The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-10 00:00:00

JOINT-STOCK BANKS.

Sharel Joint-Stock Banks. Paid. Price. Done.
Closing I Business ,

THIS DAY'S MARKETS.

CORN EXCHANGE.

Most of the country markets, held on Saturday, were but
moderately supplied with wheat, and the demand for all
kinds ruled steady, at very full to further enhanced rates.
Most kinds of barley sold without difficulty, at extreme
rates, and other produce moved off steadily at full quota-
tions.

On the Continent wheat has meta slow inquiry, at about
previous rates. Spring corn has continued firm. In the
United States prices continue to be supported.
The arrivals of English grain up to our market last week,
were very moderate. From abroad they were liberal, viz.,
11,439 qrs. of wheat, 11,502 of barley, 30,311 oats, 27 beans,
245 peas, 2,560 tares, 4,090 linseed, 4,270 rapeseed, 1,700
sundry seeds, 325 sacks and 1,550 barrels of flour.
The quantity of English wheat received fresh up to. day,
coastwise and by land carriage, was very moderate, conse-
quently the show of samples was rather limited. The
Essex wheats were in steady, but by no means active
request, at prices equal to Monday last ; but the Kentish
supply was taken off slowly, and some difficulty was expe-
rienced in effecting sales at last week's currency.

Owing to several country buyers being in attendance, there
was an improved sale for foreign wheat, and some quantity
was taken, at fully last Monday's quotations. Floating
cargoes of grain were in fair request, at full prices.
The few samples of English barley on offer found buyers
at very full prices, and there was a better feeling in the de-
mand for inferior foreign, which, in some Instances, pro-
duced is per quarter more money.

The malt trade ruled dull, but we have no change to
notice in prices.

There was a full average supply of oats on offer, and the
demand ruled steady, at full quotations.
Beans sold readily, and prices advanced is per quarter.
In peas very little was doing, and late rates were barely
supported.

We had a better demand for flour, and, in some. instances,
Norfolk qualities were is higher than on Monday last.

CURRENCY PER IMPERIAL MEASURE.
Wheat—Essex and Kent, red, new 39s to 455
Ditto, old

Ditto, white, new 42s 508
Ditto, old —B —5
Norfolk and Lincoln, red, old 3Bs 46s
Ditto, new
Rye—Old —8 —8
New
Barley—Grinding...., 24s 30s
Malting 36s --s
Chevalier .l7s 41s
Malt—Suffolk and Norfolk s4s 57s
Brown s2s 58s
Kingston and Ware s6s 668
Chevalier
Oats—Yorkshire and Lincolnsh., Feeding 2ls 28s
Potato 278 32s
Youghal and Cork, black 22s 25s
Cork, white 24s 31s
Scotch, Feeding
Beans —Tick
Pigeons 385 41s
Peas—Grey
Maple
White 4os 44s
Boilers
Flour—Town-made
Suffolk 3os 328
Stockton and Norfolk.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-( THIS DAY.)

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before Lord Campbell, Mr. Baron Martin, and the Judge
Ordinary, Sir Cresswell Cresswell.)
SPROT V. SPROT.
Mr. Sergeant Piggott applied to their lordships for a
decree of divorce in terms of the verdict of the jury in this
case.

Lord Campbell granted the decree of divorce, with costs
against the adulterer, an Italian, and ordered the child to
be given into the custody of the mother.

MARCHMONT V. MARCHMONT.

