The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-( THIS DAY.) 1

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices.)
IN RE THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK-EX PARTE NICOLL.
The further hearing of this part-heardappeal motion was
resumed this morning..
The Solicitor-General is now being heard for the respon-
dent.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)
EVANS V. EVANS AND ROBINSON.
This was a suit instituted for the dissolution of marriage
by Mr. Evans. In consequence of Sir C. Cresswell, the
Judge Ordinary, having previously heard the cause at Li-
verpool, Mr. Baron Martin presided. The greatest diffi-
culty was occasioned in consequence of the non-attendance
of the special jurors, only five out of 24 answering to their
names. The cause of the non-attendance may be attributed
to the dread of being detained for alength of time, similar to
that consumed in hearing the Marchmont case.

At a quarter past eleven the special jury list was again
called, and a number of the absentees were, by order of the
judge fined £2O each.

Mr: Huddleston, Q.C., who opened the case, said—Thepe •
titiouer, Mr. A. Lloyd Evans, was a gentleman of property,
and also a surgeon. He was educated at Eton, and went
to Oxford. After that he resided and practised at Chelten-
ham. The respondent, Mrs. Evans, wife of Mr. Evans,
was about five-and-thirty years of age, and whose name
was Carrington. Mr. Robinson, the co-respondent, was
also a gentleman of position, having been (appointed by
Lord Fitzhardinge to the offices of magistrate and deputy
lord-lieutenant for the county of Gloucester, but of more
advanced years than either Mr. or Mrs. Evans. When
Miss Carrington was married to Mr. Evans the sum of
£5OO was :settled on her in the event of the death of her
husband, and her father gave her a marriage portion of
£l,OOO. After the marriage they proceeded to Paris, and
on their return to England they took up their residence in
Leicester, in order that Mr. Evans might gratify his taste
for hunting, and this circumstance unfortunately led to un-
happy differences, which terminated in the separation of the
parties, and Mrs. Evans went t 9 live with her father
at Cheltenham. It was here Mr. Robinson commenced his
visits, and afterwards they were seen frequently walking
and riding together. Mr. Robertson afterwards took lodg-
ings for her in Seymour-street, Portman-square, where he
continually visited her, and they frequently went together li
to the theatre. On another visit he took lodgings for her at
No. 15, Edgware-road, and he was provided with a latch
key, by which means he had frequent access to her room
night and day. The issues to be raised in this case were,
a denial on the part of Mrs. Evans that any adultery had
taken place, and an allegation that she had been deserted
by her husband.

Just as the learned gentleman was entering into the de-
tails of the case, a juror was taken so unwell that he was
compelled to leave the court, and one of the jurors in wait-
ing was substituted for him.
Mr. Huddlestone then went at some length into the,cir-
cumstances connected with the case, and detailed certain
facts which he said he should be prepared to prove in evi-
dence, which would leave no doubt in the minds of the jury
that criminal familiarities and intercourse had taken place
between Mr. Robinson and Miss Carrington, prior to her
marriage with Mr. Evans; and which he contended was
the main inducement of Mr. Robinson to bring about the
marriage with Mr. Evans ; and after having done so he
should prove to the jury that Mr. Robinson exclaimed,
" He's a slippery' fish, but we've hooked him at last," and it
is not to be wondered at that a marriage effected by such
means had resulted in misery and unhappiness.
The examination of witnesses was then proceeded with,
and the case is not expected to be concluded to-day.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Bomilly.)
JUDGMENT-LOLLY V. ARBUTIINOT.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls, in delivering judg-
ment, saii—This is nominally a suit to enforce two mortgage
securities, but in truth it raises a question of some nicety,
not before determined, as to the rights and interest of the
parties entitled to take this £3,500 deposited, and which
has now become the subject-matter of this suit.
He said that after Col. Waugh had granted these mort-
gages over his property he executed an indenture in favour
of his creditors, and appointed Mr. Apliu receiver of the
rents of his estates. He also appointed to trustees to carry
out the purpose of the trust, with power to Mr. Aplin to
distrain as landlord in the event of the rents not being re-
gularly paid by himself or tenants. Col. Waugh became
tenant, and afterwards bankrupt. Mr. Aplin distrained for
031 arrears of rent, and a question :was raised between
the official assignee of the bankrupt and Mr. Aplin,
the receiver, as to which of them was entitled to the pro-
ceeds of the sale of the distress for the arrears of rent of the
estate. He considered the terms of Mr. Aplin's appoint-
ment as receiver, and referred to the decided cases relied on
in the arguments, and after drawing the distinction between
assignees appointed judically and receivers appointed
voluntarily, his Honour came to the conclusion that Mr.
Aplin, as receiver, was not properly put by his appointment
in locus (in place) of the landlord, and that the bankrupt
did not Nun to him as landlord ; and, therefore, in a com-
petition between him and the official assignee of the bank-
rupt for the proceeds of the distress for the arrears of rent
due to the bankrupt's estate, the official assignee must be
preferred. His Honour declared the defendant, the official
assignee, entitled to the fund in court (£3,500), and dis-
missed the plaintiff's bill with costs.
His Honour made the usual foreclosure decree on the
first mortgage, but his Honour would not make any decla-
ration on the second mortgage, as it was not properly before
him.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN RE CIIRISTMAS-JUDGNIENT.

His Honour gave judgment as to certificate in the case
of this bankrupt, described as a provision merchant, of Far-
ringdon-street, and who applied a few days since. The
bankrupt owes to creditors £1,127, and there is nothing for
the creditors. The gross profits were only £295, and the
trade expenses had been £753 ; personal, £353 ; and losses,
£595.. It was alleged against the bankrupt that he Iliad
falsely stated that he had sold some horses and carts to
his brother-in-law, but ho could not give any account as
to the disposal of the proceeds.
His Honour said the assignees had in this case done that
which ought more frequently to be done--brought the facts
before the Court, and performed their duty to the public,
although at their expense, as there were no assets. He
considered the conduct of the bankrupt to have been fradu-
lent, and that the sale was fictitious. He, therefore, sus-
pended the certificate, third-class, for six months ; and, as it
was supposed that the bankrupt possessed son►c property,
the question of certificate must stand over, but 21 days
would be granted, to enable the bankrupt to appeal.

• SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
IMPORTANT TO SUITAS.-BURN V. FRANCE.

- Mr. Buchanan, of Basinghall-street, applied on behalf of
the plaintiff for costs and attendance money for several wit-

nesses. Defendant had this morning paid into court the
debt and costs of summons, and of this fact he (Mr. Bucha-
nan) had only that moment received notice. As he had
subpoenaed some witnesses, and paid their conduct money,
he had paid the hearing fees. Amongst the costs sought
to be recovered was an item of a few shillings for 'bus hire,
incurred from having to travel three miles out and three
miles home for the purpose of serving notices.
His Honour decided that he could not allow this.

Mr. Buchanan—These notices were absolutely necessary
to our case.

His Honour then made an order for the usual costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.