The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-09 00:00:00

CIIERRY V. CHERRY.

The wife had petitioned the Court for judicial
separaticn from her husband, a clergyman of the
Church of England, on the ground of cruelty. The
case was defended, and the Court, considering that
the alleged cruelty had not been established, dis-
missed the petition. The husband then obtained a
decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and the
wife was ordered to return home.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., on the part of the husband, ap-
plied to the Court for a decree, enabling him to
issue writs to the sheriffs of the different counties
of England to arrest the wife for contempt of Court.
The decree of 23d December, 1858, directing her to
return to her husband had not been complied with,
and a writ of sequestration against her property,
which had been settled on her, and which was con-
siderable, was then issued. This writ had been
evaded, and Mr. Cherry had no means of enforcing
it, so that he was compelled to make the present
application to give effect to the order of the Court.
Sir C. Cresswell said that Mr. Cherry would be
incurring great expense.
Dr. Deane said that he understood that if all the
write were issued they Would be about 80 in num.

ber. However, he hoped it would not be necessary
to issue them all.

Sir C. Cresswell inquired if it was usual, accord-
ing to the* practice of the Court of Chancery, to
issue a writ of attachment against the person when
there was one already out against the property.
Dr. Deane replied in the negative, and said that
the writ of sequestration had not yet been brought
in.

Sir C. Cresswell said he could make no order
until the writ was returned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—May 8.

MANSION. HOUSE,—Frederick George Har-
rington, a man of about forty years of age, having
rather a respectable appearance, and in the employ-
ment of Messrs. Alfred Davis and Co., Sheffield and
Birmingham warehousemen and foreign importers,
was brought before Mr. Alderman Rose, who was
sitting for the Lord Mayor, charged with embezzle-
ment.

It appeared that the prisoner had been in the
employ of the prosecutors for some years, and it was
his duty to receive money from the porters for goods
which they had delivered, and if a large sum to
hand it over to the cashier at the end of the day ; if
a small amount Wednesdays and Fridays were the
days on whicth he ought to settle his accounts.
On the 21st of March one of the porters, named
Neale, delivered two parcels of goods, and
received in payment two amounts, viz., £6 9s. 6d.
and £l5 13s. 10d., which he handed over to the
prisoner. He also handed him another amount on
the 4th April, viz., £2 Os. 10d. It was proved that
he had not paid those amounts to the cashier, and,
when taxed with having robbed his employers, he
said that he intended to have paid it back again,
and lie wondered it had not been found out before,
as he had been carrying it on for the last two years.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and said he wished
to be dealt with summarily. He was accordingly
remanded until Friday, in order to be dealt with in
petty session.

HAMMERSMITH.—Mr. Charles Cautoys, the
secretary of the London District Telegraph Com-
pany, Canon-street, City, appeared before Mr. Ing-
ham, to answer the complaint of the Fulham Board
of orks, for unlawfully placing certain wires and
other apparatus along Shepherd's-bush and Brook-
green-lane, without the consent in writing of the
authorities having control over the paths.
Mr. J. Bird attended in support of the summons
and said these proceedings had been taken in a
friendly spirit on both sides, and the defendant had
agreed to leave it to his worship to say whether
the company had acted rightly or wrongly, and
were willing to abide by the decision of the court.
The works of the company had been carried out
under the British Telegraph Company's Act, and it
contained a clause to the effect that it shall not be
lawful for any company to suspend wires, &c., in
any public highway without the consent in writing
of the persons having control of the same.

The defendant said the whole question turned on
the consent in writing. The company had served
the board with a notice of their intention to break
open the roads and paths on a particular day, and
when their surveyor saw the board's surveyor, he
told him it was all right, go a-head, or words to
that effect. In consequence of the hard frost set-
ting in, their works were suspended, but directly
the weather broke, the men proceeded to put up
the poles in the manner complained of. The parish
considered they ought to have sent them a second
notice, but their surveyor telling their (the com-
pany's) officer that it was all right, they proceeded
with the works. As a rule they obtained the con-
sent in writing of the authorities, but in this par-
ticular case, having the approval of the surveyor,
they looked upon it as being tantamount to a con-
sent in writing.
Mr. Ingham said there the defendant was wrong,
for the surveyor could not repeal an act of Parlia-
ment. His worship then asked Mr. Bird what ob-
jection there was to the poles and wires.
Mr. Bird said they were an eyesore, and were an
obstruction to the footpath, besides being a nuisance.
Mr. Ingham inquired what power there was in
the act for their removal ?

Mr. Bird said the act did not provide any power
to remove. The case would come under the common
law.

Mr. Ingham told the defendant that no doubt a
violation of the law had been committed.

The defendant said that if they had asked the
surveyor for his written consent at the time, he
would have given it to them.

