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

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

DIVORCE COURT.

Before Mr. Justice Wightman, Mr. Baron Martin, and
Sir C. Cresswell.)

PETITION FOR DIVORCE.--AEMITAGE V. ARIUTAGE AND

MACDONALD.

This was a petition by the husband against the wife for
divorce, for adultery. The wife did not appear. The co-
respondent, Colon:1 Macdonald, by his counsel, pleaded
accord and satisfaction by payment of £lOO damages, awarded
by the jury in an action of damages tried before the Court
of Common Pleas against the co-respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Wandsworth and Mr.
Pullen, read several affidavits to prove the fact of the mar-
riage, and the acts of adultery at Inverness, Edinburgh,
and London, in Pimlico and Stanhope-street, from 1851 to
1856.

Dr. Deane appeared for the co-respondent, and pleaded
that he should not be made liable to pay the costs of the
action of divorce, because he had already paid the costs of
the trial of the action of damages at common law, and it
would be very heard to bring him again into court and
make him pay double costs. There was no evidence to
prove that Colonel Macdonald knew that Mrs. Armitage
was a married woman.

Mr. Pullen, for the petitioner, replied. The learned
counsel contended that there was fair inference to infer,
from the evidence produced, that Colonel Macdonald was
aware that Mrs. Armitage was a married woman at the
time the adultery was committed, and therefore liable to
pay expenses of divorce. The petitioner was a retired soli-
citor, from Bombay, who came to Scotland and married his
wife at Inverness, in 1849.

Mr. Justice Wightman said the petitioner, on the
evidence of adultery produced, was entitled to a decree of
divorce. With respect to the liability of the co-respondent
to pay costs, ho did not mean to lay down any general rule
as to payment of costs by co-respondent, but looking to the
particular circumstances of this case, that Colonel Mac-
donald had already paid damages and costs, and looking to
the fact that Mrs. Armitage was seen in company with
another man at the theatre, before the cohabitation with
the co-respondent, and that she then took the name of Mac-
donald, baptised her child Macdonald, he did not think
that Colonel Macdonald knew that Mrs. Armitage was a
married woman, and therefore ho was not liable to pay the
costs of this action of divorce.

Mr. Baron Martin and Sir C. Cress.well -entirely con-
curred.
The Court decreed the dissolution of the marriage, with-
out costs against the co-respondent.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Potter and a Jury.)

OMNIBUS OPPOSITION AND ACCIDENT.-DAMAGES, £125.-

HILCOCK V. PROWNE.
Mr. Robinson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ser-
geant Banautili() for the defendant.

The action was brought to recover damages sustained
through the reckless conduct of defendant's servant. -
Mr. Robinson said this action arose out of a system
fraught with much danger to her Majesty's subjects. He
alluded to the system of opposition and racing by omnibus
proprietors and their servants. Plaintiff was a sufferer by
the system, and he now sought at the hands of the jury
substantial damages for injuries inflicted. On the 25th of
August plaintiff, a wine and spirit merchant in the City,
was driving down the Clapham-road, in a gig, and he was
met by three omnibuses (one belonging to the defendant)
which were racing. One stopped to set down a passenger,
one went safely by, but defendant's 'bus, though called
to by plaintiff and a friend who was with him, came into
such violent collision that plaintiff and his friend were
dashed out of the gig, which was completely turned over,
Plaintiff was stunned and one of his legs cut opeu. He
kept his bed for six weeks, And being a middle-aged man,
the injuries would be permanent. The injury to his head
in particular was very severe.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine here stopped the learned counsel
for plaintiff, and offered terms, to which Mr. Robinson, on
behalf of his client, assented.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said his client had always been
willing to admit that plaintiff had been a sufferer by the act
of his (defendant's) servant, and had, in fact, upon being
applied to, offered £100; now ho had consented to a ver-
dict for £125. He (the learned Sergeant) had been instructed
to say that defendant discountenanced all opposition by his
servants.

The learned Secondary then entered a verdict for plain-
iff—danages 1125. •

CRI3IINAL COUR T.- ( THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and Justice Byles.)

John Williams and Robert Frost were indicted for a bur-
glary, and also with cutting and wounding Eversted, a
police officer, while in the execution of his duty.

Mr. Cooper conducted the prosecution, and Mr. itibton
defended the prisoners.

