The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-02 00:00:00

',THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 2, 1861.

Business done

all
all
12
all
all

18.8.
all
all
all
all
all

t 14.6
7.4.0

I 17i
13.12.6
40
6.8.6
8.12
4.11.6
1.10.6

29i
114
1.11.0
9.18.9
14
10.6.7

11
4.18.6

all
18.1c.5,

51 51
—p
21 I&d'

11 12

3i 2/1
2i 2 r:
22 23

n 8

Si 8f
194 2of
88f 394

8 9
38f 30f
53 54

511 4ict

13 11

13s 6d

1.7.2

51 bf
8A '.41

t ids,
22 23

01 6f
9t 91
20 21

170 1!
380 371
80 8!
2:j 2:

3i
12
2 Sj
44 5!
2 21
38 41
2 2,
46 41

4}
34 4
St 41
61 7!

8i 0
36 38

i I
oo HO
24 It
i I
a 136

14 36

11 25
41 65
i i
174 185
47 60
335 345
80 90
95 105
11 1i
6 8
10 12
135 155

14 131
98

17i}

14 14

LA TV INT.ELLIGEN CR-4749 Day).

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)
BENT V. BENT AND FOOTMAN.

This was the petition of the husband, a farmer in Leices-
tershire, praying for a divorce on the ground of his wife's
adultery with the co-respondent, who is a wine merchant,
and a gentleman of some property in the same county.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Pullen, were counsel for
the petitioner ; Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. W. Marshall
for the respondent; and Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Dr. Spink
for the co -respondent. i

From the statement of counsel it appeared that the parties
were married in 1852, and cohabited until last December,
when it was alleged that the petitioner discovered the
adultery to have been committed at a public house called
the Denbigh Arms, at Lutterworth, some weeks previ-
ously. The parties lived on the most affectionate terms
until the time of her alleged seduction. When the petitioner
discovered his wife's infidelity he immediately communi-
cated with his solicitor. He then sent £lO to his wife,
stating that he had found out her misconduct, and would
not return to the house until she left. The respondents
pleaded merely denial, and the petitioner laid damages at
£3,000.

Mr. William Bent, brother of the petitioner, stated that
he was a farmer at Kelworth, in Leicestershire, and proved
the marriage, which was solemnised in October, 1852.
After the marriage his brother and wife resided at Kilmor-
ton Lodge for three or four years. When they removed to
Webdoft, in Leicestershire, he was in the habit of visiting
them frequently, and they lived very happily together.
Mr. Thomas Wilson, brother-in-law of the petitioner,
stated that he also was a frequent visitor at his
house, and that petitioner and his wife appeared to live
on the happiest terms. Mr. Footman occupied a very
highly respectable position. Mr. Footman was a wholesale
wine merchant, and he was in the habit of going out with
the hounds dressed in scarlet, and he was a subscriber to
the hunting club in the county. Mr. Bent, the petitioner,
was in the habit of entertaining gentlemen at his place,
and amongst other guests was the co -respondent. From
something he heard last December, he went to the
Denbigh Arms, and had some conversation with
Mr. Bent and his brother. Previously he had
seen Mr. Footman, who addressed him and held out his
hand, which he declined to take after what he understood
had occurred. In the mu' se of a conversation that ensued,
Mr. Footman denied the charge against him, and said that
nobody worth powder and shot had made the accusation.
The witness then said he was worth powder and shot, and
he repeated the charge, that not only had he seduced Mrs.
Bent, but that he had boasted of it at the house of a gen •
tleman in the neighbourhood. Mr. Footman asked
him, did he consider that he was such a fool as
to make a boast of that description. Witness said
he considered him fool enough for anything when he was
drunk. He repeated the words which he said he had used
on the occasion in question, which were that he had stated
he had dined with a friend and seduced his wife after din-
ner, and would be only too happy to act in a similar way
again. Afterwards he went with the petitioner and his
brother to the Denbigh Arms, and saw Mrs. Years, the
landlady, and k ome of the servants,and, after interrogating
them, he and petitioner went to Mr. Walsom, his solicitor.
Mr. Footman told me that he had about £7OO a-year, and
that he lived at the rate of £lOOO a-year.
In cross-examination he said, that Mr. Footman's house,
at Lutterworth, adjoined the Denbigh Arms. He kept a
carriage which could be used for one or two horses, and
when he stated to witness that he had £7OO a-year he was
not drunk.

