The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-24 00:00:00

STEAD V. STEAD.

This was a petition by the wife for divorce against the
husband for adultery and bigamy.
It appeared from the evidence of affidavits read that the
respondent was convicted of bigamy at the Manchester
Assizes. Their lordships decreed divorce.
WALKER V. WALKER AND WATERSON.
This was a petition by the husband for divorce against
his wife, for adultery with the co-respondent Waterson.
John Michael Stubs proved the marriage of the parties at
St. George's Church; and cohabitation with the co-respon-
dent. She had four children and two of them were in the
house at the time he called on her.

Benjamitu Reed is related to Mrs. Walker, but does not
know how they lived together.
Mrs. Ann Gillimore is sister of Mrs. Walker. She was
in the familyway before she was married. The parties
lived with her a short time afterwards, and she went to live
with Mr. Waterson. She has been eleven years
with him and they live comfortably together. The petitioner
did not say that she deceived him. The child was born
shortly afterwards.
Stephen Walker, brother of the petitioner, remembered
the parties' marriage. They lived happily together after
the child was born for some months.

Lord Campbell was of opinion that the petition ought to
be dismissed, in respect that the petitioner was not entitled
to turn away his wife for misconduct previous to the mar-
riage, and make no provision for her and her children.
Chief Baron Pollock considered that the marriage and
subsequent cohabitation of the parties:*aftor the birth of
the child was a sufficient condonation of the previous mis-
conduct.
Petition dismissed.

BRITTAIN V. BRITTAIN AND CAMP.
This was a petition by the husband against his wife for
divorce for adultry with the co-respondent Camp. Further
hearing. An issue was tried on the 19th of February,
1859, and the only question to be proved was the marriage.
Mary Free proved the marriage of the parties at the
parish church of St. John's, Waterloo-road, Lamboth, 2d
August, 1840.

Air. Lilly, on the authority of the case of Tout v. Tout,
asked leave on affidavits to amend the pleas of the respon-
dent and co-respondent.
Leave to amend pleas granted, with liberty to answer.

SHERIFFS' COURT.

RESULT or DISPUTING A JUST DERT.-COCKLII P. DORER.

This was a summons to recover a sum of money for
printing and paper.
Defendant's son appeared, and said that he disputed
about half of the account ; and upon going over the items
his Honour elicited that, out of a long list, only two reams
of paper were objected to, and these were in a short time
admitted to have been received.

His Honour ordered the debt to be paid in ten days.

Witness—l must ask for a little time.

Plaintiff—The defendant called upon me last night, ad-
mitted the debt, and said it was no use my coming to this
court, as he had sold off all his things.
His Honour—l'll not give any time where a just debt is
disputed, and especially after what defendant said yester-
day.—Short order.

LOAN SOCIETIES AND PROMLiSORY NOTES.-ADCOCK AND

OTIIERS V. LEWINOTON.

This was an action upon a promissory note for £3. The
amount 'sought to bo recovered was a balance, and the
plaintiff was a mutual loan assurer.
His Honour, upon seeing the promissory note, which was
regularly stamped, told the plaintiff's representative that
he could not recover, as the note was for less than .Co.
Nonsuit ed.