The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-26 00:00:00

WARLOW V. HARRISON.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen's
Bench, as to the sale of a parse named " Garnet " for £6l.
Their lordships allowed plaintiff to amend his declaration
and granted a new trial, without costs.

COURT OF DIVORCE.

LLOYD V. LLOYD AND CHICHESTER-EXTRAORDINARY

CASIL

The marriage took place at Paddington on the Ist of May,
1863. The petitioner was a captain in the army, and the
respondent a daughter of Mr. Cheese, of Kington, in Here-

_ .
fordshire. Captain Lloyd having fallen into pecuniary diffi-
culties, was in 1856 arrested and confined in the Queen's
Bench Prison. Here he was visited by his wife, and here it
was stated that her intimacy with the co-respondent, Mr.
George Augustus Hamilton Chichester, commenced. It was
followed by their cohabitation, and by the birth of two
children, in addition to two which Mrs. Lloyd had had by
her husband.
Mr. Edward Thomas Isaacson, who described himself as
an agent, was examined by the Court. He had been in the
Queen's Bench Prison with Captain Lloyd, and had dis-
cussed the subject of his matrimonial affairs. Had after-
wards entered into communication with the parties and with
Mr. Cheese. Had merely done so as a matter of feeling.
Would swear that Captain Lloyd did not stipulate that he
should have a certain sum before he would sign the peti-
tion. He had been selected to serve the citation on Mr.
Chichester..
Sir C. Cresswell—By whom ?
Witness—By Captain Lloyd.
Sir C. Cresswell—Not by Mr. Strutt, the attorney ?
No.

Sir C. Cresswell—Why were you selected ? Because I
had beon acquainted with Mr. Chichester for many years.
Sir C. Cresswell—And therefore Captain Lloyd selected
you for the agreeable task of serving your friend with the
citation ? (Laughter.)
Examination continued—l went to Paris to serve the cita-

tion. I was there about three weeks. I did not find the co-
respondent for a week. I used afterwards to dine with the
respondents. I paid for some of the dinners. They were
at their own residence, not at a restaurant. I agreed to ad-
vanee a certain sum to Mr. Chichester on Mrs. Lloyd's
order on her father. That money was to be applied to my
own uses. (Laughter.) I was to have half of it, and Mr.
Chichester half. On my oath that money was not for the
purpose of procuring evidence. Mr. Cheese made his
daughter a monthly allowance, and Mr. Chichester wished
me to get an order of Mrs. Lloyd for £5O cashed. If I had
done so I was to have had half.
Sir C. Cresswell—What was that for ?
Witness—lt was kindness on Mr. Chichester's part.

(Loud laughter.) My bill for going to Paris was £llO.
(Sensation.) I went to servo the citation and to collect evi-
dence. When I dined with Mr.Chich•ster he knew, of course,
what evidence I had got, for I had found him in bed with
Mrs. Lloyd when I served them with the citation. He said
there was another case against him, and he hoped that this
would not come on first. (Loud laughter.)
Sir C. Cresswoll—Now listen to this item :—" Mr. Isaac-
son proceeds to Paris for the purpose of obtaining neces-
sary evidence, according t• the directions of Mr. Cheese,
Mr. Cooke, and Mr. Strntt, he having also advanced to Mr.
Chichester a sum of money for the purpose of enabling
him to effect a certain arrangement by which the chain of
evidence would be completed ; and writing a long letter to
Mr. Cheese thereon." How did you advance to Mr. Chi.
chester "a suns of money to enable him to effect a certain
arrangement by which the chain of evidence would be com-
pleted ?"

Witness—l advanced him a sum of money to enable
him to come from Dieppe to Paris.

Did you advance a ;Urn of money " to enable him to emu
plete the ehain of evidence ?"—I did.

Did you go to obtain evidence by the directions of Mr.
Cheese, Mr. Cooke, and Mr. Strutt P—l went according to
the instructions of Mr. Strutt alono.

It was by his direction that you went to Mr. Chichester
and advanced him a sum of money to comple the chain of
evidence f—lt was my own idea.
Sir C. Cresswell—You may stand down. The court will
require the attendance of Mr. Strutt, Captain Lloyd, an I
Mr. Cheese.

Mr. IL James, who appeared for the petitioner, said that
Mr. Strutt, though he had once been engaged for Captain
Lloyd, was now acting hostilely, in consequence of Captain
Lloyd's having refused to pay the items the court had read,
and which he had disallowed by the taxing officer of the
court. Captain Lloyd had now no means of bringing him.
Sir C. Creswell—He is now the witness of the court,
and must attend.

The further hearing of the case was then adjourned.
The hearing of the cause was resumed this morning,
when the following witnesses were examined by direction
of the Court, to ascertain whether there had been any col-
lusion on the part of the plaintiff to obtain the dissolution
of the marriage.

Mr. J. Strutt, solicitor, stated that he was employed by
Captain Lloyd, the petitioner in the present suit. He was
acquainted with Captain Lloyd for years, and had transacted
business for him. He did not go on with the suit, and
Mr. Jones, of Gray's-inn, Was employed. The bill pro-
duced was his, and•some of the costs had been taxed. Ho
had a communication with Capt. Lloyd's relatives with
respect to the expenses of the suit, and suggested that Mr.
Cheese, the father-in-law of the petitioner, should advance
him £2OO or £3OO, in right of a reversionary interest
which he possessed, which money should be applied to the
prosecution of this suit for effecting a settlement with his
creditors, and for other personal expenses. Mr. Cheese had
a conversation with him on the subject of the suit, and he
(Mr. Cheese) knew that a portion of the money was to be
appropriated to promoting the suit. Mr. Cheese proposed
that Captain Lloyd should concur in obtaining a divorce,
but he did not recollect that it was suggested that Mr.
Cheese should be made the co-respondent.
After a short consultation,

The Judge Ordinary said the case was a singular one,
and under the pawer givon to the Court by the 37th sect.,
the petition would be dismissed, as .the collusion proved
had been too gross and palpable for any Court to overlook.

CLERKENWELL COUNTY COURT.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Jones.)
EXPOSING GOODS IN THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY-IMPOR-
TANT DECISION-DENTON V. NOBBS.
This was an action to recover a small sum of money,
damages sustained in consequence of the reckless driving
of one of defendant's servants.
Plaintiff is a butcher, and his witness, a whitewasher,
said that upon a certain day a table containing meat was
in the road in front of the shop—
His Honour—lt had no right there.
Witness—Yes, it had. Everbody does the same. De-
fendant's van came up and ran against the table.
His Honour—There is no occasion for any more evi-
dence. By placing his table in the public highway plaintiff
has contributed to his own wrongs, and therefore defendant
will have a verdict with costs.
Witness—Why I suppose, then, if I stood in the road ho
might run over me ?
His Honour—Go to whitewashing. We won't argue.
IMPORTANT CASE UNDER THE MASTER AND APPRENTICE