The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-25 00:00:00

FRANCE.

BOURSE, June 24,—Prices remain about the
same as on Saturday, business continuing within
the narrowest limits. For the Account, Threes are
now at 67f. 65c. Railway Shares heavy, with but
trifling change in quotation. The following are
the last quotations :-
41 per per Cents 96 65
Do ead month
3 per Cents
Do. end month 67 65
Bank Shares 2922 501
Credit Mobilier 696 25
Do. Account 695

Credit Foncier 1025
Belgian 41 —
Piedmontese Fives 73 65
Roman
Austrian
Spanish Threes 49 50
Home Debt

ILAILWAYS.

Cash. Account.
Orleans
Northern ....
New ditto 895 .. -- --
Lyons and Mediterranean 947 50 .. 946 25

Geneva 4OO
Southern
Western
Eastern
Sardinian
Austrian
Lowbard 492 50 492 50

LAW INTELLIGENCZ—(Thts Day).

COURT OF CHANCERY.

(Before Vice •Chancellor Sir Richard Torin Kindersley.)

1114LARTY V. MIDDLETON-iUDG3IENT.

This case came before his Honour on exceptions to his
chief clerk's certificate in taking partnership accounts on
the dissolution of partnership and sale of the mercantile
ship Shummack, and others under mortgage by this com-
pany. His Honour, in delivering judgment, entered very
fully into the particular mercantile transactions and very
complicated accounts between the parties, and after
considering the Mercantile Shipping Act of 1845, and the
Act 8 and 9 Vict., cap. 1859, came to the conclusion
that the accounts showed nothing was due to the defen-
dants at the time of the sale of the ships under mortgage.
His Honour declared that the plaintiffs had no relief against
Messrs. Haliburton and Company, and that the bill must
be dismissed as against them, but without costs. And with.
regard to the defendants Middleton, as they were not
entitled to sell the ships in question, the balance of 1900
is to bear interest at 4 per cent., and the ascertained value
of the ships at 5 per cent. from 19th Sept., 1856, and direct
the defendants to pay the amount thereof to the plaintiffs,
with interest and costs of suit.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood.)
LEDGER V. STANTON.

It appeared that the lessor and lessee entered into an
agreement; the lessor to demise his lands under a charge
of £1,200, in consideration of a rental of £3OO a year, with
power to pay the £1,200 at the rate of £4O per annum over
the rental during the currency of lease, until the sum of
£1,200 was completely paid up. And the question was
whether the defendants were liable to pay annually £3OO
or only £250 of reduced rent. It was contended that this
agreement was a release of the original lease.

His Honour, the Vice-Chancellor, decreed in favour of
the plaintiff, without costs. The executor's costs to be paid
out of the estate.

IN RE WYLD.

This was an application under Lord St. Leonards' Act to
have a sum of money paid to a legatee before attaining
majority.

His Honour expressed an opinion to the effect that in
future he would not, except in administrations, entertain
such applications (by motion) unless a bill was specially
filed for that purpose, and then he would decide on bill and
answer.

His Honour declared that the trustees were entitled to
pay a fifth share to the children, and that they were to pay
costs out of their share.

IN RE THE INCUMBENT OP WIIITECHAPEL.

His Honour declared that the railway company were
bound to pay the expense of pulling down the houses, with
costs.

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Special Jury.)
WALKER V. WALKER, CRAW AND NICOL.

This was a suit by the husband, a shipping agent resid-
ing at Liverpool, for a divorce on the ground of his wife's
adultery with both co-respondents and other persons not
known, to which the respondents pleaded simply denial.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., Dr. Spinks, and Mr. Lloyd were
counsel for the petitioner; andlthe co-respondents were re-
presented by Mr. Edward James, Q.O ~ Mr. Colridge, Q.C.,
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Dr. Pritchard. The respondent
did not appear by counsel.