This causefw hichiasexCiteis;Qch attention, again
appeared in the list this morning. It was an application on
the part of Mr. Marchmont for a new trial. It will be re-
collected that the verdict at the conclusion of the cause
when last before the Court, was delivered in favour of Mrs.
Marchmont, the petitioner, a lady possessed of very large
personal property, and the respondent, Mr. Marchmont, was
a dissenting minister, belonging to the Congregational or
Independent denomination, and also engaged in literary
pursuits.
Upon the judges entering the court,
_ _

Mr. Phillimore, Q.C., said he had just received a letter
from Mr. Macaulay, who was to have moved this morning
for a new trial in the case of Mr. Marchmont. He regretted
to say that last .night Mr. Macaulay was attacked with a
violent sore throat, and that he wes prevented by hie
medical attendant from leaving his room. He (Dr. Philli-
more) must therefore ask their lordships to allow the case
to stand over. It was absolutely necessary that the new
trial should be moved for before a full court, as their lord-
ships would perceive from the 18th section of the act.

Sir C. Cresswell—ln this case it must be very unsatis-
factory that it should be moved for elsewhere.
Lord Campbell—l suppose it can't be helped, but we have
come here at great inconvenience.
Baron Martin—Can't you go on with it, Dr. Phillimore ?
Lord Campbell—What ! Were you with Mr. Macaulay ?
Dr. PhiLlimore—Yes, my lord.

Lord Campbell—Then I call upon you, Dr. Phillimore,
without the slightest hesitation, to proceed. I thought
you were an opponent. _

Dr. Phillimore—No, my lord. lam on the same side;
but I have received no instructions.

Lord Campbell—You must go on. The Court will have
no objection to adjourn for a quarter of an hour in order to
enable you to prepare your case. You must be familiar
with all the details.

Dr. Phillimore said he would do his best, but he feared
hat he would have to trespass on their lordships' indul-

genre:

The judges then retired, and, on their return into court,
Dr. Phillimore rose and said he had to move the court for
a new trial in this case, on the ground that the verdict was
contrary to the evidence, that certain evidence had been
admitted which ought to have been, rejected, and that The
learned Judge-Ordinary had not properly stated to the jury
as to cruelty. The case occupied eight days in hearing,
and the learned judge was nearly three hours summing up
the evidence to the jury. The petitioner and Mrs. March-
mont were married in Oct., 1857, at St. George's Cathedral,
and the final separation took place in June, 1858. The
allegations contained in the petition were not so much any
particular and specific acts of cruelty, but rather a series of
continued acts of cruelty ranging over the whole period of
the marriage ; and particular acts of cruelty were charged
as against the husband of attempting to obtain large sums
of money by acts of cruelty, but no stress was laid upon
that point on the other side ; and it was remarkable that
the jury had accompanied their verdict with an intimation
that those particular charges were not proved.
The Judge Ordinary said it was exactly so. He remem-
bered that one or two of the jury had intimated that such
was their opinion, but he judged from the manner of the
foreman when he delivered the verdict that he especially
guarded himself against its being thought that he was of
that opinion.
Lord Campbell—The Court could not be occupied in
hearing anything said by any individual juryman.
Dr. Phillimore said he would proceed with the case, and
having detailed several acts of alleged cruelty, said he sub-
mitted that the learned Judge Ordinary had improperly
laid down the law to the jury both with regard to the par-
ticular acts of cruelty, and in reference to the cases which
had been cited, for instance Holding v. Holding, Waring v.
Waring, Dysart v. Dysart. The learned judge left the
definition of the law to the jury.
The Judge Ordinary said it was not likely that he should
have been guilty of so gross an impropriety as leaving the
definition of the law to the jury.
Lord Campbell—lf the learned counsel intended to rest
his argument upon the misdirection of the judge, he must
first show what the direction of the learned judge was, and
thex. proceed to show the Court where it was wrong.
r. Phillimore said he would endeavour to do so. One
of the objections of which he had to complain was, that
they endeavoured to produce evidence to show the wife was
of an irritable and ill-tempered disposition, which was not
allowed by the learned judge, although he had himself
told the jury that Mrs. Marchmont was ill-tempered and
peevish. Then, with regard to the particular charge of a
blow having been inflicted, it was proved by a witness
named Tobin, that when the alleged act of cruelty took
place, it was after the occasion of the husband having been
provoked and irritated. The evidence intended to enable
the wife to show that her habitation was unsafe failed,
for !t might have arisen from violence, and the wife had no
right, if she had so conducted herself as to cause the provo-
cation, to charge the husband with cruelty. The evidence
showed that Mr. Marchmont was the minister of a Disent-
in g chapel, and his wife was possessed of a fortune of
£50,000. On his marriage it was arranged that he should
leave his chapel, but she was to have the sole control of the
whole financial arrangements of the household; yet a very
short time after their marriage, it was clearly proved that
she absolutely refused to let Mr. Marchmont have even a
few shillings to purchase stationery with, and to say that Mr.
Marchmont had been guilty of acts of cruelty towards his
wife because he felt indignant at her refusal of such a trifling
request was, he thought, saying too much. It was also in
evidence that Mrs. Marchmont was a woman that was in
the habit of stating to her servants that which took place
in the marriage bed. Such a proceeding, he thought,
clearly showed that a woman who would act in such manner
could not be called a delicate woman. It also showed that
she-was a person to whom the usual meaning of the word
cruelty coula not be applied. The learned counsel then
proceeded to show that the evidence disclosed the fact that
Mrs. Marchmont was addicted to drinking sherry, and that
her conduct at this particular period was of the most
provoking character. The only evidence brought
forward at the trial to prove that a blow had been
struck was only on one occasion, and then it was of so un-
satisfactory a nature that it altogether failed to show that
Mrs. Marchmont was in any actual fear of danger to life or
limb, without which the case could not be sustained.
The Judge Ordinary was of opinion that that was quite
a mistake.

