The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-12 00:00:00

- -
- - _

-~~

PRICE 4D. STAMPED 51).

the horse fell, and the wife, who :is sixty. yerirs•of
age, met with an accident to her wrist. Onyeach-
ing home, the defendant was sent for, and op exami-
ning 'the'arin he said' it was broken about three
inches belovt- the. elbow, and that something was
also the matter•
with the • wrist. But in point of
fact the conclusion was wrong, for in reality the
wrist bones had been dislocated, and required im-
mediate re-setting. The. defendant immediately
put the arm between two splints and bandaged
it tightly, and applied some lotion. He.
continued to visit the plaintiff's wife from day
to day, still keeping the arm in bandages, using
bran poultices, foinenta.tions, lotions, &c„ but he did
nothing to the wrist. The plaintiff's wife continu
i-
ng in great pain and getting worse daily he sug-
gested that further medical advice should be called
in. Dr. Thomas was accordingly sent for, and, ac-
cepting the defendant's account of the nature of the
injuries as the right onei he expressed his opinion
that the plaintiff's wife w•Auld soon get better.
Afterwards Dr. Bowring was called in, but did not
examine her arm, as he took the defendant's account
to be correct. He, however, advised the application
of leeches. The plaintiff's wife continued to get
worse up to the 30th of October, when the nlaintiff
told the defendant it would be useless ,7orlhim to
continue his attendance, and again. called in Dr.
Bowring. The ease being they, under his imme-
diate care, Dr. Bowring examined the arm, and 'on
removing the splints he diseovered that the arm
had never been broken, but that the wrist had been
dislocated, and it was then, from the lapse of time,
impossible to re-set it. The wrist was cramped_with
the tight' bandages and the want of setting, the
fingers were so stiff that one of them cracked in the
attempt to straighten it, and the plaintiff's wife
continued to get worse. • In December Mr. Turner
was called iA,"and he •and Dr. Bowring continued
to 4Wentled the woman. Her sufferings were so in-
tense that they affected the nervous system, and a
most lamentable result bait followed, but whether
f.roni the neglect in the treatment or not it was
impes.stbae to say. She was unable to get any sleep
for 14 days and nights, and when at last sleep came
on her she. awoke a maniac, and was, now in a
lunatic, asylum with-no chance of recovery. Under
thesecircumstanees the present action was brought.
Evidence was adduced in support of the above
feels, and from this it also appeared that the de-
fendant had sued the plaintiff in the. county court
for the amount of his bill for attendance, but had
not succeeded in recovering if.
Some of the witnesses stated that the arm had -
not been broken, or the wrist dislocated.
Mr. T. Atkinson, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's
case, submitted.there was no evidence to -go to the
jury; but the objection was overruled, and the learned
counsel then addressed the jury for the defence.
He contended that one of the bones of the arm had
been broken, and had been properly treated, so
much so that the woman could now work at her
needle in the asylum. He commented on the fact
that tnis action had not been brought until after
the lapse of four years, and after the defendant had
sued the plaintiff in the county court for his bill for
medical attendance. Nothing could be more un-
grateNl than the plaintiff's conduct; but when

"The devil was ill, the devil a monk would be,
The devil got well, the devil a monk was he."

(Laughter.) The learned counsel said that the real
cause of the lunacy of the poor woman was that she
had caught cold and had taken gastric fever, and
he would call Dr. Campbell, of Brentwood Asylum,
to prove this.

Evidence was then adduced to prove thatthe'arm
had been broken and had been so treated that it
was as well now as could be expected in a woman
of the age of the patient, and that the lunacy was
in no way attributable to the negligence of the
defendant.

The learned judge summed up, leaving it to the
jury to say whether the defendant had exhibited
proper and reasonable skill and care in his treat-
ment of the plaintiff's wife.
The jury, after a brief consultation, found a ver-
dict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Prins in London.—(Before Lord
_ _

thief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
GREEN V. MACNAMARA AND OTHERS.-OMNIBUS

NURSING.

The plaintiff in this case owned two or three
omnibuses running from Brompton to Islington,
and he claimed damages from Messrs. Macnamara,
Wilen, and Price, managing •men of the London
General Omnibus Company, on the ground that
they had paused his omnibuses to be " nursed"
by those of the company.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Edwardes appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. E. Jiimes, Mr. Sergeant Ballan-
tine, Mr. Gifford, and Mr. Poland for th©
defendants.

