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

JONES V. JONES,

This was a petition by the wife against the husband for
divorce for adultery with Miss Butcher, and for cruelty.
The respondent was a surgeon at North Shields, and mar-
ried the petitioner at Christ Church there in June, 1847.
The adultery was committed in June 1849.

Mrs. Stife, sister of the petitioner, proved the cruelty on
several occasions. In 1849 he knocked her down with a
bootjack and left her insensible on the floor.

Archibald Mackerson was in the employment of the pe-
titioner'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 ; he
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. 111‘Cdn, boat-screw maker, City-t:oad, works at the
same trade with the petitioner. He accused the co-respon-
dent, Gill, with cohabiting with his wife, and he admitted
it.
Their lordships decreed divorce with costs.

I* THERS 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. SMALLBONE-THE LATE PANIC ON THE STOCK

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

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 (i 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 not 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.-SERVANTGALISIC-CHAPEL ON

SUNDAY EVENING.

This was a summons to recover 10s. for one month's
wages actually earned. Defendant is of the Jewish nation,
and plaintiff is a stout young Irishwoman. Plaintiff averred
that she had given defendant a fair and proper notice to
leave—that she was a weekly servant, and had given a
fortnight's notice. Defendant refused to pay her anything.
She had to buy her own tea and sugar, and was charged for
a saucer she had broken. She had also been accused of
stealing some potatoes and eating them.
Defendant said that ho wished to have his Honour's
opinion upon a certain point. Plaintiff asked permission to
go to the Moorfields chapel on Sunday evening, and said
she would be back in one hour. He (defendant) sat up for
her till one o'clock on Monday morning, and then went to
bed. Plaintiff did not return until ten o'clock on Moiday
morning, and was then discharged.

His Honour—lt is a very good ground of discharge.
Plaintiff—l had given notice, and my notice was up.

Miss Benjamin (defendant's sister) said that she had been
summoned by plaintiff, and having attended, no one ap-
peared, and the case was struck out.
Plaintiff positively swore that she was present on that
occasion, and that she spoke to Miss Benjamin, and was
told that she had summoned the wrong person, but
this was as positively denied, and Miss Benjamin stated
that she heard the cause called.
His Honour was of opinion that it was very extraordinary.
Miss Benjamin said she engaged plaintiff as a monthly
servant at 10s. She had advanced plaintiff 2s. 6d. occa-
sionally. Plaintiff had given no notice, and on the day of
her discharge had seven days to serve to make up her time.
Plaintiff—That was the only way I could get away from
the house, and they would not let me go out.
His Honour—You must know that the law allows Mr.
Benjamin to keep the three half crowns you have earned in
his pocket. It is misconduct for a servant to pretend to go
to church, and then to leave her situation and not return
till 10 o'clock on Monday morning. It will be a nonsuit,
with no costs.

A STRANGE STORY.—At the Bristol Bankruptcy
Court, on Monday, Samuel Lewis, of Bryncethin, near Car-
diff, corn factor, was examined by Mr. Stone, before Mr.
Commissioner Hill, and made one of the most extraordinary
statements ever heard in a court of bankruptcy. He de-
posed that, about eight weeks ago, being in Cardiff, he ac-
companied a girl to a brothel, and was there robbed of notes
amounting to about £Bl5 ; that he did not discover his loss
till the following day, when he was at Merthyr, and that he
then gave no information to the police or any one else, fear-
ing that the matter would come to his wife's knowledge.
About five weeks since he came to Bristol, and there
met another "young woman," with whom he went
to the house, and was there robbed of between £560
and £6OO. He gave no information of the robbery, but
went home and told his wife of the loss, but not of the
circumstances under which he now alleged it had taken
place. He stated further, that on another occasion he had
been eased of £l5, and had several times lost smaller sums
under similar circumstances. He also told a mostimpro-
bable story about the sale of £350 worth of goods to his son
shortly before the bankruptcy. At the conclusion of the
examination Mr. Stone applied for the committal of the
bankrupt, as the story he had told was inconsistent, incre-
dible, and utterly impossible to be true. His Honour—
"My duty is very simple. I have now attended for 39
years in criminal courts, but I never knew such a case as
this, nor anything like it." The bankrupt was then re-
moved in custody.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

GUILDHALL.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.—Terence
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 INPLean 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 note informing him that it would not
be honoured, and inclosing 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 APLean 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.