The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-22 00:00:00

WILTON V. WILTON AND CHAMBERLAIN.

The petitioner in this case was a confectioner, residing
at Devonport, and prayed for a dissolution of marriage on
the ground of adultery.
The petitioner was married in 1850, and he and respon-
dent lived happily together till 1856, when she ran away
with a sailor. She, however, expressed her sorrow, and he
received her back to his home. In November of the same
year she gave birth to a child, of which the party with
whom she eloped was the father. In order to avoid the
scandal of the conduct of his wife, the petitioner emigrated
to Australia, and established himself there, leaving kis.wife
in charge of the shop in Devonport. He was absent from
England about 12 months, and on his return he found his
wife enciente, and ascertained that. she had been living in a
state of adultery with the co-respondent. Not feeling dis-
posed to condone the offence a second time, ho commenced
the present proceedings.
The Court granted a dissolution of marriage, with costs
against the co-respondent.

CLERKENWELL COUNTY COURT.

TWO IMPORTANT CASES OP LANDLORD AND TENANT.

Two important cases of landlord and tenant have recently
been tried at the Sheriffs' and Clerkenwell County Courts.
In the first case, Scrivens v. Smith, heard by Mr. Kerr and
a jury, the action was brought to recover one quarter's rent
of premises held by defendant, as he had attorned. In
signing the attornment Mrs. Smith had admittted owing
a sum of money for back rent.

Mr. Buchanan, who appeared for the defendant, urged
that the attornment had been hurriedly read over to his
client, who did not know she had made any admission of
the kind, and who would certainly not have signed it had
she had the smallest conception of its contents.

Defendant then explained the receipts which made the
discrepancy by saying, that during her tenancy the pro-
mises had been under course of repair by Mr. Goding (the
brewer), hor former landlord, and she was obliged to turn
out her lodgers in consequence. Mr. Goding, being in-
formed of this, forgave her the rent for the time. She said
that she only signed the attornment because she was told

it was a matter of form. She didn't owe a penny rent.
It was explained on the part of plaintiff that, when the
premises demised to that person, a suit of ejectment was
served upon plaintiff, and that was only a matter of form.
The attornment was carefully read over to defendant, who
said she understood it before she signed it.
His Honour left it to the jury, who found for the defend-
ant, and upon the application for costs by Mr. Buchanan,
they were allowed.
In the second case, heard at Clerkenwoll, Fulham v.
Frost, before Mr. Sergeant Gazelee, the action was brought
to recover £2 ss. 6d sewers' rates by plaintiff as tenant, and
not allowed by defendant as landlord.
Mr. Beard, for the plaintiff, said that the sewers' rates
were always paid by the landlord unless there was an agree-
ment to the contrary. In this case they were not deducted
from the rent, because plaintiff had been very irregular
in paying it, the receipts put in having reference to the
account commenced in 1854.

The learned Sergeant expressed his surprise that the
rates should not have been deducted under such circum-
stances. The difficulty of a landlord was to obtain what
was really duo. Now, he had tenants of his own, and they
took good care to deduct every penny they could.
Defendant said that, before he became possessor, he acted
as collector, and that Mr. Pulham always paid the rent in
there was an agreement to the effect that plaintiff should
full, and never deducted the sewers,
pay them. rate. He believed
Mrs. Pulham—lndeed there was not.
Prl--- nyr:Jalall'A of fairb
except plaintiff's belief.
His Honour—l see by the receipts that plaintiff had not
deducted these rates for sonic time before 1854. There is
prima facie evidence in favour of defendant. In fact, some
of those items in the account are not recoverable by the In-
come-tax Act. If a tenant does not deduct the:rates before
the expiration of a certain time he cannot recover.
Mr. Beard—The husband, who is absent, took the house,
and as he May throw sonic light upon the question of agree-
ment or no agreement, I will elect to be nonsuited.
Costs allowed to defendant.

2HIS DAY'S MARKETS.