The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-17 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Lord Campbell, Mr. Justice Crompton, and Mr.
Justice Hill.)
HUGHES V. LADY DINORDEN-LIBEL.
In this case an action was brought by the plaintiff, a
nephew of the late Lord Dinorben, to recover compensation
in damages against Lady Dinorben, for libellous letters
alleged to have been written by her ladyship, and com-
plained of by the plaintiff as calculated to prove prejudicial
to his prospects and interests in life. The case was tried
before Lord Campbell and a special jury, at Guildhall, and
resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, costs being taken, by
consent of the learned counsel on both sides, at 40s. The
libels were contained in two letters, dated in July, 1852,
and alleged by the plaintiff to have been, written by
Lady Dinorben, the first being addressed and sent to the
late Lord Ravensworth, and the second to the present pos-
sessor of the title. At the time the letters were written
Mr. Hughes was paying his addresses to the daughter of the
present Lord Ravensworth, whom he had since married.
During the last term a rule, calling upon the plaintiff to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a
new trial granted, having been obtained by Mr. Macaulay,
on behalf of Lady Dinorben, and the Attorney-General
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Bovill, and Mr. Honeyman,
now showed cause against the rule, and contended that
there was no ground, in their opinion, for disturbing
the verdict.

The case was proceding when we went to press.]

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary;)
FYSON V. WESTROPE AND OTHERS.
This case came on as a question of costs, and whether they
ought to be borne by Capt. Westrope, who had contested the
will of the testator, a wealthy farmer in the isle of Ely, and
the real question was whether the testator had been unduly
coerced to execute the will and two codicils while in a state
of mind totally unfit for such a proceeding. The will was
also contested by Mr. Culling, one of the executors and
legatees, and also by the heir-at-law, but on the trial, after
the case had occupied a considerable time, the Attorney-
General and Mr. O'Malley, who appeared for the separate
litigants, and finding from the evidence that the codicils
and will could not be successfully resisted, they accordingly
withdrew from further opposition, and a decree in favour
of the validity of the will and codicils, with costs, was
granted; and the question now at issue was, whether there
should be a joint order for the payment of the costs, or
whether they should be wholly paid by Mr. Westrope or
the heir-at-law.
Dr. Deane appeared for the heir-at-law, and contended
that the present was not a case in which the heir-at-law
should be called upon to pay the costs, and, on the other
hand, that, as Mr. Westrope commenced the litigation, he
ought to be ordered to pay the expenses of such a proceed-
ing.

