The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-04 00:00:00

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Justice Wightman, and
Sir C. smell.)
KEATS V. KEATS AND MONTEZUMA.

. .
Mr. Phmn, Q.C., appeared on behalf of the petitioner,
to show cause why there should not be a new trial in this
case, Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., counsel for the respondent,
having obtained a rule nisi on Tuesday last.
Sir C. Cresswell proceeded to read his notes of the evi-
dence, as well as the correspondence, which were very
voluminous.

Mr. Phinn said that Dr. Phillimore contended that the
conduct of the petitioner was so bad previous to Mrs. Keats's
departure, that he had been induced to take a more lenient
view of her offence.

The Lord Chancellor—The only questions in this case are
what " condonation" is, and whether the facts of the case
bring the conduct of. the petitioner within the meaning of
" condonation."

The learned Judge having concluded his notes;
Mr. Phinn then addressed the court. The rule had been
obtained on two grounds, namely that the learned Jude
Ordinary had not laid down the canon law correctly, in
his definition of condonation, and that, evenwere he correct,
the finding of the jury was not in conformity with
the evidence. He had looked most carefully through autho-
rities on the subject of the signification of the term condo -
nation, and he could not find any definition of the word so
terse and forcible as that of the learned judge, namely,
" that it is a blotting out of the offence, so that the offending
party is placed in the same position he or she previously
occupied."
The learned counsel was proceeding with his address
when we went to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fonblanque.)
This bankrupt, described as of Ludgate-hill, jeweller
and silversmith, to-day came up to pass his examination on
accounts put in by Mr. Hayles, from the firm of Messrs.
Hart Brothers.

The balance-sheet commences August, 1855, with a sur-
plus capital of £1,407. *He now owes to creditors, unse-
cured, £4,548 10s.; creditors, holding securities, £1,247;
creditors, by good debts, £221 10s. ; roperty, estimated at
£3,227 ; property in the hands of creditors, £1,425; profits,
£3,629; expenses, L 3,193; house expenses, £2,502 ; losses,
£l,lOB.
The bankrupt passed.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fane.)
IN UE NEVILLE.

This bankrupt was described as a carrier of Northamp-
ton, and came up to pass his examination.
The balance, prepared by Messrs. Hart Brothers,
shows—Dr. to Cr., £1,888; Cr. by good debts, £7O ; doubt-
ful, £5O; property, £329 ;josses, £822; liabilities, £1,243.
Mr. Stopher appeared for the assignees, and not opposing,
the bankrupt passed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(TRIS D 417.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ALLEGED ASSAULT Di A LIFE-GUARDSMAN.—John
Waugh, a private of the Ist Life-Guards, and who
bore a good-conduct badge, was charged with assaulting
Caroline Coyle, a married woman, residing at 10, St. Mary's
Place, Notting-hill.
From the evidence of the female it appeared that about
one that morning she was going along Park-lane towards
her home, having been stopping with a friend who was ill
in Lower Sloane-street, and while walking past the soldier
said " Mary." She turned round and told him he was mis-
taken, when he struck her a severe blow across the back
with %cane, pulled her down by the hair of her head, and
while on the ground, and notwithstanding she cried
"police" very loudly, pulled her clothes over her head and
with his open hand struck her several blows about her per-
son, and she believed if a constable had not come she would
have been killed. She believed him to have been drinking.
Rolfe, 146 C, said, hearing cries of "police," he went
to the spot, and saw the woman holding the soldier by the
legs, and the broken stick lying by her side. The soldier
told him the woman was sitting on some steps, and he told
her she had better go home, and directly after she seized
his fingers with her teeth and set to calling police.
Another constable said that, on telling the woman she
would be examined by a medical man, she said she could
not say he struck her with the stick. He had seen her
sitting on a doorstep, when she said her head ached.
The female denied she had sat on the doorsteps.
In answer to Mr. Bingham, the accused said that what
the prosecutor stated was not true. He had never struck
a woman in his life.. He merely said, "Mary, why don't
you go home ?" when she seized him, and all he did was to
try to get rid of her.
The troop-corporal-major having given the prisoner a
good character for 16 years, Mr. Bingham said the female
having contradicted herself with regard to the blow with
the stick, and the prisoner bearing a very good character, and
as the woman had gone a mile out of her way in going
home, he should discharge him.