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

THE rSITN; LONDON, TI ETRSDAY tVENING, JUNE 6, 1861.

;usiness done

f 100
15
all
100
1

:AIL'

19.8.
all
all
all
all
all

L 111 P

t 14.6
7.4.0

541
17s
13.9.6
40
6.2.6
8.12
4.11.6
1.10. E

Ii
1.4.0
9.18.9
lk
10.0.7

4i
all
118.1R.9i
24.8.0,

113;Cd1

1.7.2

all
125.6 d

all
1
10s.
all
all

11 I} d
i pr

1 4d
100} 101

97 99
98i 99}
984 994
194 /04
65 68
64 58
34 36
44 47
3t 36
34 36
98 9
d 4 d

91 96
d
10f 11
id

v 5-- 98
90 D 2

85 87
95 CG
87 89

5 7

5 7

994 100 i
lid 1d
-- —d
93 V 5

'AYS.

5i el
2
I 1

lli 12i

3} 21 i
3 2i d
22 23

7! 7!

811,- 81
It,. ?O
884 394

8 9
36 37
53 55

p 4id

13 14

51 6
8 q
ii ipil
i ids,
22 23

6 di
9* 9*
20 21

li4

IF6 190
365 375
90 95
26.4 274
31 ti
13 15
3 4
I
5 54
2 24
39 41
2 24
1 14
47 49
44 41
3* 4
41 54
64 7
8 9*
38 40

310 3t.5
3 3*
*
130 140
I 34* 35*
14 2
41 51
18* 194
54 57
365 376
90 95
105 115
11.
9 10
11 13
, 1.1 16
NES.

14
344 35i
39 41
7 9
I I
2i 3
24 25
l* •It
P P
£q
r r
. d

L4} 14

5i i

131 i

8i i

1(35}

3 4

1

81" at
I I

51 I

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(2hts Day).

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Peers Present.—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham;
Lord Cranworth, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Wensleydale;
and other peers.

APPEAL.-MONEYPENNY V. RIONEYPENNY.

The Lord Chancellor dismissed this appeal by consent of
counsel on both parties at the bar of this house.
APPEAL.-THE HON. DAME GRACE CHARLOTTE MENZIES

V. SIR ROBERT MENZIES, BART.

The further hearing of this appeal, which had been ad-
journed for an amicable settlement, which was not effected,
was resumed this morning.
_ _ _

The Lord Chancell,r expressed his extreme regret that
this case had not been compromised. It was a disgrace to
the country to which the parties belonged, and to the pro-
fession, that such a disagreeable litigation could be carried
on for such a long series of years between a mother and
her son ; but counsel can only discharge their duty and
plead the cause of their respective clients.
Sir Hugh Cairns, Q.C., is now being heard for the re-
spondent. This was an appeal from a decision of the Court
of Session in Scotland, and the point decided by their first in-
terlocutor appealed from was whether the value of unlet
shootings ought to be brought into computation in fixing the
extent of the widow's locality lands. On 25th February, 1851,
their lordships found that the whole right of shooting over the
locality lands was by the disposition of lands conveyed to
the defender during all the days of her life after the decease
of Sir Niel Menzies. And the question raised is whether
the value of the shootings of the locality lands, although
not let by the said Sir Niel Menzies, ought to be taken into
computation with the value of the otker shootings
on the estate in ascertaining whether the provi-
sions made in the said dispositions in locality
does or does not exceed the extent allowed by the entail to
be settled on the wife of the heir in possession, in case of
his prodecease. The pursuer avers that the value of the
shootings over the locality lands is £7OO a year. The
appellant claims one-fourth part of the lands let, and the
question is whether the unlet land is to bear the same
rental in value, or £5OO per annum. The lands are situated
in Menzies, Rannoch, and Foss, Perthshire.
Their lordships decided in favour of the respondent and
the appellant appealed.
The majority of the consulted Judges of the Court of
Session were in favour of the respondent.
The case is not concluded.

Solicitors for the respondent: James Robertson, W.S.,
12, Herriot-row, Edinburgh ; Maitland & Graham, 19,
College-street, Westminster.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.
NEWTON V. NEW TON-WHITFIELD AND FRITH.

