The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-03 00:00:00

The parties were married in 1845, and there were several
children issue of the marriage. The respondent contracted
intemperate habits, but there was no allegation of other
misconduct prior to September last. She was in the habit
of visiting at the house of a man named telly, a publican,
at Liverpool, and in September last she went there and
took tea. Kelly was quite drunk at the time, and had been
quarrelling with his wife, but the respondent succeeded in
reconciling them. After tea Kelly ordered some beer and
wine, and he and Mrs. Kaye drank so freely as to become
quite intoxicated. Mrs. Kaye had to be provided
with a bed in the house, and in the course of the
night Mrs. Kelly discovered that her husband was in bed
with her. This was also proved by two lodgers in the
house. The reason why the petitioner did not apply for a
dissolution of marriage instead of a judicial separation
was that ho was a Roman Catholic, and consequently did
not recognise the right of divorce by a legal tribunal.
For the defence it was alleged that no criminal inter-
course had taken place between the respondent and Mr.
Kelly, and that both were so drunk that they did not know
what they were doing at the time.

His lordship pronounced a decree for judicial separation,
and said that the petitioner was liable for all the costs
which had been paid into court up to the present time.

SHOREDITCH GOUTY COURT•
(Before Mr. Dasent.)
AN EXTRAORDINARY FUNERAL BILL.-DUNXLEY V.

DVNXLEY.

This was an action to recover a sum of £2 Gs. 5d.,
plaintiff being the brother-in-law of defendant, who was a
young widow woman. When his Honour (Mr. Dasent)
looked over the bill of particulars he found the follow-
ing lianas :—Paid to the undertaker, £1 13s. ; money
lent, 10s. ; tea, ls. Gd. ; biscuits, 4d. ; gin, 10d. ; and two
other small matters, 9d.

His Honour (to plaintiff)—Are you an undertaker ?
I'laintiff—No. I paid tho money for her.
Defendant—He was my husband's brother, and I never
asked him to pay the money for me. My husband was
very ill for some time, and when he died he left me in very
bad circumstances. I wished to have him buried by the
parish, but his relatives refused to allow it. I certainly
did not think that I should be charged with fourpence for
a pound of broken biscuit after the funeral.
His Honour - What was the giu for ?

...
Defendant—lt was for the undertaker's men. I admit
that I borrowed the 10s. from him; but ae for the rest, he
paid it without any request from me.

His Honour—Did your husband leave any money ?
Defendant —Not a farthing. He has left me with one
child, and I have been trying to get parish relief.
His Honour—Why do you not go into the union ?
Defendant—l would rather struggle on with my child
and get a living by " charing."
His Honour—Here is an item for raffle card. I think
some of the items are very trumpery, and as regards the
£1 13s. defendant denies that she authorised its payment.
She admits the 10s. money lent, and therefore plaintiff will
have a verdict for that amount, payable by instalments.
Verdict for the plaintiff for 108.

A NEW PLAY.—Mr. Sothern is studying a new
part in a comedy by Mr. Westland Marston. The comic
vein of the author of " The Patrician's Daughter" has not
been worked so much as men who recollect his charming
little drama of " Rough Politics" desire. The new play is
in four acts; report speaks highly of its literary merits ;
and the Haymarket company are said to be much in love
with it. Mr. Sothern, especially, is said to have a charac-
ter part of singular simplicity and power.—Athenaunt.
THE CASE OF COLONEL DAWKINS.—The actions
brought by Colonel Dawkins against the Duke of
Cambridge and Lord Rokeby are set down for hearing be-
fore a special jury at the present Middlesex sittings of the
Common Pleas. We understand that Mr. Karslake, Q.C.,
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Raymond (instructed
by Messrs. Smith and Guscotte) will appear for Colonel
Dawkins, and the Attorney General, the Solicitor General,
and Mr. Dowdeswell (instructed by the War-office soli-
citor) for the Duke of Cambridge and Lord Rokeby.
During the past week the movements of the pre-
cious metals have been of a rather extensive charac-
ter as regards the imports, which have amounted to
about £514,800, chiefly from New York and the
West Indies and Pacific. The exports have only
been to a limited extent, viz., £108,482, the greater
portion of which has been despatched to the Con-
tinent.
MAXI➢IILIAN A FILIBUSTER. The New York
Herald declares that Maximilian is only a filibuster
in the eyes of the United States. Being an
archduke of Austria, and being placed where
he is and kept there by French bayonets,
does not change his character or alter the fact.
William Walker, Colonel Kinney, or Lopez were
not more filibusters than this royal adventurer and

usurper. If the American Government were so
disposed it could send a force to aid President
Juarez to drive out the filibuster, and France or
any other power would have no right to question it
for doing so. If France chooses to lend Maximilian
aid against the native and legitimate Government,
the United States certainly has as good or a better
right to assist that Government in sustaining itself.
In fact, says the Herald, the ill-natured reply of
the French Minister, Drouyn de Lhuys, to Mr.
Bigelow, seems to admit that fact when he said he
had nothing to do with Mexico, and that our redress
for anything wrong there lay with Juarez or Maxi-
milian. It may not be that the American Govern-
ment will exercise this right of direct interposition
in favour of the Republican authorities of Mexico;
but the time may come when Americans will be
allowed to volunteer for that purpose. Unless the
Imperial farce be soon concluded, and the actors
in it return to Europe, such a contingency is quite
probable. In that case fifty thousand or a hundred
thousand veterans would flock to the Rio Grande
in a very short time. Juarez is not without means
now, and should the United States Government
raise its finger merely to permit aid being given to
him he could obtain all the resources he needs. It
will be wise for the Emperor Napoleon and his
protege Maximilian to weigh well the consequences
that may follow a prolongel usurpation in Mexico.

SENATOR CHANDLER'S JOKE. - The Chicago
Tribune thinks that although Senator Chandler's
resolution of non-intercourse with Great Britain
is a very good joke, yet to press it seriously
would be the height of folly. it was offered in '64.
It is called up again in '66. Let it be kept in
pickle, under a stiff brine, ready to be reproduced
in '67 and '7O. Whenever the interest and attention
of the United States Senate flag, and a joke is
needed to fill up the interval, let Senator Chandler
renew his motion for non-intercourse with
Great Britain. As a sort of reserve policy,
not intended to be brought into action, it is
capital. By no means let it be lost sight of. The
practice of cutting off one's nose to spite his face is
a venerable one, and Senator Chandler has no right
to claim anything on the score of invention. Trade
between England and the United States is carried
on at the present time because it is profitable to both ,
countries. A declaration of non-intercourse will
not stop the trade, but will diminish its profit some-
what, by turning it into new channels. Depots at
Havre and Amsterdam would be immediately opened
to carry on the trade, and the extra tolls and com-
missions would be paid equally by both countries.
To make the non-intercourse act effectual Senator
Chandler should include all countries which trade
with England, but this might be called " carrying a
joke too far."