The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-11 00:00:00

GROVER V. GROVER.

This was a suit for separation on the ground of adultery,
promoted by the husband, Mr. Grover, against his wife,
Louisa Grover. The parties were married on the Ist of
August, 1830, and in the course of June, 1834, they pro-
ceeded, with their child and one female servant, to the
town of Villedieu, in France, where an adulterous inter-
course was alleged to have taken place between the defen-
dant in this cause and M. Amadis de Wall, director of the
post in that town, and a Captain in the National Guard.
After the return of Mr. Grover's family to their residence
in Gloucester-place, London, on the Ist of September, it
was stated that a clandestine correspondence was kept up
between the parties charged with adultery, through the
medium of Sarah Reynolds, the female servant who had
accompanied them to Villedieu. The libel on the part of
the husband was now offered to the Court for admission. •

His MAJESTVG ADVOCATE appeared for the wife; and
Dr. BURNAIY for the husband.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON directed the libel to be admitted, sub-
ject to a few alterations which he had pointed out.

THE OFFICE OF- THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY WALTER

V. 31ONTAGUE AND LAMBRELL.

In this case the office of the Judge was promoted by the
Rev. Mr. Walter, the Rector of the parish of Lee, in Kent,
against the churchwardens, the other parties in the cause,
for making or causing to be made a new footpath across
a part of the churchyard of the said parish, thereby dese-
crating such part, and for making or causing to be made
a new entrance into the churchyard, and for taking down
or causing to be taken down a part of the wall forming the
boundary of the said church-yard, and for erecting, or
causing to be erected therein, gates, without the consent
and contrary to the remonstrances of the Rev. Mr. Walter,
the incumbent.
Dr. PHILLIMOUE contended on behalf of the church-
wardens that the offences charged in this case were not cog-
nizable in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and that they violated
no ecclesiastical constitution. •

Dr. ADDAMS on the other side considered it quite clear
that it was competent for the Court to entertain the suit.

Dr. LUSHINGTON stated that the Court was quite satis-
fied that the case was very properly brought before it. As
to the offence itself, he (Dr. Lushington) was ,;]early of opi-
nion that no such footpath could be strictly made, even with
the consent of the incumbent, without a faculty from that
Court, and he even doubted what the authority of that
Court itself was, if any opposition should exist on the part
of the parishioners ; but there could be no doubt that if the
churchwardens, without the consent of the incumbent took
upon themselves to make this new footpath, it w- ; peeectly
competent for him to come to this Court to obtain redress.
With regard to the articles themselves, there were only two
objections taken by the Learned Counsel ; viz., the vague-
ness of certain words, and the non-conformity with tLe cita-
tion. The articles were then directed to be admitted with
reformations.

RAY V. SHERWOOD AND RAY, FALSELY CALLED SH R MOOD

This was a suit for nullity of marriage on the grounds of
incest, brought by •Mr. Ray, the natural father of Emma
Sherwood, one of the other parties in this case. In July,
1827, Mr. Sherwood was married to Rachael Ray, the
eldest daughter of the person promoting this suit, who in a
few years died, leaving two children, and subsequently a
clandestine marriage had taken place betwe'm the said Mr.
Sherwood and Emma Ray, the sister of his former wife,
which was not discovered until the 9.2 a of August, 1835.
The suit.was now brought for nullity of marriage, on the
grounds of Mr. Sherwood having :named in succession the
two sisters, and within the pro',ll3ited degrees. The libel
on the part of the father had, been given in. It pleaded
that he had an interest in Ole legitimacy or illegitimacy of
his'datghtcr's issue, beca,:ise in the case of her dying intes-
tate, and a spinster, he would inherit her property, and was
now offered for admiss;on.

Dr.'AonAms, on behalf of Mr. Sherwood, argued at ver:
considerable length.

Dr. LtrsuINGToN observed that it would most conduce
to the 'limper administration .of justice to adjourn the fur•
tber consideration of the cause till next Court day.

lIINXIVAN V. ITINXiSAN.
In this case, on Coe application of Dr. PUILLImonr, a
further abatement of 1001. for alimony was made.

MIEN TroaD PETTY SESSIONS.

