The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-25 00:00:00

APPEAL---J UDGMENT-BAIRD V. PORTUNE.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Court of Ses-
sion in Scotland, dismissing appellant's claim to the exclu-
sive right to take seaweed and sea drift opposite his lands,
on the Firth of Forth. The respondent claimed the right
to take seaweed and drift on the sea shore opposite his farm
lands of North Muir Cambert, as " part and pertinent" of
the lands of the barony.

The Lord Ordinary decreed in favour of the appellant,
and the First Division of the Court of Session decided in
favour of the respondent.

Their lordships were unanimous in opinion that the
appellant had the exclusive right to teke the seaweed and
seadrift opposite his lands of the barely on the seashore.
The Lord Chancellor reversed the decision of the Court
of Session, affirmed the decision of the Lord Ordinary, with
costs, and remitted the case back to the Court of Session do
be disposed of accordingly,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before Baron Channell and a Common Jury.)
LAST V. DOWLING.

This morning Mr. Montague Chambers replied en the
part of the plaintiff, Last, and contended that the claim to
the goods had been fully made out, and that the execution
that had been put in the premises, in Savoy-street, by the
defendant had been done merely to oust the plaintiff from
that to which he was legally entitled.

DIVORCE COURT.
Before the Judge Ordinary and Justices Whiteman and
Williams.)

RIDER V. RYDER-RYDER V. RIDER AND WATSON.

These were cross petitions. In the first case the Hon.
Mrs. Dudley Ryder applied for a divorce from her husband,
the brother of the Earl of Harrowby, on the ground of
cruelty and adultery, which he denied and recriminated-in
his petition.

There was the greatest curiosity excited to hear the pro.
ceedings, the court being instantly filled immediately the
doors were opened.

The counsel engaged were Sergeant Pigott, Mr. M'Queen,
Q C., and Dr. Tristram, for the lion. Mrs. Ryder; Sir F
Slade, Dr. Travers Twiss and Dr. Spinks, for the Hon. Mr.
Ryder; and Sergeant Shee for the co-respondent.
Previous to the judges taking their seat the leading coun-
sel, Sergeant Pigott and Sir F. Slade, left the court for a
conference, and remained absent until about 20 minutes to
12; at that time the Judge Ordinary and Justices Williams
and Whiteman took their seats on the bench, and desired
that the counsel in the case of ‘, Ryder and Ryder" be
informed that the court was waiting for them.
Dr. Twiss immediately entered, and said his learned friends
were at that moment drawing up terms in these two cases,
which would lead to the records being withdrawn, and the
jury discharged.
Sir F. Slade having entered the court, said he had to
apply to their lordships to withdraw the records in these
cases, an arrangement having been come to which would
prevent the necessity of a public nearing.
The Judge Ordinary said the proper way would be to
apply for the dismissal of the petitions. The Court could
be no party to any arrangement between the parties, neither
would it take upon itself the enfoning of any terms.
Sergeant Pigott said a settlement had been arrived at in
this matter, which he thought far preferable to making the
details public. Counsel in such a matter had acted entirely
on their own responsibility, and oa the part of Mrs. Ryder
he should not trouble the court fwther than to ask permis..
sion to withdraw the record.

The Judge Ordinary said if there was no opposition to
the application for the dismissal of the petition, that
could be done.

Sergeant Shea said he appearei for the co-respondent,
and he had no opposition to the dismissal of the petition,
with costs.

The Judge Ordinary said he could not order the costs of
the co-respondent. If the parties agreed to pay them he
did not see any objection.

Counsel on both sides said there would be no opposition
to the payment.

The two petitions were then dismissed, and the special
jurors that had been summoned were
.informed their ser-
vices would not be required.

The peaterst disappolutuieut V.ue manifested by the Per-
sons who crowded the court at such a result.

WATTS V. WATTS.

This was a motion on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. Emma
Julia Watts, for her three children to be committed to her
care and custody.

It appeared that on the 9th day of January last the
petitioner presented her petition to this court for a dissolu-
tion of her marriage with the res/ondent, Henry Watts,
then of No. 12, Brompton-crescent, but now residing with
a female, under the names of Mr. tad Mrs. Stewart, at N.
13, Sussex-terrace,New Road, Battersea, on the ground of
his adultery an d cruelty.

Mr. Macqueen and Dr. Spinks appeared on behalf of the
petitioner, and Mr. Macdonnen aprared for the respondent,
and consented to an order being made in the. terms of the
petitioner's motion.