Mr. O'Malley appeared for Mr. Westrope, and argued
that as his client had acted only in a bona fide manner, and
did not question the decision of the court, ho should not be
called upon to pay the expenses of the suit.
Dr. Twigs was heard in support and reply on the rule ob-
tained by him to alter the decree as to payment of costs.
Judgment postponed.
MARCIIMONT V. MARCRMONT.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott, on the part of. Mrs. Marchmont,
applied to his lordship to pronounce a decree of judicial
separation, in accordance with the verdict of the jury.
His Lordship decreed accordingly.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott-4 have another question to sub-
mit to your lordship; it is whether the Court will grant
any other relief to Mrs. Marchmont.
The Judge Ordinary—Oh, no; the lady has got plenty
of money.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott--I was induced to ask the question,
as Mr. Marchmont continues to occupy the house which,
with its contents, belongs to Mrs. Marchmont. Costs ought
to be given against him so as to induce him to give up pos-
session.
The Judge Ordinary—If he continues to occupy the
premises against the will of the owner, he can be, ejected.
It was expected that the case of Jeffrey v. Jeffrey would
be resumed this morning, but the Judge Ordinary was
occupied at the time of our going to press disposing of a
great number of applications fixed for to-day.
SATURDAY, JAN. 15.
aEFFREYS V. JEFFREYS.
This was a testamentary suit, but the sole question in
controversy was whether or not a marriage had been con-
tracted so long ago as 1811.
It appeared that at the beginning of the present century
there lived at a village called Ecclefechan, in Dumfries-
shire, two families named Jeffreys and Bell. Mr. Jeffreys
had a son George, and Mr. Bell a daughter, Clarinda. The
young people were schoolfellows together. Their intimacy
ripened into an attachment which it would be shown termi-
nated in marriage. Jeffreys, who was at first a journeyman
stockingmaker, had an ambition to become a doctor of medi-
cine ; and as the first step in his metamorphosis he
went to Dumfries, and took up his abode with a druggist.
Clarinda Bell also came to Dumfries, having been
apprenticed by her father to a pastrycook, named
Drinkwater. On the 24th of July, 1811, Jeffreys invited
his sweetheart, who was then in her 23d year, to meet him
at the Globe Tavern to be married. She accordingly went
to the Globe, at Dumfries, accompanied by Miss Drink-
water, and there, in the presence of three or four witnesses,
the parties mutually acknowledged each other to be husband
and wife. A certificate was drawn up, signed by those
present, and given to the bride ; after which the new mar-
ried couple:returned to Miss Drinkwater's,where they passed
the night. The next morning they went to Mr. Bell's,
and told him that they were married. Mr. Bell was at
first displeased ; but having been shown the certificate,
he agreed to let the parties live with him. They coha-
bited there till 1816 ; and during that time Jeffreys went
on several whale-fishing expeditions, in the capacity of a
kind of surgeon. At this period he was wretchedly poor,
and his outfit was provided for him by his father-in-law.
Three children were the fruit of the union—a son, John,
who was born in May, 1812, and died at the ago of 11 years ;
another son, Robert, born in September, 1814 ; and a third,
James, born in July, 1815. In 1816 amedical practitioner,
named Bland, died at a neighbouring village called the
Flosh ; and Jeffreys, thinking that an opening was thus
made for him, started business in the surgical line. Shortly
afterwards he sent for his wife, and they cohabited for
some time at the Flosh. Jeffreys, however, got into pecu-
niary difficulties, which brought him into Annan Gaol. His
wife visited him while he was in prison; and when the
hour for shutting up arrived, the turnkey told her she must
go away; but her husband said she was his wife, and she
was allowed to remain with him all night. In the next
year, having obtained his discharge, he went again to Eccle-
fechan—then to Dumfries, and then on more whaling ex-
peditions. In 1820 he took out his diploma. Afterwards
he seemed, as the phrase was, to have " gone under" for a
considerable period. In fact he did not appear again till
the year 1831. Ho had had some quarrels with his wife on
account of the laxity of his principles at Flosh and some
other places, and the parties having agreed to separate,
Jeffreys went away from the neighbourhood. Mr. Bell
'forwards became embarrassed, and was obliged to part
with his farm. In 1831 ho was living at Hull, and there
he met a Scetch drover, who told•him he had seen his son-
in-law at a place called Kcelby, in Lincolnshire, where he
was thriving in the' exercise of his profession. Bell lost no
time in seeking an interview, in which he threatened Jef-
freys with proceedings to compel him to receive' his wife.

(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romily.)
CASE V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
The argument in this part-heard motion for decree was
resumed this morning.

Mr. R. Palmer, Q.C., and Mr. Speed appeared for the
plaintiff.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Hugh MacAlmot Cairns,
Q.C.) and Mr. Pearson were for the defendants.

The contention is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to
navigate the Coventry Canal by patent steamboats of a
new construction, of Mr. Renshaw's invention, 70 feet
long from stem to stern, 3 feet 11 inches from gunwale to
keel—rate of speed from 2t03,3 to 4, and 5 miles an hour,
to carry coal from Moreley Colliery to London by the
Coventry, Ashley, and Regent's-canals, free of wave,
surge, or wash, more than an ordinary canal-boat or barge,
and which does no injury whatever to the banks of the
canal, It is probable that the arguments will continue all
day.