Ellen Mawby said she was in service at Mr. and Mrs.
Bent's at Webdoft in 1859 and 1860, and they lived very
happily. Mr. Footman came to the house first in Christ-
mas 1859, and afterwards she saw him frequently shooting
over Mr. Bent's land. She remembered his coming there
during the absence of Mr. Bent. On oneoccasion Mr. Bent
spent the day at his father's, which was some miles die.
taut, and Mr. Footman came to the house that day and
remained a long time.
Elizabefa Wakefield said—She had resided at Webdoft
with her father, but was at present living with Mr. Bent
at the Mona farm. Before she went to live at Mr. Bent's,
she visited at his house, and she was able to say from per-
sonal observation that he and his wife lived very happily
together. After Mr. Footman became a visitor at the
house, Mrs. Bent began to dress more gaily.
Ann Elizabeth Jee deposed to having lived at the Den-
bigh Arms, which was kept by her aunt, Mrs.Vears. There
was a room at the house for the farmers, another for their
wives, which was numbered six. She remembered Mr.
Bent bringing his wife to the house frequently. He used
to dine with the farmers, and she used to go to the room
No. 6. Mr. Footman was in the habit of calling frequently,
and he came there on some occasions while Mrs. Bent was
in the house. She generally occupied the bar-parlour, and
could see parties going up and down stairs, and she saw
Mr. Footman go up to the .room No. 6 every
day that Mrs. Bent came lately. He used
not to take anything at the house on these visits. On one
occasion she saw him in a very indecent position on the
sofa, and she spoke to her aunt on the subject. On the
26th of October, 1860, Mr. Footman called, and she watched
him and saw him go into No. 6 without knocking. She
proceeded to state that she looked through the keyhole, and
saw Mr. Footman and Mrs. Bent in an indecent position.
The jury found that the adultery had been committed,
and assessed the damages at £l,OOO.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
A MINOR CANNOT BE SUED FOR CALLS.-IMPORTANT
JUDGMENT.-THE LONDON FREE-LABOUR COMPANY
(CO-OPERATIVB STORE) V. SMITH, JUN.
This was an action to recover calls, defendant, a minor,
being the holder of certain shares in the company.
Mr. Aubin, for defendant, pleaded infancy.
Mr. Whitehurst, for the company, urged at great length
that defendant was liable, and called attention to the Act,
in which it was laid down that a minor might appear by his
next friend or guardian. Cases were quoted in which the
Courts had ruled that a minor, as holder of shares in certain
railway companies, was liable.

Mr. Aubin, on the other hand, said that, in each cases,
the defendant was of age when he was sued, and had not
repudiated the shares either during his minority or subse-
quently.

This morning his Honour read Mr. Sergeant Wheeler's
judgment, as follows:—" In searching through the autho-
rities I have no hesitation in finding for the defendant, in
accordance with the well-known railway case.*
Verdict for defendant, with costs of attorney.
THE MAIN DRAINAGE RATE.—IMPORTANT LANDLORD
AMID TENANT CASE.—HAWRINS AND OTHERS V. OSa 00D.
In a case of landlord and tenant, the plaintiffs claimed
that defendant should pay the Main Drainage Rate, and
produced a lease in which defendant had covenanted to
pay all rates.

His Honour elicited that the lease was made before the
Main Drainage Rate, and ruled that the rate was a land-
lord's rate, and that the tenant could not be called upon to
pay it. His Honour thought that landlords were the
greediest set of people in existence, and they were shifting
all the rates and taxes on the shoulders of the tenant.
Very soon they would call every morning for their break-
fast.

Upon. the other points in the case, plaintiffs were not
suited.

THIS DAY'S ArAREETS.

HAY MARKETS.
SMITHFIELD.—OId Meadow hay, £2 Oa to £5 Os Od ;
new do., £2s 108 to £4 Os ; old clover do., £3 10s to £5lBB ;
new do., £3 lOs to £5; and straw, £1 108 to £1 18e per
load. Trade dull.

CUMBERLAND.—OId Meadow hay, £2 Os to £5 Os ; new
do., £2 lOs to £4 Os : old clover, £3 10s to £5 18s ; new do.,
£3 10s to £5; and straw, £1 lOs to £1 188 per load. Both
hay and straw were a dull sale, at our quotations.
WHITECHAPEL.—OId Meadow hay, £2 Os to £5 Os Od ;
new do., £2 lOs to £4 Oa ; old clover,, lOs to £5 18s Od ;
new do., £3 lOs to £5 Os; mid straw, £1 10s to £1 188 per
load. A slow demand.