The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-27 00:00:00

LATY INTELLIGENCE—(71u Day).-

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
IN RE BRANNAND'S PATENT.
This was a petition for a patent of a new invention in
printing on calicos, petticoats, window-blinds, Ito., in
colours of several ornamental designs. The petition wail
opposed on the ground that the invention was not new,
and laches in the proceedings to complete the patent.
The Lord Chancellor, on considering the circumstances
of the case, was of opinion that sufficient laches had not
been proved to prevent the petitioner from going before the
Attorney-General, and obtain his report before the patent is
sealed. Costs reserved until the report of the Attorney.,
General is obtained.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
PENNEL V. EARL DYSART-JUDGMENT.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—After looking
over the facts found by the chief clerk at chambers, or by
himself, I am of opinion that I cannot make any order in
favour of Earl Dysart. It is obvious that, both in law and
in equity, this transaction was long ago intended to
be at an end. No person could have anticipated
that any doubt could have arisen on the sub-
ject. The transaction has stood over for many
years, and there is nothing to show that it ever was expected
or intended that any claim would arise in the matter. It
was intended to be a complete and concluded transaction.
His Honour, on considering the circumstances of the case
—that there was only an understanding on one side and no
express understanding on both sides, and no agreement in
writing, and that upwards of 20 years had elapsed and
nothing had been done during all that time, came to the
conclusion that he could make no order in favour of Earl
Dysart.
Petition dismissed with mortgagee's costs.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Creswell.)
MEAD V. MEAD.

This was a suit for a dissolution of marriage instituted
by the wife against her husband on tho ground of adultery
and cruelty.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Tindal Atkinson appeared for
the petitioner ; Sergeant Ballantine represented the respon-
dent.

The parties were married in 1850 at Great Duningvr,
Essex, and there are four children issue of the marriage.
After the birth of the youngest child, about five years ago,
according to the evidence of the petitioner, the respondent,
who was a farmer, ill-treated his wife by beating her in *
violent and most indecent manner, and also applying
epithets of a most foul-mouthed character. (On one
of the witnesses saying the language was too bad
to be repeated in court, the Judge Ordinary said
that there were several women in oourt who had.
nothing to do with the case, and if they heard any-
thing unpleasant they had only themselves to thank for it.)
In September, 1858, a young woman, named Stock, with
whose family the respondent had been acquainted for some
years, went to reside at the house of the parties as nursery
governess, and considerable quarrelling took place in con-
sequence, as alleged by the petitioner, of the intimacy of the
respondent with Miss Stock. That young woman was con-
fined at the end of April, 1859, at a house in White Hart-
street, Kennington, and ;4- mad prr,,.‘r that. the L.srmdent
visited her thorn under the name of Hawthorn, in which
name Miss Stock had taken the apartments. Evidence was
called to prove these facts.

Sergeant Ballantine addressed the Court, and called Miss
Stock to disprove the allegation of Mead's intimacy with
her.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—( Thia Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
SYSTEMATIC ROBBERIES BY A CHARWOMAN--BAD
CASB.—Winifred Brady, a charwoman, was charged with
the following robbery :—Mrs. Fanny Kohler, Italian ware- '
house-keeper, of 8, Bruton-street, Bond-street, said she had
employed the prisoner a charwoman for about three
years, and for the last year and a half she had been robbed
to a serious extent. On Saturday week last she left her
shop till closed fora few minutes, and on her return she
found that three sovereigns were gone. She spoke to the
prisoner, who assumed innocence, and asked her whether
she thought that she would take it, and as she was
not certain, she did not charge her. On Saturday
last she (Mrs. Kohler) went down to her cellar,
and saw the prisoner coming out with the padlock
in her hand, and afterwards found that she had brought
out a bottle of gin aid placed it outside the cellar door,
evidently having heard her (witness) coming down the
stairs. She afterwards fell on her knees and begged her
forgiveness, stating that the bottle of gin, and one other
which she had taken six weeks ago, were all she had taken.
The cellar had been locked and the key kept on a shelf, ani
the prisoner was never allowed to go to it. The cellar con-
tained a large quantity of articles, and it was impossible
for her (Mrs. Kohler), in consequence, to tell what had been
taken away, but she had no doubt a large quantity of pro-
perty had been.

Prisoner here asked a question of the prosecutrix with
the view of throwing suspicion on another person in her
employ, but Mrs. Kohler denied the imputation, and said
that she had found that the prisoner had also pledged a gold
fruit knife and Albert chain that had belonged to her de-
ceased husband. She had also missed a pair of bracelets
and some silver spoons.

Holman, 226 A, said he took the prisoner into custody
on Saturday evening, and at her lodgings in Smith's-court,
Great Windmill-street, he found 16 duplicates, two of
which related to a fruit knife and Albert chain, identified
by the prosecutrix as her property.
An assistant to Mr. Harrison, of Wardour-street,fpro-
duced the articles, which were identified by Mrs. Kohler,
but said they were pledged by a young man.
With the view of further inquiries being made Mr, Tyr.
whitt remanded the prisoner for a week.