The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-24 00:00:00

DENNIS V. DENNIS AND JOHNSON.

This was an application on behalf of the female respon-
dent, in a suit instituted by the husband for a dissolution of
marriage on the ground of adultery, for alimony pendento
Bite.

Mr. Searle appeared for the applicant, and stated that the
husband carried on business as a dealer in fancy articles in
the city, and that he had an income of £l,OOO a year; but
he pleaded that his annual receipts did not amount to more
than £350, which in fact was reduced to £270 by payment
of debts, &c. The wife had made no affidavits as to the
income of her husband, and as she could not prove to the
satisfaction of the Court what it really was, she was content
to take an allowance based on the amount which the hus-
band stated he possessed.

The Court commented on the tendency there was in these
applications to exaggerate so largely the incomes of hus-
bands, and made a decree for £55 per annum, payable
quarterly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque.

IN RE SCHLESSINGER, SCHLESSINGER, AWD PARFIT.

To-day was appointed for hearing argunients on the ap-
plication of these bankrupts, who were described as of
Basinghall-street, drysalters and general merchants, under
the firm of Schlessinger and Parfit.

The bankrupts Schlessingers were opposed at great
length at the last meeting on several grounds—one of fraud,
in obtaining a large quantity of hops from a Mr. Farmer;
that they had made false representations to induce Parfit
to join them in partnership, and generally for reckless
trading.
Mr. Linklater now called the attention of his Honour to
a letter in one of the morning papers, asserting the state-
ments made against them wore infamous and ex parte, and
complaining that it should have been published until they
had been heard in answer. He (Mr. Linklater) urged that
the bankrupts had acted ivith great impropriety in writing
such a letter, and especially in designating the evidence as
infamous.

Mr. Roxburgh, for the bankrupts, contended that the
bankrupts were justified in calling the Attention of the public
to the fact that the statements were ex parte, and they
ought not to have been published.

occurrence, and he
His Honour said it was an everyday
wished it were nglit so. He considered that it was exceed-
ingly absurd to send the letter at all, as the public would
not form an opinion until they had hoard both sides ; and
the expressions used were highly improper.
Mr. Linklater then proceeded to read over the volumi-
nous evidence taken at the numerous examinations.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

HOUSEBREAKING.—George Rogers, a porter, was charged
before Mr. Bingham with unlawfully entering the dwelling-
house of Robert Elgar, bootmaker, of 57, Portland-street,
Portland-place, and stealing several articles of wearing
apparel.
From the evidence of Mrs. Elgar, wife of the prosecutor,
it appeared that on the previous evening she was in the
kitchen, and, having occasion to go into her parlour, she
was surprised on entering to find the prisoner busily em-
ployed in ransacking the drawers. She asked what he
wanted there, when ho replied, with much coolness,
" Want ! why, nothing." She then called for her hus-
band, who, on coming up, proceeded to the place where he
had left some of his apparel, and was surprised to find it
gone, and looking round the room she saw under the win-
dow, which was wide open, a large bundle packed up ready
for removal, which contained a large quantity of wearing
apparel, &c. He had in his hand at the time some keys,
which he threw on the table, along with a scarf which he
took from his pocket.
A constable of the E division said he was well known ;
and it was also stated that he had been at this court before,
and that several robberies of a similar kitid had lately taken
place in the neighbourhood.
Committed fox trial,