The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Justice Blackburn.)
COLBURN Y. JONES AND ANOTHER.

This was an action on a charter party. Mr. M. Smith
appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Prideaux for defendants.
Mr. Colburn was the master of a ship called the Martha
Whitmore, of Newport, and defendants were merchants at
Bristol. On the 25th of April the plaintiffs entered into a
charter party with the defendants to proceed after leaving
a cargo at Baltimore to a port in New Brunswick, and
take in for the charterers a cargo of deals and timber.
In the charter party there was a provision that
the ship should pay £25 towards the lighterage.
The ship proceeded to New Brunswick, and took in the
cargo, when Mr. Defreses agent there claimed several
sums for carrying out the cargo amounting in all to £125.
Carrying !out the cargo meant bringing it out of the
country. The condition was that the plaintiff as charterer
was liable to pay the whole claims. It was contended by
the defendants that the custom of the port was for those
charges to be all defrayed by the ship. The defendants
had paid £5O into Court to cover the lighterage, but denied
their liability for the remainder.

The jury gate a verdict for the plaintiffs for £5l Is. 6d.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

The judges in this court were occupied the whole of the
morning in hearing the arguments in a very complicated
enclosure case. The question involved was whether Lord
Portsmouth had the power to enclose 300 acres of land of
Anstey Manor, contrary to the wish of a gentleman named
Mr. Partridge, who had an interest therein.

POLICE IN7E'LLIriENCE—(This Day).

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

REFUSAL TO MAINTAIN A WIFE.—ALLEGED ADUL-
TERY.—John Castelli, of 31, Regent-street, was charged
before Mr. Beadon, by the parish authorities of St. James's,
with refusing to maintain his wife, and leaving her charge-
able to the said parish.
Mrs. Rosa Castelli said she was the wife of the defend-
ant, who had left her on the 4th of October last, since
which time, till a week ago, she had been in St. James's
Workhouse, the defendant only giving her £1 ss. during
that time.

Mr. Tett, one of the parish officers, said several attempts
had been made to find him, and it was only on the previous
night that the warrant was served on him in Aldgate.

The defendant said his wife was false.
Mr. Tett said there was a case depending in the Divorce
Court.

Mr. Beadon said that was a good reason why he should
not interfere.

Mr. Tett said he thought the proceedings there would
not interfere with those in.the police court.
Mr. Bea'lon said he was not going to decide in such a
case. The question was what was the nature of the case
before the superior court.

Mr. Tett said they had no grounds for supposing the
charge against the wife was truo.

Mr. Beadon said, here was a man who had taken expen-
sive proceedings in another court, and they could not ex-
pect him to try a case that was now before Sir Cresswell
Cresswell. They could not, before that case was dismissed
by the judge, ask to commit the defendant.

Mr. Tett said he understood Mr. Lewis, of the Albany-
court-yard, was the defendant's solicitor, and had the con-
duct of the proceedings in the Divorce Court.

The wife said the proceedings there were stopped—there
were no witnesses.

Mr. Beadon said the thing was, was the case set down
for regular hearing.
Mr. Tett said he believed the defendant's brother was
paying the expenses, 'and that he lived in Regent-street.
The defendant had married the female with the full con-
viction that ehehad a child at the time, and the female had
had one since her marriage to the defendant. She was at
the time in business as an eating-house keeper.
Mr. Beadon said if the defendant set up adultery, and
that was the only thing that he could set up for refusing to
maintain his wife, and the judge dismissed the case, he
(the magistrate) would have to try the case. The only
thing was was the proceeding in that court merely
for putting off the evil day, or was it honest. He was sorry
the summons had been taken out for refusing to maintain
his wife. It should have been for desertion, as he
was not in a position to be capable of supporting her. It
was a clear case of desertion.

The case was ultimately disposed of by the defendant
agreeing to allow his wife 7s. a week, the parish consent-
ing, till the settlement of the case before the Divorce Court.