The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-23 00:00:00

78
Ad-ni
Dilyo

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-r",

COURT OF DIVORCn.
(before Lord Campbell, Baron Martin, and •
Cresswell.) Sir Cresswell
STUDY V. STUDY

•
The question in dispute was, vi'•-e;,her the documents and
evidence produced supported the decree of the Judge Ordi-
nary, decreeing divorce. 'his was a petition by the wife
for divorce against the husband for adultery with Jean
Murdoch.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., appeared for the husband, and
supported the appeal. The learned counsel contended
that the agreement was entered into by the parties in
the knowledge of the adultery, and that it was binding
on the wife. By that agreement it was declared
that if she did not hilfil the agreement he was to have his
control over her as her husband, on the resumption of his
marital authority over her, whatever his way of living
might be. He submitted that her husband, Major Study,
was entitled to resume his marital rights unless she made
out a new case of adultery against him.
Their lordships were of opinion that the agreement must
be construed in connection with the evidence produced in
the cause.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., referred to the "case of "Barker
v. Barker, 2 Evans, p. 285," on this point, and proposed to
examine and cross-examine the respondent on the subject,
and the court below ought not to have pronounced the
decree appealed from before taking that evidence, as well as
to examine the petitioner on this point. -
Dr. Spinks, Q C., followed on the same side, and said
that under the Act of Parliament the Court were bound to
follow as nearly as possible the practice of the Court of
Arches.
Lord Campbell thought there must be a difference be-
tween facts and presumptions.
Dr. Spinks contended that, according to the true con-
struction of the agreement, he was to have control over her
whatever manner of life he led. It amounted to leave and
licence, and it was for the wife to select that presumption
according to the 43d and 46th sections of the act to submit
to be examined and cross-examined on the case.
Their Lordships alfirmed the decision of the Judge
Ordinary, with costs.

HEARNE V. HEARNE,

This was a petition by the wife against the husband for
divorce, for adultery with a woman of the name of Bustal
—desertion and cruelty.
Mrs. Margaret More, Princes-street, Westminster, was
present at the marriage of the parties on the 3d August,
1854.

Mr. Bethel was present in his shop in the City when the
petitioner called on him for some money. He said he had
none and struck her. The woman Bustal was in the kit-
chen at the time. The parties lived in Church-lane, and I
saw the petitioner after she left him. He allowed her ss.
per week for a short time.

Henrietta Catline—l live in Barclay-street, St. Jonn's-lane.
Knew her living in Judd-street since 1856. She supported
I herself by her needle. Do not know anything about
her habits, but believe she gets her living honestly and
respectably.
Richard Fisher, 8, Red Lion-street, Holborn. On 23d
December, 1857, let his house No. 4, Holborn, to Mrs.
Hearne and her husband—the respondent and co-respondent
(Eustal) in this case. They left on 27th October, 1858,
Was shown the petitioner, Mrs. Hearne—she is a different
woman from the Mrs. Hearne that Mr. Hearne then lived
with in his house. She had a child with her then.
John Conan, salesman, Covent-garden market, knew the
parties when they lired in Church-place. She 1' ft that
place. She is a different person from the co-r. pondent.
Their lordships, under the particular circa
aroatanoes of
the case, decreed judicial separation.

JONES V. JONES.
This was a petition by the wife P.gainst the husband for
divorce for adultery with Miss,.Butcher, and for cruelty.
The respondent was a surgo',n at North Shields, and mar-
ried the petitioner at Cliirist Church there in June, 1847.
The adultery was cot
Mrs. Stife, 'witted in June 1849.
of the petitioner, proved the cruelty on
several occasio7as. In 1849 he knocked her down with a
bootjack a"..id left her insensible on the floor.
Arejliibald Mackerson was in the employment of the pe-
tit',oner's father, Mrs. Davies, brewer, North:Shields, and
was employed along with Police-constable Tod, on 4th
June, 1849, to watch _the respondent's house, and about
two o'clock in the morning saw a light in his room, and went
up a ladder and +looked in by the side of the windowblind
and saw respondent and co-respondent in the same room,
and saw him put his hand round her neck and kiss her ; ho
then threw her down on the floor and had connection with
her.

Their lordships said both the cruelty and adultery were
proved, and decreed divorce with costs.
TURNER V. TURNER AND GILL.
This was a petition by the husband against his wife for
divorce, for adultery with the co •respondent. They were
married in 1854. She said she could not live happily with
the petitioner, and she went to live a few days afterwards
with the co-respondent.

The petitioner was examined, and said there was neither
connivance nor condonation. She went to live, and is still
living with the co-respondent. His circumstances did not
enable him to bring the case before the court sooner.
Mr. M'Can, boat-screw maker, City-road, works at the
same trade wtth the petitioner. He accused the co-respon-
dent, GiP., with cohabiting with his wife, and he admitted
it,

Their lordships decreed divorce with costs.
WITHERS V. WITHERS AND FAIRLEY.
Lord Campbell proposed to hear this case with closed
doors.

Adjourned to chambers to hear the cause.

