The Sun.
London, England, 1858-01-15 00:00:00

JOHNSON V. SUMNER.

Mr. E. James, Q.C., moved for a new trial in this
case, which was an action tried before the Lord Chief
Baron, at the late Westminster sittings. His lordship
directed a verdict for the dsfendant, with leave to the
plaintiff to tender a bill of exceptions or elect to be ■on-
suited. He moved on the ground of misdirection. The
action was brought by the plaintiff, a milliner,
to recover ] 661., the value of articles of dress,
supplied to the defendant's wife. The defendant is the
son of a gentleman of property, residing near Guildford,
married in 1849 a daughter of the Countess Valsomacchii
(widow of the late Bishop Heber) whom he left in Berlin
in 1861, on account of incompatibility of temper, and in
1855 he obtained a divorce a Vinculo. In 1851 Mrs.
Sumner introduced by her mother was supplied with
certain articles of dress, and in 1851 and 1852
incurred the above bill. On the trial it was shown
by the husband that when he left his wife at
Berlin she had between 601. and 701. in money
and he left her her property, about 2001. a year, to live
upon. On the trial it was shown that when she called
on the plaintiff she was destitute of clothes, having only
a travelling dress on. The learned judge, on the trial,
directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, on
the ground that the sum of 2001. a year was sufficient
for the wife, even if the husband's income had been
10,000 L a year.

The Chief Baron said he laid down that there was
no evidence of pledging the husband's credit.
Mr. James said the learned Judge, in laying down
that it was not for the jury to say whether the amount
allowed to the wife was suficient, laid down new law
in Westminster Hall, which took every one by surprise.
Mr. Baron Martin-2001. a-year might be sufficient
for the wife, but L apprenend the question should have
been left to the jury.

The Lord Chief Baron—l think not.
Rule granted.

COURT OVCOMMON PLEAS.

,Sittinge at Nitl Prins, We4trnineter. Before Mr, Justice
Byles, and a Common Jury.)
EUXLEY V. AUSTIN.-BITRAOEDINARY CASE.

The plaintiff is a young widow of the tender age of 49.
and the defendant, a youthful looking Lothario of 27,
carrying on business at 5, Furnival'e Inn, Holborn, to
recover the nun of 3401. lent by
the plaint to the
defendant in various sums in 1352-3, The defendant
pleaded never indebted.
Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. Hawkins appeared in r
the plaintiff; and Mr. Montague Coainbers for
defendant.

It appeared that the plaintiff, in the year 1852, being
of the blooming age of 44, began to be tired of her
widowhood, and meeting the defendant, a mt-re stripling
of 21, became enamoured with hit n, and the young gen-
tleman finding she had money, became suddenly smitten
with her charms, and paid the most assiduousattention to her, taking her to all sorts of places,
amusements, the various theatres in the metropolis,
but more particularly the Flora Gsrders, Camberwell,
in the neighbourhood of which the lady lived, each hal
their own pocket money, the lady sometimes paying and
the gentleman at others, these pleasant amusements were
followed by "PPers the devoted, loving, affectionate,
and amorous con ile, filling up the night by sleeping
together as tuau and wife some nights at tne gay young
widow's w,
house, and sometimes at her young Lothario's,
In June, 1852, the widow opened her heart by telling
the defendant if 2001. would be useful to him in his
business, she would lend it him. The defendant at
once jumped at the goiden hint, and accepted it. The
lady sold out stock to the amount of 200/., and lent him
the money, receiving his promissory nute for the
amount. In the following September the defendant
obtained a further sum of 50/. ; 70/. in December, and
201. in April, 1853. All this time they were in the
habit of from time to time sleeping together. The plain-
tiff's case was that the moneys were lent, and that the
defendant had paid the interest, but sho did so under
a promise of marriame and she had slept with him in the
belief she would be his wife, a promise which he never
fulfilled. Oa the part of the defendant, who was called,
the 2001. was not denied' but it was contended that the
other sums were gifts, and that he never promised
marriage.

A number of letters were read from the plaintiff to the
defendant, in which she breathed the most amorous
effusions. In one to her " Dear William," she st.ited
the previous night was the happiest she had had for some
weeks, caused by dreaming of him, and that when she
awoke she regretted to find " that Jane was sleeping
with her," and not her dear William, concluding by
hoping t) see him on the Wednesday, if only for a few
minutes, from his affectionate wife. In others she
calls the defendant her dear husband, and sends him
thousands of kisses, she loving him dearer than life, &C.
The learned judge, having summed up, let it to the
jury to say whether the sums were gifts ; no doubt gross
immorality bad been disclosed.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
3401., refusing 801. claimed for interest.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RR COLICIIIN.
This bankrupt was described as of Brompton, draper,
and to-day came up on the luestion of certificate. Au
allegation was made that the bankrupt had fraudulently
contracted a debt which would bring him under the
tore asked by the assignee.
and an adjournrueut was there-
penal clause of the act,

Mr. Beard, from Mr. Buchanan's, said be would at
once consent to an adjournment, being confi,ient the
bankrupt would exonerate himself.
An adjournment took place.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fane.)
IN RE HINKLEY.

This bankrupt was described as of Brentwood, corn
factor, and to-day was appointed for his examination.
The balance-sheet prepared by Messrs Butler and Can-
nigs showed the debts 1,2961. ; assets, 560/.

CITY SHERIF'S COURT.
(Before Mr. Prenderga,t, Q.C.)
TUCKER V. TOZER.

This was an Actium in trov..r, to recover the !UR
Of 151., the alleged ♦alue of two pictures, left in
defendant's care. Mr. W. R. Buchanan, Baeinghall
street, appeared for the defendant, and urged, on
several points, that the plaintiff could not recover.
It bad been admitted, on the part of the plaintiff,