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

APPEAL--JUDOMENT--EAIRD V. FORTUNE.

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 take the seaweed and
seadrift opposita his lands of the barony 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 to
be disposed of accordingly.

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

This morning Mr. Montague Chambers replied on 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 SVhiteman and

Williams.)
RYDER V. RYDER-RYDER V. RMER AND WA.TSON.

These were cross petitions. In the first case the Hon.
Mrs. Dudley Ry der 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 etcited to hear the pro-
ceedings, the court being instantly tilled immediately the
doors were opened.

The counsel engaged were Sergeant Pigott, Mr. M'Queen,
Q.C., and Dr. Tristram, for the Hon. 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, loft the court for a
conference, and remained absent until about 20 minutes to
12; at that time the Judge Ordinal.), and Justices Williams
and Whiteman took their seats on. the bench, and desired
that the counsel in the case of " Ryder and Ryder" be
f
ewnatssrowda, and said his learned friends
were them.
informed])r
.Tw
stshat t the
immediatelycou rt
ware 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 hearing.
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 enforcing of any terms.
Sergeant Pigott said a settlement had been arrived at in
this matter, whioh he thought far preferable to making the
details public. Counsel in such a matter had acted entirely
on their own responsibility, and on the part of Mrs. Ryder
he should not trouble the court further 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 Sheo said ho appeared for the co-respondent,
and ho had no opposition to the diamissalof the petition,
with costs.

The Judge Ordinary said he couldnot order the coats of
the co-respondent. If the parties agreed to pray them he
did not see any objection.
Counsel on both sides said there ¶ould be no opposition
to the payment.

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

The greatest disappointment was manifested by the per-
sons who crowded the court at sucha result.

-vi•ATTS V. WATIS.

Thii was a motion on behalf of the ?etitioner, Mrs. Emma
Julia Watts, for her three children t) be committed to her
care and custody.
It appeared that on the sth day of January last the
petitioner presented her petition to his court for a dissolu-
tion of her marriage with the respcodent, Henry Watts,
then of No. 12, Brompton-crescent, but now residing with
a female, under the names of Mr. aril Mrs. Stewart, at No.
13, Sussex-terrace, New Road, Batt4rsea, on the ground of
his adultery and cruelty.

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