The case occupied the whole of Saturday and to-
day, and that evidence, as might be imagined, was
most contradictory. The plaintiff's case was that
his omnibuses were constantly nursed by those of
the company, one of their vehicles being behind,
and one before each of his. On the other hand it
was denied that there had been any "nursing" by
the company's omnibuses, and it was positively
stated that the defendants had, so far from encou-
raging any system of annoyance, given distinct
orders against anything of the kind. Beyond this
it was said that the plaintiff and his men were the
aggressors, and that they had ‘f nursed" the com-
pany's omnibuses, and had annoyed and assaulted
their men.

The court was very much crowded during the
trial, and in the course of Mr. Xnowles' reply some
remarks of his elicited lend applause. One of the
persons who had offended in this way was brought
before his lordship. The delinquent stated that he
was not connected with either party, and what he
had done was not from any definite motive, but
merely from the impulse of the moment. Under
thes.' circumstances he vas discharged upon a pro-
mise not to offend again.
His Lordship directed the jury that there was no
evidence against Mr. Macnamara, no witness
having said that he had been guilty of any impro-
per act; and as to Mr. Willen, there was only one
witness who had spoken to anything affecting him.
This was a policeman, who said that he had seen
Mr. Willen making signs to the company's drivers,
instigating them to annoy the plaintiff's servants.
His lordship then went through the evidence on
both sides in reference to the other defendant, Price,
and left the case for the decision of the jury.
The jury, after considering the ,matter for an
hour and a quarter, found a verdict for the plain-
tiff as against Price only—damages one farthing.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

' CAUSES.

Before Mr. Justice Wightman, Mr. Baron Martin,
the Judge• Ordinary, and a Common Jury.)
lIOWES V. HOWES AND FRY.

Mr. Macqueen diondu?.ted the petitioner's case.
The petitioner, William Ilowts, was formerly a
grocer at Norwich, and he married the respondent
there in January, 1850 ; he now prayed for a dis-
solution of the marriage on the ground of her
adultery. In 1852 he became involved in pecuniary
difficulties, and at the end of October he was obliged
to go to London in order to make an arrangement
with his creditors. He was absent for a few days,
and upon his return he found that his wife had left
his house. She did not return for a fortnight, and
then refused to give any account of what she had
done or where she had been. She asked for an
allowance, and her husband refused to let her have
it without some explanation of her conduct, She
went away, expressing an intention to go to her
mother's house. Howes went to live with his
mother, who was a tallowchandler, and remained
in her employment. About eleven months after-
wards Mrs. Howes applied to the magistrates, end
upon their suggestion her husband made her an
allowance of ss. a-week. He afterwards learnt
that she was living at Yarmouth, and that she had
formed an adulterous connexion with the co-respon-
dent, a hairdresser and perfumer, and on making
further inquiries he ascertained that she was lead-
ing a life of prostitution. The respondent, by her
answer, recriminated and charged the petitioner
with desertion, but did not appear to support those
pleas.
The Mr. Justice
e tlul rr ingehdt ma
avi le
rsdui n ic
t I fied
for the andpetitioner.
Their Lordships thought there was not sufficient
evidence with regard to the inter
tour years that elapsed between va of three or
de-
parture from her husband and Mrs. Howes'
prostitution in Yarmouth. her leading a life of
Previous to the rising
the petitioner wasof the Court the mother of
he and his wife had put into the box, and stated that
l lived comfortably together
from the time of the marriage until her refusal to
live with him after he became insolvent. She also
detailed the
rated. circumstances under which they sepa-
The Court dissolved
the marriage.
HERVEY V. liE
RVEY AND LORD RIBBLESDALE.
Dr. Phill' Imre, Q.C., and Mr. F. F. Brandt ap-
peared for the petitioner. The respondent denied
the adultery
o t which she was accused by the peti-
tioner. The co-respondent did not appear.
Mr. Henry Arthur William Hervey, a •son of

_-.'--z--,--_7-

IN l''',.\\l; PAPE R
EC--
' Lorn m. Hervey, was naarrie in October, 17 1.,
at St. eorge's, Hanover-squ • ..;'to a Mrs.
W ass 'by the name of Mr . , emm 0., and .-. •
had had t tie children by LO "I.
ibble:dal
, - i
-CO ,
on with Lord Ribbles Int& been brOk'enz,V--'
orabout,, two ycars before ,tbe I.t. ".te, und, in 0-iiii.2,7l
interval Lord Ribblesdale had nrarrica.-- . Alp;-
•1-it
eAlrq 111 rveY cohabited in Park-strea*Gra-en
`
square, until September, 1858, and in that month
Mrs. alervey left the house, and went with Lord
Ribblesdale to the Isle of Wight, where they re-
sided at Cintra Villa,. near Shanklin.
The' facts :of 'the- marriage and .adultery were
proved, but their lordships required. additional evi-
dence of the identity of. the lady, and also some
explanation .with _.regard to the circumstances of _ ...
the marriage, of the cohabitation, and of the sepa- f
ration.
Mr. Baron -Martin observed that the case was a 1.
very peeuliar.one, and in his opinion the petitione- i
had not as yet made out the allegations in the pe-
tition.

