The Sun.
London, England, 1866-11-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
MILFORD V. MILFORD.

This was a petition presented by the wife, praying for
a dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and
cruelty.

The evidence in support of the allegations in the peti-
tion disclosed a series of acts of ill-treatment of the grossest
kind. The petitioner herself was examined to support the
cruelty, and said she was induced to institute the proceed-
ings for the protection of her life. Her husband, she stated
was a person of a very violent temper, and very
frequently when angry with her he would strike her
in the most savage manner. O❑ one occasion he quar-
relled with her and took up the poker and threatened to
dash her brains out ; she, however, got out of the way,
and, thinking her life in danger, she communicated with
her friends, telling them of the treatment she was receiv-
ing from her husband. Oa other occasions she stated he
would discuss in the presence of herself and friends the
question of the Ivauty of several young women with whom
he was on terms of the closest intimacy. He had continu-
ally thrown things at her, and in the year 18,33 he at-
tempted to suffocate her with a pillow in the bedroom in
consequence of a quarrel about the removal of the portrait
of a lady from the house.

Evidence having been given to support the evidence
given by Mrs. Milford, and also to support the other alle-
gations of the petition,
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., addressed the Court on behalf of
the respondent, and contended that the most exaggerated
accounts had been given to his lordship of the various
acts of cruelty upon which it was sought to obtain a dis-
solution of marriage. With respect to the account given
of the quarrel when it was alleged the respondent took up
the poker and threatened his wife, the evidence of the ser-
vant maid, which had been given to the Court to substan-
tiate it, clearly showed that there was no intention
on the part of Mr. Milford to injure his wife. He
was not there to deny that language of a very
objectionable character had been used that could not be
contradicted, but what he desired to illustrate was that
angry words broke no bones. With respect to the quarrel
when the poker was taken up, the evidence again went to
show that it could not have been of such a violent cha-
racter, as Mrs. Milford herself the neat morning went to
her husband and told him that unless he expressed his
sorrow for what he had done she would inform his friends
of his conduct. He did not imagine the Court would at-
tach that importance which the petitioner did to that quarrel
because the matters that occurred shortly after showed that
the wife did notiaelieve that her husband actually intended
to carry out his threat. Ho did not deny that frequently
quarrels arose between the parties, and that the husband
used language that was not at all proper for a gentleman,
but then that circumstance would not entitle the petitioner
to a dissolution of her marriage. The story relative to the
alleged suffocation with the pillow was also greatly exag-
gerated, and the fact that the petitioner remained the
rest of the night with her husband in the bedroom
showed that she at the time did not apprehend any
danger to her life. The petitioner had parted from her
husband in the most friendly manner; and it was not till
she got into the hands of other parties that the present suit
was thought about and finally brought forward.
His Lordship said the adultery was undoubted, but with
respect to the cruelty ho should fully consider the whole
of the evidence before giving judgment.

HOTINE V. HOTINE AND MOORE.

This was a petition presented by the husband, a fish-
monger, carrying on business in Upper-street, Islington,
for dissolution of marriage, ou the ground of adultery with
the co-respondent Moore, who formerly carried on busi-
ness at 17, Gracechurch-street, and latterly at 28, Love-
lane, City.

. _
After hearing the evidence the Judge Ordinary said it
was quite clear the husband knew how matters were going
on, and he therefore dismissed the petition.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn

and Justices Mellor and Lush.)
FENLIN V. LINGARD.

Mr. Bingham Daly, on behalf of the defendant, moved
to set aside a verdict which had been obtained by the
plaintiff, on the ground that the same had not been pro-
nounced equitably, in so much as his client had been taken
by surprise. From the statement of the learned counsel it
appeared that the plaintiff had brought an action against
the defendant, to recover a sum of £24, in a county court.
Before the day appointed for the hearing of the cause his
client gave notice that it was his intention to have the
case moved to a supreme court. The usual form of giving
that notice had been resorted to, and although he
would have preferred that a writ of certiorari
had been moved for, yet the proceeding was regular.
Notwithstanding, however, the plaintiff went to trial, and
the result was a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. He con-
tended that the verdict should not be permitted to stand
under the circumstances. The learned counsel having
commented upon the importance of the question legally
considirod, expressed a hope that the Court would grant
the rule.
Mr. Justice Lush said there was no doubt the more
regular coarse would have been to have moved for a writ
of certiorari, but he did not consider that that irregularity
was sufficiently important to deprive the defendant of the
benefit of the present application.
The rule was granted.
GORDON V. FOSTER.

Mr. B. Daly moved for a rule in this case, calling on the
plaintiff to show cause why the defendant should not be
allowed to record his pleading in the case. Thefacts were
not of any general interest, but the legal question involved
is important, inasmuch as it raised the question as to
whether a party who had accepted a bill in part payment
of an account could enter into an agreement with the party
who gave the bill to allow the payment of it to stand over
on the consideration of receiving 10 instead of 3 per cent.
upon it, and then sue the party who gave it in part pay-
ment.
Their Lordships granted the rule.