The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-07 00:00:00

11 *

1 t-
UG 190
365 375
90 95
261 27e

27 i
41

310 315
3 31
130 140
341 361
14 2
4f 51
18} 19i
54 57
365 375
00 95
105 115
1i 21
9 10
11 13
11 l6
XES.

d 16
6
316 356
-- dig.
39 41
7 9
26 3
24 25
* EP
if 14 P
76 86
id yr
id

11351

3 4
I
d
5} 52
I

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(27as Day).

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Creswell and a Common Jury.)
POLLACK V. POLLA.CK—DEAZsTE AND MACNAMARA.

In this case the husband, who is a sugar-refiner, and
keeps one ofthe largest establishments in Prussia at Konigs-
berg, petitioned the Court for dissolution of marriage with
his wife on the ground of her adultery with the co-re-
spondents. e
. _ _

Macnamara denied the adultery and the marriage, and
he also pleaded condonation and collusion; and Deane de-
nied the adultery, and pleaded connivance and collusive
prosecution of the suit.
The respondent did not appear, and Macnamara was not
represented by counsel.

Dr. Swabey was counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.
Merryweather and Mr. O'Dowd appeared for the co-re-
spondent Deane.
Dr. Swabey stated the case. This was a suit instituted
by Mr. Solomon Pollack under rather peculiar circum-
stances. The marriage took place at the parish church,
Marylebone, in 1852, and they cohabited chiefly at Konigs-
berg, but occasionally in England, at the commencement
of 1859. In that year the petitioner became acquainted
with certain circumstances, which satisfied him that his
wife had committed adultery with both of the co-respon-
dents, and he immediately took steps to obtain a divorce.
The offences were stated to have taken place at the house
where Mr. and Mrs. Pollack boarded in 1858, at the Great
Western Hotel, Paddington, and at Kew. It further
stated that there were two children, the issue of the mar-
riage.

Richard Laurance, a medical man, s rid that he was ac-
quainted with Mr. and Mrs. Pollack, and he knew the latter,
whose maiden name was Worsley, previous to the marriage.
He was aware that they lived at Holloway as well as Char-
lotte-street, Fitzroy-square, between 1858' and 1859. In
cross-examination he said that the petitioner had a son
eighteen years old by a former wife, from whom he had
been divorced, as he understood, at his own instance.
The evidence of a female named Emilie Ruditski, which
had been taken by commission at Konigsberg, was then
read. She said that she was in Mr. Pollack's service as
nursery-maid, and was with them in Charlotte-street,
Fitzroy-square. Mr. William Macnamara, the co-respon-
dent, occupied a bedroom with his brother on the same floor
as Mr. Pollack's apartments. Had never seen any improper
familiarity between them. She saw Mrs. Pollack go into his
bedroom sometimes with Mr. Pollock, and sometimes by
herself. The latter circumstance did not excite any suspi-
cion in her mind. Mrs. Pollack admitted to her that she
had sexual intercourse with Mr. Macnamara, who promised
to marry her if she obtained a divorce. She had reason
to believe that they slept together one night, and Mrs. Pol-
lack admitted the fact.

Some other evidence was called, which was not very ma-
terial, and this closed the petitioner's case, which was
abandoned, as far as Deane, the second co-respondent, was
concerned.

The jury found that the respondent had committed
adultery, but there was no evidence to criminate the co-
Despondent.

Mr. Merryweather then applied for costs on the part of
Mr. Dean.
The learned judge said that he would consider the whole
subject before deciding this point.

The jury found a verdict to the effect that adultery had
not been proved, and the Court dismissed the petition.

DESPATCH OF GOLD 70 AMERICA.