At a later part of the day witnesses were called
who proved the identity of the lady who had lived
with Lord Ribblesdale since the separation with
Mrs. iHervey.
The jury found the issue of adultery for the pe-
titioner.

Tv o • letters written Iby Mrs. Hervey after her
elopeMent were read; in which. she acknowledged
her guilt, and implored her husband's ibrgiveness.
The Court then dissolved the marriage.
WARNER T. WARNER AND MAYO.
Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Pritchard sup-
ported the petition.; Dr. Deane, Q.C., appeared for
the co-respondent.
This was a petition by a husband for a dissolu-
tion of the marriage ou the ground of his wife's
adultery. He was a grocer at Yeovil, and married
the respondent in August 1847, and has had three
children by her. She was a perSinilof intemperate
habits, and he frequently remonstrated With her,
but could not induce her to reform. In October,
185.3 she went by. the railway from 'Yeovil to Tann-.
ton, and there passed a night ith •a man in a
house of ill-fame. ." She returned the same week
to her husband, but he refused to iepeive her,
and has not since lived with, her. The petitioner
charged adultery with the co-respondent, and with
persons unknown, and also claimed damages from
the co respond The respwient did not answer,
but the co-respondent denied the adultery, and on.
that! fact -ikisue was joined.
NO evidence was given of the identity of the co-
respondent with the person who passed the night
with Mrs. Warner at Taunton, rnd by the direc-
tion of Mr. Justice Wightman the jury found a
verdict negativing the charge against him, and he
was dismissed from the suit.

Further, evidence was then given of the adultery
of the respondent at the date mentioned, including
a letter from her in which she confessed her guilt
and asked for money.
Their Lordships dissolved the marriage.
Dr. Deane applied for the co-respondent's costs.
Their Lordships did not think it right under the
circumstances to grant the application.

BILLER V. BILLER AND GREEN.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey were counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr. Biller, a clerk in the Post-:Ace, married
Emily Maria Turner, at St. Paul's Cray, in April,
1843, and during their cohabitation, which con-
tinued until January,lBs6, they had seven children.
In June, 1855, they were living at Lewisham, and
Mr. Biller let part of his house to a Mr. George H.
Green. In the tolliiwing Janua-r3-, while Mr. Biller
was absent for the day, Mr. Green and Mrs. Biller
eloped together. She took the name of Bentley,
and has lived with Green at different places in the
suburbs of London. These facts were proved by
several witnesses, among whom was a daughter of
Mr. and Mrs. Biller, about 16 years old, who had
been taken by Mrs. Biller to live with her and Mr.
Green, and had stayed with them until she was
taken 'away by Mr. Biller's sister. The fact of
adultery was traversed by the respondent..
Mr. Justice Wightman summed up, and
The jury found a verdict for the petitioner.
The Court dissolved the marriage, and condemned
the co-responderit in costs.