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT.

GOODE V. SIIALLI3ONE-THE LATE PANIC ON THE STOCK

EXCHANGE.

This was an action to recover £7 35., as balance of a bill
of ezchange.

Mr. Linklater appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bu-
chanan for the defendant.

It appeared that a portion of the goods for which the bill
was given had been returned to plaintiff, and £2 3s. was
struck out.

Mr. Buchanan said that the balance (£5) was admitted
by defendant, who only wanted time.
Mr. Linklater was of opinion that no time should be
allowed beyond a month,

His Honour was determined Rot to allow any indulgence
to a person giving a bill of exchange. The moment it be-
came due it should be paid.
Mr. Buchanan—At the time this bill was given defendant
was pretty well off, but he has somehow or another mixed
himself up with Stock Exchange affairs, and has terribly
suffered by the late panic. By it he is reduced to very
indigent circumstances.

His Honour thought that one month was quite enough
upon a bill of exchange.
Judgment accordingly.
SLATER V. BENJAMIN.-SERVA NTGALISM,-CH APEL ON

GUILDHALL.
EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.—Terenc
and James M‘Lean, two respectably-dressed men, of gen-
tlemanly exterior, were charged, upon a summons, with
conspiring to defraud Mr. James Bigg of £250.
Mr. Humphreys, jun., appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Wontner for the defendants.
This was a bill of exchange matter, and it appeared,
according to the statement of the plaintiff, that the defen-
dants called upon him with a bill of exchange for £250, and
he discounted the same. When this bill became due on
the 21st December, 1857, Terence M'Lean called and
brought with him three bills, each for £B4 19s. 4d., due
respectively at one, two, and three months, and said that
the bill for £250 would not be honoured, the defendants
having fallen into difficulties, but that they had brought
these bills, and that, as collateral security, they would
also hand to him a promissory note, due in six
months, upon Mrs. Ann Southgate, their sister.
Upon this plaintiff handed back the £250 bill, and ac-
cepted the new bills and the promissory note. The first
bill became due on the 24th January, but on the 21st
plaintiff received a Rote informing him that it would not
be honoured, and enclosing a fresh one. This plaintiff de-
clined to receive, and in a few days received official notifi-
cation that defendants had petitioned the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Plaintiff attended that court, and a trade assignee
was chosen, In June, when the promissory note became
due, it was dishonoured, and plaintiff gave instructions to
his solicitor to sue Mrs. Southgate. In the following Sep-
tember he was called upon by James M‘Lean and told that
Mrs. Southgate was unaware of the existence of the pro-
missory note; that she had signed it under the impression
that it was a receipt ; and that if she was told anything
about it she would cease to reside with them, and they
would lose their means of living. The defendants then
offered to give some more bills, promising that plaintiff, as
a "friend in need," should not-lose-by the firm.
Some further evidence having been given the case was
adjourned.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
SYSTEMATIC ROBBERIES BY A JEWELLER'S SIIOPMAN.
--A BAD CASE.--Samuel Fuller, a well-dressed young
man, in the employ of Mr. Charles Packer, jeweller,'of 76
and 78, Regent-street, as junior shopman, was charged with
stealing two bracelets and some marked money, the pro.
perty of his employer.
From the evidence of Mr. Charles Packer it apply ared
that the prisoner had been in his employment abou'„ three
weeks, during which time he had been continual :r, missing
money from, the till, and on Friday night some marked
shillings were put in the till. On Saturday, r,ne of them
being missed, he requested him to show hirn his money
and on the prisoner turning out his pocket 'no found ono of the marked shillings, and subsequently t. second, and on
requesting to see the prisoner's box he found a bracelet of
jet and gold, and in his bag a cameo rind jet bracelet, the
prisoner having denied he had any of his property. There
were other articles of jewellery fog ind (a locket, a signet
and wedding ring.)
Bernard Stanley, 341 A, said there was another case
against the priser_.er for robbing a previous employer of the
other articles rzoduced.
Miss Ms': y Jones, manager of the 'business of Mr. Charles
Grego, ;Jeweller, &c., of 16, Noriton-folgate, Bishopsgate,
said 'le prisoner had formerly Preen in Mr. Grego's employ,
ils'.ving left about a month. 'file articles produced, consist-
ing of the locket and the t: wo rings, were the property of
her employer, and worth, about £3.
Mr. Packer said thorigh he had been extensively robbed
and believed the prif, oner to be a confirmed thief, he wished
the case dealt summarily with.
Mr. Bingham, however, committed the prisoner for trial
on both chariL es.
WILFULLY DESTROYING A SIGN-BOARD.—Edward
Thomas Aston, a respectable-looking man, was chargei
with creating a disturbance and pulling down a large and
very attractive show-board, the property of Mr. Joseph C.
Ruttinger, manufacturer of tobacco and cigars, 3, Carlisle-
street, awl. Dean-street, Soho.
Mr. Ruttinger said there being a disturbance outside of
his house at four the previous morning, he got up, and on
going down stairs found the prisoner with the police, and
that he had tore down his show-board, which contained a
list of his prices, &c., causing him great annoyance. The
damage was about 6s. 6d.