From the statement of the learned counsel, it appeared
that the offence for which the prisoners were charged was
one of a very serious character, and the police officer was
most cruelly ill-treated. The prosecutor was a lady re-
siding in Devonshire place, Victoria-park, and early on
the morning of the 30th of Nov. last was awoke by hearing
cries of " murder" and " stop thief," and upon looking
into the garden she saw the constable in the act of pur-
suing two men, who jumped upon the garden wall, and
shortly afterwards constable Eversted came to her covered
with blood, and produced the decanter stand that had been
stolen from a cheffioner on the ground floor. The constable
said, while on duty he was passing the house of the prose-
cutrix, when he saw a light, upon which he went to the
back of the premises and saw the prisoner Williams coming
down stairs with a lighted candle in his hand. He got in
at the back door and seized Williams, who immediately
threw the candle down, and then the prisoner Frost came
up, but on seeing the policeman he threw away a quantity
of plate which he had in his possession, and endeavoured to
rush past him. Eversted knocked him down, and
both prisoners then made a moat desperate attack
upon him, and struck him several times with
a "jemmy," which inflicted very severe wounds. He,
however, continued to retain his hold for some time,
but loss of blood rendered him faint, and eventually both
men got away. He pursued them as long as he was able,
and during the pursuit Williams dropped the decanter,
which was identified by the prosecutriz as her property.
The prisoners were not apprehended until the 4th of
December, when both men, although differently dressed,
were at once identified by Eversted as the men who
assaulted him.

At the termination of the evidence, which clearly brought
home the offences charged,

Mr. Ribton addressed the jury for the prisoners, and the
learned judge having summed up the evidence, the jury,
without hesitation, found both prisoners guilty of the capital

offence.

A former conviction was then proved against both pri
soners.

Baron Watson, in passing sentence, highly eulogised the
conduct of the police constable, and then ordered sentence of
death to be recorded against each prisoner, but the punish-
ment the prisoners would have to undergo world, be ten
years' penal servitude.
Mr. Cooper drew the attention of the learned jndge to the
power he possessed of rewardi-ig the conduct of the police-
constable.

Baron`Watson said, in rewarding the meritorious conduct
of the officer he felt the greatest pleasure, in which he felt
assured every person in court participated. He had shown
great courage, and had acted with such credit that he should
order that a gratuity of £2O bo paid to him.
The announcement caused the greatest satisfaction.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
THE ST. PANCRAS DEFICIENCIES.
Thomas Birchmore, lately relieving officer and overseer
of the poor of the parish of St. Pancras, surrendered to an
indictment, charging him with appropriating certain sums
of money received on behalf of that parish to his own pri-
vate purpOses. There were five indictments against the
prisoner. •
Mr. Giffard and Mr. Poland appeared for the prosecu-
tion. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Metcalfe.
The learned counsel for the prosecution having stated the
charges against the prisoner, called
Mr. Griffiths, a scripture reader, who stated in evidence
that for some time he had paid to prisoner certain small
sums of money, none of which were entered in the prisoner's
receipt-book.
Mr. Wyatt—l am a director of the board for the relief of
the poor of St. Pancras, and a magistrate of the county.
The prisoner was the relieving officer and overseer of the
parish. The prisoner's appointment was a written one, and
part of his duty was to receive money on the part
of the parish, and he has told me he has tone
so. He paid the money in he collected from
week to week, or I should say his receipt book
in which he ought to enter all monies received on behalf of,
the parish, and then pay them over to the clerk of the direc-
tors, who transmitted them, with the book, to the audit
committee. I never knew him to pay over to the clerk any
monies except those entered in the book. He never told
me he had done so. On the 15th of Oct., 1858, the audit
committee made a report concerning Mr. Birchmore. On
the 16th he called at my house and told me that he had
received the half-yearly dividend of one of the parish
legacies, and had not accounted for it. I told him (not
thinking that there were any other deficiencies) he had
better tell the audit committee all about it. I said I would
summon the audit committee for the next week, when I
would give him all the benefit of any statement he made.
Some other deficiencies were discovered, and he asked for a
few days, when he would state exactly the position he stood
in with respect to the moneys he had received on behalf of
the parish. His request was granted, and in a week after-
wards the board re-assembled. On the morning of the day
the board was to assemble he called at my house and told
me he wished to make a statement ; but I told him I would
rather not hear him. He pressed me very much to hear him,
and said he was a defaulter to about £lOO, but his securities
were good. He asked me if I thought the directors would
consent to liquidating it by his receiving half salary. I
told him they would not do that, and the least punislunent