PARKER V. PARKER AND 3I'LLOYD.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Dr. Spinks appeared
for the petitioner; Dr. Swabey for the respondent.
The co-respondent (lid not appear.
The petitioner, Mr. George Parker, alleged that
his wife, Elizabeth Louisa Parker, had committed
adultery with Robert M'Lloyd. The respondent
did not deny the adultery, but pleaded that the
prisoner had instigatedpild connived at it.
The affirmative of the issue being upon the re-
spondent, the case was opened by Dr. Swabey, who
stated that the marriage took place in 1849, and
they cohabited at various lodgings in the neighbour-
hood of Islington, until the summer of 1856. It
appeared from the evidence of the only witness
called for the respondent, a Mrs. Robinson, who let
lodgings in a house at Islington, that in March,
1855, Mr. and Mrs. Parker lodged with her ; that
at the beginning of 183 U they went to live with his
family at Queen's-road, Regent's-park; that dif-
fe-rences broke out between Mrs. Parker and the
members of his family, in consequence of which
they separated, Mr. Parker remaining with his
family, and Mrs. Parker going back to lodge with
Mrs. Robinson ; that she bad an allowance of 10s.
a week from her husband, who occasionally went
to see her ; that in 1858 Mrs Parker brought a Mr.
M'Lloyd to the house assigning as a reason that
her husband did not give her a sufficient allowance,
and that she and Mr. M'Lloyd lived together in
the house as man and wife for three or four months.
This being the only evidence given in support of
the respondent's pleas, the Court directed to find
a verdict upon them for the petitioner.
Witnesses were then called to prove the allega-
tions in the petition. It appeared that Mrs. Parker
was the daughter of a bricklayer at Cambridge,
named Smith, and that in 1849 Mr. Parker, who
was then a young man employed in the Emigration
office, went to pay a visit of a month to a friend
who was an undergraduate at the University, and
there he became acquainted' with her. She was
known as "Lizzie Smith," and he married her
his visit vas • over without the. knowledge of his
parents. She was then 18 years of age, and was
not able to write her own name. They came to
London and-. lived happily together for several
years. Mr. Parker's family were much dis-
pleased
at his marriage, but ultimately became
reconciled to it, and in the spring of 1856
allowed him and his wife to live with them in the
Queen'sroad. An aunt of Mr. Parker, Mrs. Tus-
tine, stated that Mrs. Parker there gave way to
habits of intoxication, and that her behaviour to
her husband and the other members of the family
was extremely violent and discreditable. They
remonstrated witd her, but without effect, and at
last, one Sunday morning in June, 1856, she packed
up her things and said she would go away. Her
husband and his mother told her to consider well
what she was about to do, but she persisted in her
intention. She asked her husband if he would._
aalnldowsh leietrhleOnsg. aot-week,
eitek,andb hea n
a
ca
had been brought up as a milliner, and she now
carries on that business.
adal went d thathewould,
away. She
Mr. Justice Wightman said that the Court
thought there was nothing In the evidence to lead
it to infer that the husband had been guilty of
tiha
er t
ifn
interval
seoa m nec ue ry
brieedtdex
acquiescence or connivance in his wife's adultery,
and, as adultery was clearly proved, he was entitled
to a divorce.
M
ecbeenuht
at
the
beenou
marriagel a h
givenav e
on
satisfied
been rb etregardtßael; to
with
in 1849 and 1855, when they lodged with Mrs.
Robinson.
The marriage was accordingly dissolved.
This was the last day of the present sittings of
he full Court.

ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL, GRAY'S-INN-ROAD,—The
number of patients relieved at this hospital, during the week
ending July 9, was 2,417, of which 753 were new cases.
TUE CITY COAL DlfEs.—On Friday a numerous
deputation waited on the Home Secretary, Sir G. C. Lewis,
on the subject of the dues on coal imported into the port of
London. The deputation was introduced by the Hon. G.
Byng, supported by a great number of the members for the
metropolitan boroughs. Mr. Byng stated that the object of
the deputation was to ascertainwhat course the Government
would pursue in the event of the Board of Works making
an application to them to have the 9d. per ton that would
revert to the Corporation of London in 1862 transferred to
them. Sir j
eSeitri
eGn
a.
;Ct.hLewis
t, saidtha
that
the
equestion df divided ded
milesitslvenl,tfl too
n theto
large, and went beyond the metropolitan area ;
corpora-
tion second was as to the 4d. which the City claimed
tion property. He saw no practical result from thnispioij
de-
putation, because the Board of Works had. made no t
and with
did their appeal must be considered on
titosnraproperty,
upon
cation to him for the transfer of the 9d.. duty
er,ittld If t-eK
regard to the 4d. duty, it was corporation
the deputation,
manufacturers
question from one of
drawback to man
said the scheme of allowing
deputationa then withdrew.
which he would not express
was impracticable The
singular circumstance
the Home Secretary
A man named slight,
topof St. Sidwell's, Exeter,
bees at the
seeing a swarm of
and, strange as it may appear, stood in
npitthcheinmgano,ns
hthe:
dl,eafafyceb, bough,
plucked a bough,
d avoured to attract them to it. They flew
the road and endeavoured oceßurErEed SoWnAlß'uMesldNaGy.—m!nTnegry.
they clustered,
Many
people, seeing this, be came alarmed,
and hands.
)
but the
tmilalna,nkdnocwa:pgawaeedll,
atnhde
dhiarebeitaofse'emeees
osftotohde
per-
fectly s
towards him,
by-
standers to procure a hive, saving that if this were done
binchinesstdeaedep,oof
the bees would doubtless be attracted into it. A hive was
obtained, and the result was as anticipated. The bees for-
sook the man for the hive, and they were rest ored to Mr.
Elworthy, the owner. It is a remarkable fac t that although
the bees stuck to the man for a quarter of an hour or 20
minutes they did him no injury. Had he ti, eyed, or become
agitated, be would have been severely at
wag, and in all
probability death would have ensuedo.-.Exe ter Flying Post.