case for
the interference of the Court.

The Lord Chief Justice said he had taken no
part in the present proceeding, but he must say that
the only feeling ha had ever had for Miss Fray was
one of pity, believing, as he did at the time she
referred to, that she was suffering from a disease of
the brain.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Right Hon. Sir J. P. Wilde.)
PEARSE V. PEARSE AND SONS.

This was an action brought by the widow of the
late Mr. Pearse, a solicitor, belonging to the firm
of Maples, Pearse, and Young, the solicitors to the
Great Western Railway Company, an order to set
aside his will, on the ground of his not being of
sound mind. The will, it appears, bequeathed
the whole of his property -to his two children,
leaving his wife perfectly penniless. A citation
had been issued to prove the will, the plaintiff
alleging that the testator was of unsound mind, and
had been prejudiced against her.

Mr. fluddleston, Q.C., and Dr Tristram appeared
for the plaintiff ; the Attorney. General, Dr. Spinks,
(.1.C., and Mr. Lopez for thddefendant.
Some witnesses, who spoke as to the soundness
of testator's mind were examined yesterday and
this morning.

Mrs. Hyam, sister of the testator, was called,
and said that she was frequently in the habit of
visiting at his house. After 1851 and 1852 she
only remembered dining once. She did not go
because of the disagreeable conduct of Mrs. Pearse.
She received a letter from Mrs. Pearse, saying that
she did not wish any of them to visit at the house.
Her brother was sorry, and said it was in conse-
quence of the unhappy state of things at home. She
had met Mrs. Pearse's family. She had gone unin-
vited one day, and she saw nearly the whole of
Mrs. Pearse's family. It was about luncheon time.
There were about 10 or 12. (Laughter.) They
were at luncheon. She remained till her brother
came home to a late dinner. The others nearly all
went.

A great number of letters were read from the
testator to the witness, complaining of the conduct
of his wife, and mentioning the loss of many articles
from his house and the wretchedness of his married
life.

Examination continued—Witness read all those
letters in 1858—that was when the separation took
place. The boy wail born in May, 1857. After
the birth of the girl testator had a small bed made
up in his study. He complained very much about
not being allowed to go to the top of the house.
Besides the wife's bedroom there were other bed-
rooms, but they were occupied by the family of Mrs.
Pearse and the servants. He was in the library six
mouths. His wife would not let him return to her room.
He said she had locked the door. She didn't wish
to have any more children, she said. She observed
nothing strange about him up to 1860. A state-
ment was read, which Mr. Pearse had drawn up
before the separation, which stated that during the
whole of his married life Mrs. Pearse had entirely
neglected the duties of a wife, and had treated her
husband with great carelessness, and allowed her
family to frequent the house and indulge in the
greatest extravagance. She also frequently struck
the testator, and refused to comply with any of his
requests.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

IMPORTANT TO CABMEN.—For some time past a
number of cabmen have been daily summoned to
appear at this court by the police, for loitering and
causing an obstruction with their cabs at the Al-
hambra Palace, Coventry-street, and at the Oxford
Music Hall, and on the cases being proved they have
been fined mostly ss. and costs.
On some cabmen appearing before Mr. Knox, to
answer summonses for loitering at the three above-
named places,

•
Mr. Knox said that nothing gave him greater
pain than to be constantly taking money out of the
poor men's pockets by fining them ss. and costs.
He should lay it down as a rule for the future that
when it was the man's first offence of loitering at
either the Alhambra, the Oxford, or Coventry-
street, he should only impose a fine of one
shilling and costs, and he should endorse the license
with the name of the place where the offence was
committed, and if the man was summoned before
him again for loitering at either of the places
he had mentioned the fine would be 20s.
There was plenty of opportunity for the
men to go on the ranks, and those cabmen
who were first on the ranks must have an oppor-
tunity of gaining their livelihood. He hoped those
cabmen iu attendance would tell their companions
Bo that the matter might be made public, and the
cabmen might know what his intention was, and
the nuisance stopped.
The defendants were fined 10. and NSW.