The despatch of £5,000,000 in gold to New York
during the early part of the year was followed with
only a short intermission, by a further sum of
£1,400,000, forwarded within the past three weeks.
Of this latter total, £320,000 had already arrived
out at the date of the last advices, yet the rate of
exchange showed no improvement, the quotation
being still 1051. All the leading bankers in that
city as well as the principal firms here are per-
plexed at this result. The apparently anomalous
remittances in January and February were in
some measure accounted for—after a variety of
futile explanations had been attempted—by the
rush of our people to purchase American securities
at what they believed to be greatly depreciated
prices, but since that time their operations are
believed on the average to have tended rather the
other way. With the cotton season closed and
little produce to come forward except grain, flour,
and salted provisions the fact that under these cir-
cumstances we are still remitting bullion at the rate
of more than a million and a half a month may well
excite surprise. The value even of the enormous
quantities of breadstuffs we are receiving from New
York cannot be estimated at more than about
£1,300,000 per month, and, as the American impor-
tation of our goods, although greatly reduced, has
still continued during the present year at a monthly
rate of at least £1,000,000, the existence of a very
adverse balance seems now inexplicable. But, of
course, there must be a satisfactory reason for it,
and a little reflection will show where it lies. For
years past we have acted as bankers for America
in nearly all her transactions with the East,
and partially also in those with the Continent,
Australia, and elsewhere. When a merchant in
America sent orders to China or India he would
direct the bills for the amount to be drawn upon his
correspondents in London, and to provide for this
liability he would remit bills or specie to our
market. Hence there was a steady flow hither of
Californian gold, and the rate of exchange at New
York was nearly always in favour of England. But
it now appears that since January there has been
a remarkable suspension of American orders to the
East, as well as to the Continent of Europe, and
consequently that the claims on London falling
due from those quarters on American account
must for some time be unusually small. The
Americans not having to provide for such
claims have been enabled to instruct us to
remit to them in specie those amounts we should
otherwise have had to retain in preparation for
payments to other parties on their account, Thus,
while their rates of exchange have been rendered
most unfavourable to us, those between China and
England and the Continent and England have been
advantageously influenced. With this solution we
can understand how it is that since the beginning
of January we i.ave parted with £6,000,000 of gold
to America, instead of receiving from her a certain
amount, as under normal circumstances we should
have done, and that the Bank bullion, nevertheless,
stands at this moment almost exactly as high as at
that period. We shall at the same time be relieved
of such disquiet'as may have prevailed from the many
statements circulated as to the nature of the Ame-
rican drain and the predictions as to its conse •
quences. Sound observers could see from the first
that, practically, there could be no long-continued
injurious draught upon our resources from that
quarter, but the form in which the matter would
right itself was not so readily apparent. Conse-
quently, when the power of America to take our
gold seemed, week after week, to increase against
all former experience, every logical calculation was
contradicted. There was a certainty, however,
pthtlaaineidn.
Tt had e evigandolethpeheannnommeanlya
hwaovueld
evbiedenetxly-
been but the result of one of those changes in the
channels of commerce which invariably take place
from great political disturbances. America has
taken an excess of our gold simply because she has
not required us to pay it away for her, as usual, to
other hands. That which we should otherwise have
had to send to China, Germany, Russia, France, or
elsewhere, we have sent to New York. Our pay-
ments for American cotton, grain, &c., have been
direct instead of indirect. Practically, therefore,
there has been no abnormal drain. If a man who
has been accustomed, as agent, to pay £lOO to a

neighbour is told to cease that payment and to send
the amount to his principal, his own position is the
same in either case, and this is exactly that which
has happened with us. Of course, we have suffered
from the fact that our grain requirements have ex-
ceeded, month by month, all previous anticipations,
while the demand for our goods in America has, on
the other hand, been impaired, but these points are
wholly subordinate, and do not affect the all-im-
portant conclusion that the intrinsic disturbance to
our commerce and money market from the crisis in
America has been and must be confined within nar-
row limits, and that all the assumptions with which
the public have been frightened with regard to her
suddenly developed faculties for the absorption of
bullion have been founded only on idle delusions,—
Times City Article.