This was the petition of the husband, a merchant and
manufacturer at Sheffield, and he prayed for a divorce on
the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-respondents,
to which there was no appearance on the part of Whitfield,
but Frith put in an answer, in which he did not deny the
offence of adultery, but pleaded that the respondent was a
woman of profligate character, and that there was no at-
tempt on his part to seduce her. The respondent pleaded
denial, and that her husband committed adultery on several
occasions with a woman at Manchester, whose name was
unknown.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks appeared for the peti-
tioner; Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. T. E. Palmer for
he respondent; and Dr. Wambey for Frith.
Dr. Spinks opened the pleadings.

Dr. Deane then stated the case, from which it appeared
that the parties were married on the 14th of November,
1857, at the parish church of St. Philip's, Sheffield. The
wife had come originally from Birmingham or Bilston, at
which latter place her relatives were living prior and sub-
sequentto the marriage. Thay cohabited until the beginning
of 1860, when a discovery of her misconduct was made by
the petitioner. There was no issue of the marriage, but the
parties appeared to live happily together. The petitioner
was campelled to be absent from home about six weeks at a
_ . _

time, and about four months in the year altogether, and it
was during these absences that the alleged acts of adultery
were committed, sometimes even at the residences of the
petitioner at Weston- bank, and Kenwood-road, Sheffield.
It further appeared that the respondent was a woman of
loose character,with whom the petitioner had been acquainted
previous to the marriage : but, notwithstanding that, he
treated her with the greatest kindness, and before leaving
home he placed persons with her to protect
her from relapsing into her former course of life. The-co-
respondent Whitfield was a low singer at casinos, but
Frith was the son of a respectable optician in Sheffield,
who was in good business, but it did not appear whether
he was in partnership with him. The first act of adultery
was alleged to have taken place with Whitfield in April,
1860, and was subsequently repeated, and she afterwards
committed herself with Frith. The petitioner having dis-
covered her misconduct, which occurred while he was
travelling on business, sent her away, making her at the
same time an allowance sufficient to support her and 'pre-
vent her being driven into the streets. The learned counsel
read letters from the respondent to her husband, speaking
of him in the most grateful terms, and also letters written
after the discovery of her criminality, which she virtually
admitted, and in which she implored her husband to take
her back.

Evidence in support of the petitioner's case having been
adduced, the counsel on the other side addressed the Court,
but called no witnesses.

Verdict for the petitioner, and decree nisi granted with
costs against the co-respondents.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH. STREET.

AN UNENVIABLE CHARACTER.—John Gilbert, a young
man, was charged with the following robbery :
Mr. John Hiller, cashier at 229, Regent-street, said that
he was in Compton-street, and seeing a constable bringing
a female along he moved back to let them pass, and as soon
as they had done so, three men, of whom prisoner was one,
rushed up to him, and the prisoner seized his watch break-
ing it from the chain, and handed it to one of his com-
panions, who immediately bolted.
In answer to questions from Mr. Tyrwhitt, the prose-
cutor said the prisoner did not take the watch " properly,"
as he felt the tug.

Weeks, 55 C, said that on taking the prisoner into cus-
tody he exclaimed, " Oh, you've got the wrong man," but
he found that he was the thief, and he gave a false address.
Prisoner said he was guilty of taking the watch.
Gordon, 336 A, said he had known the prisoner for five
years as a thief, and to belong to the worst class of thieves
in " The Dials."

Mr. Tyrwhitt committed the prisoner for six months,
with hard labour.

THREATENING TO POISON A HUSEIND.—Mrs. Ger-
trude Ann Brown, a respectable-looking female, was
charged on a warrant with threatening to poison her hus-
band.

Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, ap-
peared for the husband, and said that he resided at 50,
Goodge-street, Tottenharn-court-road, and that on Whit-
Tuesday the prisoner had bit a piece out of her husband's
arm, and she had threatened to do for him and to poison
him. This kind of life had been going on for ten years,
the husband not being able to keep anything in the place.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—She has a very fine bonnet.
The Husband—Yes, your worship, I laid out £5 on her
the week before Whitsun week. My wife drinks, and I
am unable to conduce my business owing to the state of
mind lam in through her conduct. My children are in a
wretched state.

The wife said her husband wanted to get rid of her and
have another lady.

Mr. Tyrwhitt—This is the way. When once they begin
to drink nothing stops them. It's no use wasting words
on her.
Ordered to find two sureties in £lO each for three months.