From the statement of Dr. Phillimore, who opened the
case, it appeared that in the summer of 1851 the
petitioner was travelling in different places in the Mediter-
ranean, and that he became acquainted with the respondent,
who was the daughter of Jewish parents living at Leghorn,
and that being smitten with her he proposed marriage and
was accepted. They then came in the same vessel to Eng-
land, and were married in June, 1857, at the Scotch
Church, Liverpool. They cohabited at Manchester and
Liverpool until 1858, when the petitioner, who had become
a bankrupt, resolved to go to Corfu in order to improve his.
situation, and it was arranged that his wife and family
should join him when he was settled there. He accord-
ingly left England, and his wife remained at Liverpool
until the following year, when she sent the children and
furniture by sea, and followed by overland route. How-
ever, before her arrival, Mr. Walker discovered amongst
the furniture letters that aroused his suspicion, and oa his
wife's arrival he refused to cohabit with her. He returned to
England, and from information he received he determined.
to adopt the present proceedings. The learned counsel
then proceeded to state that Mr. Craig was a medical man,
who attended the petitioner at Seacombe in 1857, and after-
wards visited Mrs. Walker at times when he was absent on
business. Having discovered this circumstance, Mr.
Walker wrote to him, and the visits were discontinued. It
was alleged on the other side that these visits
were purely professional, in consequence of Mrs. Walker's
state of health ; but though they were as often as
three and four times a week, and extended over a period of
three months, it appeared that Mr. Craig made no charge
for his services. Shortly after Mr. Craig ceased calling at
Mr. Walker's, Mr. Nicol, who was an acquaintance, and
had a wife and family, became a frequent visitor, and if the
evidence of the petitioner was to be relied on, an immoral
intimacy almost immediately commenced between him and
Mrs. Walker:
The marriage having been formally proved,

Margaret Jones was called. She stated that she lived in
service at Mr. Walker's, and was engaged by him while he
and his wife were staying at Seacombe, in 1857. She ac-
companied them to Liverpool, and they had two other
female servants, Jane Green and Mary Hamilton. They
lived at Blackbourne-terrace, in Liverpool. Dr. Craig
generally called at the house about 11 o'clock, and Mr.
Walker used to be out on business from ten o'clock in the
morning until four in the afternoon. It was usual for Mrs.
Walker to send out the children between ten azd eleven
o'clock in the morning. Dr. Craig saw Mr. Walker only
three times after he left Seacombe, and his visits subse-
quently were entirely to Mrs. Walker. Dr. Craig used to
remain an hour, and sometimes much longer, in the room
with Mrs. Walker. She recollected one morning
carrying up coals to the breakfast room, and entering the
room without knocking. Mrs. Walker was seated on the
sofa with her jacket off, and Dr. Craig was also on the sofa.
He was buttoning his boot, and his trousers were unbut-
toned. Mrs. Walker had no stays on, but she had on her
petticoat. Mrs. Walker snatched the coals from her and
desired her to leave the room, Some time afterwards Mrs.
Walker came to her in the kitchen and called her a brute for
coming into the room when Dr. Craig was sounding her.
She also threatened to discharge her. Mrs. Walker always
gs when she expected Dr.
Coverheard a conversation
hadra
gd e. s s esrht b e
rr
eo
mu ge hmt b ienr
eodn
hma
vo nin g n
between Mrs. Walker and her husband in the course of
which he said he had written to Dr. Craig, who did not
call more than two or three times subsequently. When
Mr. Nicol called, Mrs. Walker, contrary to her usual prac-
tice, used to dress early. She never saw Mr. Walker
angry except on one occasion when he taxed his wife with
receiving visits constantly from Mr. Nicol. Mrs. Walker
used always to let Mr. Nicol out herself, and she remem-
bered on one occasion them going into the dining room
together and her locking the door.

Some evidence confirmatory of the preceding witnesses's
statements was called.

(The case was not concluded when we went to press.)

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,--(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

SINGULAR CASE.—ASSAULT ON A TAVERN KEEPER Ift
A GENTLEMAN.-Mr. George Evans (alias Tracey, of 25,
St. James-street, was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt, with
the following assault on Mr. Aucompte, proprietor of the
Round Table, St. Martin's. court

Mr. Aucompte said this gentleman was in my house last
night. I was coming out of my coffee-room, and there were
20 or 30 gentlemen at the bar at the time. The defendant
made use of a most disgusting expression towards me, call-
ing me an old —. I refused to serve him, and told my
barmaids, in consequence of the disgusting language, not to
serve him, as I had been subjected to his abuse before. He
then struck me two or three times, once with his gold
knobbed stick on the arm. The defendant then insisted en
having something to drink, and called for a bottle of cham-
pagne. His disgusting language continuing,
I sent for a
constable and gave him in charge.
Defendant—He is jealous, because I speak to his girls
over the bar.

Charles Davis, waiter to Mr. Aucompte, proved seeing
the defendant poke Mr. Aucompte with his stick, and heard
him make use of disgusting language, and say it would take
20 such humbugs to put him out of the house.
Defendant said that what he said was in a jocular way.
Mr. Aucompte denied this, and said:the defendant's lan-
guage was most disgusting before females.
Mr. Tyrwhitt ordered the defendant to find two bail in
£lO each for three months.