The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-07 00:00:00

The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Wambey were
counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sergeant Parry
and Dr. Tristram for the respondent. _

In this case the husband, Arnelius Hitchens,
prayed for a dissolution of marriage by reason of
the adultery of his wife, who denied and recrimi-
nated the charge, and further pleaded desertion and
cruelty.

From the opening statement of counsel, it ap-
peared that the party with whom the respondent was
alleged to have committed adultery was unknown,-
and the Court considered that it was a case in
which the name of a co-respondent might be dis-
pensed with under the power vested in the Court.
The petitioner was the son of Captain Hitchens,
who had formerly been in the East Indian army,
and the petitioner was his only child. The marriage
was solemnised at Woolwich on the 26th of April,

1861, the petitioner being then in his 17th year,
and the respondent, who was the daughter of a
washerwoman who worked for the military at
Woolwich, was 26. At the time of the marriage
the respondent was living with her mother, who was
a widow, and the other occupants of the house were
a spinter sister and a child 10 years of ago, of whom
nothing was known. On the marriage coming to
the knowledge of the parents, they refused to receive
the petitioner or his wife, or to make them any pro-
vision, but eventually the father consented to allow
them £2 ss. a week, on the condition of their ceasing
to live with the wife's family. The parties led a
cat-and-dog life, and it was agreed that they should
separate on the 30th May, 1862, Capt. Hutchins
agreeing to allow the respondent £1 10s, a week,
and to provide for a child with which she
pretended to be pregnant. The petitioner and his
father had been since living iu America, and he had
not cohabited with his wife since their separation.
The respondent had removed with her mother and
sister to Boulogne-sur-Mer ostensibly with the ♦iew
of establishing a school there, and on the 26th July,
1863, a child was born, of which it was alleged that
the respondent was the mother. Up to this time
the respondent's allowance had been regularly re-
mitted to her, but circumstances were discovered
which led to a suspicion of her adultery.
Mrs. Kitchens, the mother of the petitioner, said
that she was at presentliving in Bond-street, Brook-
street, and proved the ago of her son, and his re-
sidence in America for the last two years.

Mr. Arthur Walker, of the firm of Walker and
Mortimer, :proved having remitted the money to
the respondent.
The case was not concluded when we went to
press.

SHERIFF'S COURT.
(Before Dlr. Commissioner Kerr.)

RAILWAY LAW.-A NOVEL POINT.--PALMER V. THE
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.

This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for loss upon certain goods carried by the
company. _ _ _

Plaintiff said that the goods had been consigned
to him by a firm in the country, and when they
were delivered he found them damaged by the rain.
His Honour—Have you any evidence as to the
condition of the goods when sent to you?
Plantiff—No, but I know they were damaged by
rain when I received them.

An attorney's clerk, who appeared for the com-
pany, contended that plaintiff was not the proper
person to sue.
His Honour ruled that this was so, and that the
consignor had his remedy against the company.
Plaintiff was non-suited.

THE CALIGRAPHIC MYSTERY-- JONES V. SA3IL'ELS.
This was action to recover an amount for cutting
a block as a kind of advertisement of defendant's
business.
Plaintiff said he had received an order for a block
of a card containing a caligraphic mystery, which
defendant intended to use as a means of advertising.
Defendant said he did give an order for the
block to be drawn but not to be cut, and plaintiff
cut it without any order.
Plaintiff said that at first advertising by means
of caligraphic mysterious cards was a novelty, but
now it was common, and so defendant refused to
receive the work.

His Honour said it was a case for a jury and
adjourned it.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

-~-

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

CURIOUS CHARGE OF STEALING A CHEQUE.—
Eleanor Hudson, a good looking young woman, was
charged, before Mr. Tyrwhitt, with stealing a
cheque for £3 10s., the property of Mr. Charles
Napper Thomas, a student at St. Mary's Hospital,
and residing at No. 16, Porteous-road, Paddington.
The Prosecutor said—Last night I was walking
in the " market" (the Haymarket), when the priso-
ner came up and asked me to treat her. I said I
had no money, but that if I could get a cheque
cashed I would do so. I handed her the cheque to
look at, and she then said she could get it cashed,
and refused to give it to ine back, and oa my saying
I would give her into custody, she tore the cheque
in two and threw it away, and I have only been
into
custody.
to recover one half of it. I then gave her
custody.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—What time was it?
Prosecutor—Half -past one.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—That's the time they change
?
backers' cheques in the Haymarket, I suppose
Prosecutor—Yes.
The Accused—l met the prosecutor at the top of
the Haymarket, and he gave me what he calls a
cheque. I said " Oh, this is nothing but a bit of
paper," and threw it down, and then he gave me in
charge. I was only in his company two minutes.
The constable came up and picked up the piece of
paper.
Bennett, 43 C—The prisoner was given into my
custody in Coventry-street for stealing a cheque.
She said the prosecutor gave her the cheque in the
Haymarket, and then said she had not got it. I af-
terwards found on the ground a portion of it. The
prosecutor and prisoner were both in liquor.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—l do not wonder at your being
giveninto custody, but I shall discharge you.

THAMES.
THE SMOKE NUISANCE ACT.—Mr. John Wright,
ropemaker, of Millwall, Poplar, appeared before
Mr. Partridge, upon an adjourned summons taken
out by Inspector Beare, of the K division, and
which charged the defendant with having a furnace
in use on his premises, so constituted as not to
burn or consume its own smoke.

When the case was first heard it was proved by
Inspector Beare, by a police constable, and by Mr.
William Sandison, engineer, in the service of, the
Government, that dense volumes of black smoke
issued from the defendant's chimney shaft, and that
it was a nuisance to the locality, and complained of
by the inhabitants. Mr. Wright promised to abate
the evil if time was given. He was allowed a month
to make the [necessary alterations. It was now
announced that the furnaces had been fitted with
an apparatus from the firm of Wright and Co.,
patent smoke-consuming apparatus manufac-
turers, of Shepherd's-lane, Homerton, and that
the performance of the apparatus in consuming
the smoke was complete. Under these circum-
stances, it was suggested that a nominal penalty
would satisfy the Crown.
Mr. Partridge—Then, the defendant has made his
own smoke-consuming apparatus.
The defendant—No, sir ; the Wrights of Homer-
ton are my namesakes. I have no interest in this
patent, except in the apparatus for my furnaces.
Mr. Sandison, who had, by agreement, been paid
by the defendant for his last inspection, said the
result of the alterations and the new apparatus was
highly satisfactory. He begged leave to state that
before the new apparatus was fixed, the smoke nui-
sance had existed a long time. There were two
chimney shafts continually smoking.
Mr. Partridge—l am glad the nuisance is abated,
but the nominal fine must be 40s. and costs. These
cases impose great trouble and inconvenience on the
authorities and the remedy is generally very late.