Mr. In&Tim said they could not waive an act of
Parliament, even if all the notabilities of Ham-
mersmith had met and told them to go on. They
were bound to have had the consent in writing of
the proper persons. _

Bird said the poles were not only an obstruc-
tion but dangerous. A short time ago the wind
blew one of them down across the road, and an acci-
oeut vv vula ham, occurrcd to a heavily laden vehicle,
if it had not been seen by the police, who cut the
Wire and rcmoycd it.

Mr. Ingham would suppose a post blew dos n
and knocked a man on the had and killed him, the
person who erected it would be liable to be tried
for manslaughter, as it was put up without lawful
consent.

The defendant said he was quite aware they had
done wrong in not having the consent in writing,
but they thought it unnecessary after what had
fallen from the surveyor.
Mr. Ingham suggested an arrangement between
the parties, which was agreed to.
Mr. Bird asked for a nominal conviction, which
Mr. Ingham consented to inflict, and accordingly
imposed a fine of ls., and 2s. costs.
The money was paid, and the defendant pro-
mised to lay the matter before the directors, to ob-
tain their consent to placing the wires under ground
instead of above.

IMPORTAN7 THEATRICAL INQUIRY.

DANCE V. BRAHAM.

In this case, adjourned from the 26th ult., and
which came on yesterday, an action was brought in
the Westminster County Court, by the plaintiff,
Chief Clerk of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and a
Member of the Dramatic Authors' Society, against
defendant, Mr. Ward Braham, son of the late
eminent vocalist, and an officer in the Royal Berks
Militia, resident at Bolton row, Piccadilly, to
recover the sum of 40s , a penalty he had incurred
by taking a character in a piece called " The Won-
derful Woman," played at the Theatre Royal, Ryde,
Isle of Wight, on the 12th of October last, without
permission of the author or the society.
The case was adjourned in consequence of its
being stated by defendant's legal adviser that the
society's authority for the performance of the drama
could be produced.

Mr. G. Lewis, solicitor, Ely-place, now, as pre-
viously, attended to press the case, and Mr. John
M‘Millin' of Danes Inn, Strand, to resist, the court
as before being thronged with authors and theatri-
cals.

The first witness called was Mr. Joseph Stirling
Coyne, secretary to the Dramatic Authors' Society,
who denied ever having given any authority for the
piece in question to be performed on the night and
at the theatre named. He knew a Mr. Brown as
having been lessee of the Ryde Theatre, but the
permission of the society to him to play pieces had
some months before expired.
By Mr. M'Millin—The receipt produced as that
of the payment of the society's fee for the playing
of " The Wonderful Woman" on the 12th of October
last is not mine, nor is it in the handwriting of the
author. The only book I have brought is my last
year's receipt book.
Mr. Lewis—From which your Honour will see,
and no doubt be satisfied, that, from its being similar
to a banker's book, the witness cannot be wrong as
to dates and money received.
Mr. M'Milliu—Well then I contend that under
the 3d and 4th Wm. IV., cap. 15, what has taken
place in the Isle of Wight, a judge in the county
court of Middlesex has no jurisdiction.
Judge—l overrule that objection, being by a
more recent act of Parliament empowered to adju-
dicate.
Mr. M‘Millin—Be it so. Now, Mr. Coyne, have
you over sued an actor before ? Mr. Coyne—Yes,
repeatedly. Amateurs.
The defendent being then examined, stated, that
in the month of October last, at the written re-
quest of Captain Roebuck, a friend, he consented to
take the character of Pomeroy, in the " Wonder-
ful Woman," at the Theatre Royal, Ryde, for a
charitable purpose. On seeing the captain, he
suggested to him the necessity of getting the
society's permission, which the latter assured him
should be done, and he was subsequently shown
the receipt produced for the fee paid, which was
dated October 14th. He believed Mr. Brown was
actor."
By rate, he was
tnheearllyessaelewaaytstahne
,t,itname,atbeuurt,
By Mr. Lewis—Had been before threatened by
the Dramatic Society with proceedings for per-.
forming without their authority, and had settled
with them.

Mr. Lewis—l submit that the act saying, " any
lessee or manager of a theatre, or any other person
taking part in the representation of a play, with-
out permission of the Dramatic Society, is liable to
a penalty," in fact to the whole amount that such
play produces.
Judge—Then suppose one certain play is only
performed which realises £.50 in money paid
the audience, do you mean to say that N eh
actor is liable for that amount if the society can
not hold with you ? Mr. Lewis—l maintain that
ouch would, be the CPO ; and as thi§ is § vase of

vast importance to the theatrical world generally,
I hope you will defer your decision, to give your
Honour and myself an opportunity to look over
some cases bearing on the present facts reported
in the law journals.
Judge-1 acquiesce in your request, for I should
not decide without reflection upon an important
matter.

The cause was then further adjourned for a fort-
night. Question of costs reserved.