The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-10 00:00:00

PAYTON V. PAYTON AND CLEGG.

This was the petition of the husband, a cabinet-
carver, for a dissolution of marriage on the ground
of his wife's adultery with the co-respondent, a boot
and shoe manufacturer, in Holywell-street, Strand,
and damages were laid at £5OO. The case was
undefended.

Dr. Swabey was counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the parties were married in
January, 1854, and that there were two children
issue of the marriage. It was proved that the co-
respondent was in extensive business, and had
houses in different parts of the metropolis.
The jury assessed the damages at £4OO, and the
Court pronounced the decree nisi with costs.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
NASH V. PINK.

This was an action to recover £2O, the value of
a quantity of fish supplied to the defendant, Mrs..
Pink, a shopkeeper, of Surrey.
His Honour asked an attorney who appeared
for the defendant what was the answer to this case?

The attorney said that, as the Court must per-
ceive, Mrs. Pink was a widow. The goods had
not really been supplied to her, but to her late
husband, who was alive at the time when they were
delivered.

Plaintiff's representative observed that, although
this might be the case, still the widow who was now
suednad possession of her late husband's effects.

His Honour asked if she had taken out letters of
administration. Defendant's attorney said she had
not as there was nothing to administer.
Mrs. Pink deposed that her late husband died very
badly off, not leaving sufficient to pay his funeral
expenses.

His Honour considered that there was consider-
able difficulty about the case. It was clear that
the goods had not been supplied to defendant upon
her own account, but to her late husband during
her lifetime. That being SQ, it was open to the
plaintiff to sue defendant, as she had not taken out
letters of administration as executrix de son tort,
but as she lived in Surrey such a proceeding would
clearly deprive this court of all jurisdiction. He
thought, under the circumstances, that it would be
better for the plaintiff to abandon the present pro-
ceedings, putting up with the first loss, rather than
incur further expenses. As the case stood plaintiff
must be now nonsuited.

POLICE IN TELLIGENCE.—Ths Day.

BOW-STREET.

CHARGE OF CommAcy.—U.'ho two men named Allen
and Essex were placed at the bar this morning, on remand
charged with conspiring to defraud certain parties in the
country by falsely advertising that they wore in a position
to grant loans of money.
The plan was to advertise in the papers, offering to lend
money, and on receiving applications to return a favourable
answer, and enclosing half a cheque for the amount required
and intimating that the remaining half would be forwarded
on receiving the expenses, which in some cases they made
out to £l2 or £l4. Tho money was sent, but the re-
mainder of the cheque was never sent, and the whole
thing turned out to be a fraud.

A witness named Byrne proved the handwriting of the
letters, regarding a loan of £5O, in which the above system
had been pursued, to be that of the prisoner Allen.
There are various other charges against the prisoners.
Mr. Vaughan remanded the case till neat Saturday.