THE liESTON MURDER.
A man named David Sicor, and his sister, Isabella Can-
non, were yesterday charged under the following circum-
stances :
Sarah Grant, who appeared labouring under great ex-
citement, resided in the village of Whitton, in the parish
of Tstickenhurn. On Friday list the female prisoner came
to witnesses house, and wanted to fight with her. Wit-
ness derAned the challenge, on which she- followed her
throe-gh the village, and struck her, and also said if it was
at Brentford she would beat
not for fear of being had up
witness's ____ brains out. Witness has for a length of
tirne been abused and threatened by both prisoners, and by
ether persons who have as yet evaded the warrants issued
against them.
Thomas Haylock considered Mrs. Grant as bad as the
prisoner Cannon. Being much pressal by the Bench '
state why lie considered they were both alike, he
cause they called each other the vilest names.
Mr. Pownall knew the witness to be r'
bitant of Whitton, and he considere'l resayritttble
under great fear. The Benet .P!'t his evidence
him if he• told all he knew. --* 1t4i414, however, protect
respecting zt murder?- • 44.44 'he heard anything said
tion, said he had. witness, after a slight-hesita-
Grant- of being AtA I;risoner Cannon had accused Mrs.
;it Heston, with the murderers of the man.
071 low, some years
having l';ds,
ina the bit)" since, and also of
the shirt of her husband, whom
She: rAii-Was brie of tl-le mtfderers.
PctiONAu.----What did Grant say in rer3-'
witnessfs. ;le .n Mrs.
quirediftbe prisoner,Cannon,harl r•Y r
the coach she had robbed ;and said she ecr.;,.,. forgotten
of the things which Cannon had given 6; s" Pr"-hloo some
41410. e 7
Airs. Grant here said the
Upbraiding her about the murder. prioon; F os euntinually
Thomas Aikido, the Whitt 4A constable,
peered to give evidence- ver?y'reluetenty wn°'
also

..,dad be-

The murder in question, which. was committed about
five years since, was that of a man named Charles Pink, in
the employ of un Isleworth carrier, who was found bar-
barously murdered one morning near the residence of Mr.
Cook, the indefatigable high constable of the Heeton
dred, for whom, it. is supposed, he was mistaken. For
some time no clue of the murderers could be obtained, but
about twelve months afterwards, in consequence of informa-
tion received by Mr. Cook from a woman named Kite,
whose husband had shortly before been executed for a bur-
glary at Teddington Lock, it was ascertained that Kite and
two men named Weakley and King, who were hung with
him, had "been concerned with others of n gang of despe-
radoes, called the " Brave Twickenham Boys," in the per-
petration of the murder. A man named Young (since
transported), husband of the woman Grant, was at, the
time suspected of being one of the murderers, and it is anti-
cipated, from the schism between those who appear to by
acquainted with the whole particulars, that disclosures will
shortly be made, by means or which the resi•olthe mur-
derers may be brought to justice.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

COURSING.
CHATSWORTH MEETING.

The CaventlishStaite of 3 2/7 for the second dog I
was won by Mr. Robinson's Violet, beating Mr. Gorbury's Smut.
The Derbyshire Stake of 321., with 8/. added for the second dog,
was won by Mr. Slater's Smut, beating Mr. Chew's Topper.
'fhe Club has much increased under the patronage of the Duke
of Devonshire. His Grace walked to the ground on the first day,
and on kaving it was much cheered by the gentlemen assembled,
as well as the populace. The members of the club dined as usual
at. the Edensor Inn, and appeared greatly to enjoy the good cheer
prepared for them by Mr. and Mrs. Walters. There is one cir-
cumstance connected with the running for the Manchester Plate,
which has been communicated to us by an eye-witness, and which
we think it right to lay before our readers. At the time when Mr.
Bennett's dog Rubens and Mr. Bayley's Brutus were running to
decide the match, and the former having made " three points," the
two dogs came in contact with each other, and at the same time the
Judge galloped up to them, but before he could pull up his horse
the animal trode upon Rubens, consequently Brutus won the plate.
Mr. Bennett, we understand, is a loser of 500/., owing to.the acci-
dent, for betting was decidedly in favour of his dog, and no takers,
and he was winning at the time it occurred.