The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-25 00:00:00

PECKOVER V. PECKOVER AND JOLLY

This was a petition by the husband for divorce against
the wife for adultery with the Co-respondent.
Their lordships were of opinion that the marriage and
adultery were proved, and decreed divorce, with costs,
against the co-respondent.
KING V. KING AND BROWN.

This was a petition by the husband against the wife for
divorce for adultery with the co-respondent (part heard).
John Parsons, solicitor, proved the marriage of the
parties at St. Botolph's Church, Aldgate, City, in 1814. .
The alleged adultery was supposed to be committed on
board the ship Vernon, on her passage from England to
Bombay, 2d September, 1855.
William King, Maria Wyatt, James-Purcell, William
Aspinal proved the cohabitation.
Lord Campbell said the marriage and adultery were
clearly proved, and decreed divorce, with costs against the
co-respondent.
Baron Martin observed he could have wished to hear
farther evidence if it could be got.
The co-respondent's counsel said his client was, at the
time, 17 or 18 years of age, and it could be shown that the
lady seduced and carried away the gentleman.
Lord Campbell could not hear it.
BRITAIN V BRITAIN AND CAMP.-(FURTHER HEARING.)
This was a petition by the husband against the wife for
divorce for adultery with the co-respondent.
This case was postponed to amend pleas.
The respondent's counsel proposed on affidavits to prove
it or add a plea of re-crimination against the husband on
the evidence of her mother and his surgeon—that the peti•
tioner at the time she left him was labouring under the
lothsome disease of gonorhea.

Lord Campbell refused the application.
The respondent's counsel then applied for a small weekly
allowance.

Their lordships allowed her Bs. per week to be paid for
her to her mother. •

The respondent's counsel also applied for costs, on the
authority of the case Evans v. Evans; Holt v. Molt, where
costs were applied for de die in diem; Ling v. Ling, before
this court, where costs were given under similar circum-
stances, where the wife had no money to pay costs.
Sir Cresswell Cresswell said if costs were applied for be-
fore hearing costs were given, but after decree against her
no costs are given under section 51 of the act.
The petitioner's counsel opposed the application. £l9 had'
been already paid, and that was sufficient, besides Ss. per
week to be paid. She can get her costs from the co-respon-
d.tnt—Wells v. Wells (divorce cases).
Lord Campbell said, to compel the petitioner to pay costs
whether he was right or wrong, would be monstrous. If
the application had been made before the trial she would
have got costs, or her attorney for her, but the Court cannot
now give costs.

Baron Martin had difficulty in understanding the grounds
on which costa were given to a woman guilty of adultery
against the husband ; they might be given to her attorney
if he applied in time, but not having done so he lost his
remedy.

Sir C. Cresswell said costs were given to the wife to
enable her to defend herself, but here she had all the'
assistance she could have, and it was the duty of the attor-
ney to apply before hearing for payment of his taxed bill of
costs.

Their lordships decreed divorce, without costs to wife's
attorney, and without costs against co-respondent, as he
was a poor man.

COURT OF BANK RTJTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulbuin.)
IN RE FREER A N AND CHARTRES-TIIII COMMERCIAL

RESTAURANT.

These bankrupts had carried on business at the Cotniner-
oial Restaurant in Cheapside, and were yesterday gazetted
as bankrupts. The "Commercial" was set up against the
" Patrician," and both have failed, the " Patrician " being
also a bankrupt.

Mr. Lawrance now applied for a private meeting, and one
was appointed for Monday next.

IN RE CARTWRIOHT.-AN AWKWARD EXECUTRESS-SHIP,

Mr. Lawrance applied in this case for the allowance of
the accountant's charges out of the estate. The facts were
that the deceased husband of the bankrupt had been in
partnership with other persons, and on his decease she con-
tinued the share business as executrix, and her liabilities
caused the failure. As she had no knowledge of the ac-
counts she was compelled to engage an accountant, whose
charges amount to £75.
His Honour considered this to be a case within the
meaning of the Act, the bankrupt being unable to render
assistance, and made an order.