Mr. Bingham having ordered the defendant to pay the
amount,

Mr. Ruttinger said he wished to have it put in the poor-
box.

The defendant said he had been drinking.
Mr. Bingham said that being the case he should fine him
the usual fine of 58.

MR. BRIGHT, 211. P., AND MR. W. JAMES.

The following additional correspondence lies
taken place between Mr. Bright, M.P., and Mr. W.
James :

" Barrack-park, near Carlisle, May 16.
" Sir,—Some person has sent me a copy of the
Carlisle Examiner newspaper of Saturday last, the
14th inst., in which I notice a letter purporting to
bear your signature, dated Rochdale, May 12th,
commenting on some remarks made by me to my
former constituents, the electors of East Cumber-
land, at the late county election held in the city of
Carlisle. I think it is usual, and would certainly
have been well in this case, if you had taken the
trouble to inquire as the correctness of the
report before submitting your comments upon it
for publication. In one particular the report
is not correct. There was a great deal of noise and
confusion while I was speaking, and it is not to be
wondered at that I failed to make myself clearly
understood by all the reporters. I did not cer-
tainly intend to say, and I do not think I did say,
as some of the reporters have attributed to me, that
the sentiment I quoted as having fallen from you
was made after Louis Napoleon had seized the reins
of power (for I was not then in Parliament), but
after he had attempted to do so. Your remark to
which I alluded on the hustings was made upon an
occasion when you, I, and other members of the
House of Commons were standing near the doors
of the House of Lords waiting for admission to
that assembly. I cannot, after such a lapse of
time, fix the precise date, but to the best of my
recollection it was either at the opening or
the close of the session of 1847. A conversation
arose as to what the next change might be in
France consequent upon the then growing un-
popularity of Louis Philippe, and whether the
present Emperor of the Fronch was likely to make
another attempt to seize the reins of power. I have
a distinct recollection of your having, on that
occasion, made use of the expression I quoted, or
words to the like effect, and which you now appear
so desirous to repudiate. In reply to the last
observation in your letter to the editor I am
fortunate in being able to say that I have a good
memory, and as much regard for truth as any man.
—I have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient
servant, " WILLIAM JAMES.
" John Bright, Esq., M.P., Rochdale."

" Rochdale, May 18.
" Sir,—l have to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 16th. If the report of what you said
was incorrect, I think it was your duty to correct
it.. I contradicted it ; and through the channel
where it was made public. With regard to your
explanation, I have only to say that whereas the
original statement was simply untrue, the explana-
tion is not only untrue, but absurd. After Louis
Napoleon's seizure of power such a thing as you
charge upon me might have been said, but not by
me ; but before it, and when nobody suspected that
Louis Philippe and his family would be driven from
France such a thing is in the highest degree
improbable and absurd. If you do not recol-
lect the time when you heard me say some-
thing which
it
ywoouulddo
haveno t accurately remember,
prudentlrenember,
I
in you, and more just to me, to have .
abstained from
making ach ar charge against a i
you had
pudn
nst mew youhirche t
are unable
to substantiate,
ywhcioz.fi confined
yourself to that genral abuse of me which has
ma
rked the course of your political associates during
nred
the recent elections, I should not have thought it
necessary to comment upon what you had said.—
I a,m, "
JOHN BRIGHT.
James,
Esq.,
Barrack-park, Carlisle."

l ‘Barrack-park, near Carlisle, May 19.
ins"taSnirtlyhave to acknowledge the recept of your
letter dated
oyueseteoim•dpayla,iinn roefplmyytonmotinehaovfitnhge Ic6otrh.
rested the inaccuracy in my speech in the columns
of the newspaper where it was made public. I
presumed that if you had felt yourself aggrieved
by what I was reported to have said you would
naturally have written to me for an explanation ; I
do not feel myself called upon to enter into a cor-
respondence with the editor of the Carlisle Exa-
miner. You repeat that my statement is untrue.
I am quite prepared to give you credit for believing
it to be so, as you have doubtless forgotten what
took place as referred to in my last letter. lam as
firmly confident of its truth, that you used words
to the effect that any, man in any country had a
right to place himself in a similar position to that
which the French Emperor now occupies, if he
could. I have not forgotten the remark, for, as I
stated on the hustings, it made a very strong im-
pression on my mind at the time. I would not
knowingly or wilfully be guilty of injustice to you
or to any man. You may consider my explanation
absurd ;it is nevertheless true.--I am, sir, your
obedient servant, " W. JAMES.
" John Bright, Esq., M.P."

NORWICH ELECTION PETITION.--It is said that a
petition is to be presented on the meeting of Parliament
against the return of Lord Bury and Mr. Schneider for
Norwich. The petition originates with the Conservatives,
and it is stated that Mr. Slade, Q.C., has been specially re-
tained to conduct the case against the sitting members. It
remains to be seen, however, whether the movement will
lead to any definite result.