Baron Martin thought a man might beat his wife every
morning with a horsewhip without endangering life or
limb. He thought, however, that such conduct would be
in the minds of all reasonable persons considered cruel.
Lord Campbell—l think the learned doctor is wholly
wrong in his hbad.
Dr. Phillimore—That then was all the evidence offered at
the trial to show continued cruelty.
The Judge Ordinary—lt was the only evidence to
showed that a blow had been struck, but it was not the only
evidence to shoiv continued cruelty.
Dr. Phillimore said he would next proceed to allude to
what took place on the 25th Feb., when the alleged forcing
the wife into a chair, and into the carriage occurred
when they went to the police station. At that particular
period Mrs. Marchmont had left her home and was residing
with a friend named Walmsley. It was alleged that she
was dragged from the house along the garden, notwith-
standing her screams, and was forced into a cab and held
down to the seat. On tnis occasion Mrs. Walmsley spoke
to a blow having been given.
The Judge Ordinary said the evidence of the cabman
proved that Mrs. Marchmont was roughly put into the cab,
and the husband had admitted that he had placed his arm
round her waist to assist her into the cab, and when he was
asked why he did so, he did not think any person could
forget the answer given. He said he did it because he was
so fond of her. (Loud laughter.)
Dr. Phillimore said, whilst in the cab Mrs. Marchmont
stated that her husband called her filthynames, and when she
got to- the station-house she refused to make any charge
against Mr. Marchmont, which he thought would not have
been the case if any actual cruelty had been committed.
The learned doctor then adverted to the occasion when Mrs.
Marchmont left her home on the Sth of March, and her
return on the 13th, and to seven following occasions when
she left her home.
The Judge Ordinary said it must be borne in mind that
on each of those occasions there had been discussions about
money matters, and the making of her will.
Dr. Phillimore said that was so, but he contended that
Mrs. Marchmont had condoned the cruelty by voluntarily
returning to her home after she had so frequently left it,
and such being the case he humbly submitted that Mr.
Marchmont was entitled to a new trial.
The Judge Ordinary said the eviden4 brought forward
in this case was of a very remarkable character. It ap-
peared that the endeavour of both parties had been to bring
forward every unkind word or thing that had passed be-
tween them for the period of eight months, and they had
consumed eight days in doing so. He thought there had
been faults on both sides. Mrs. Marchmont, no doubt, was
a lady addicted to taking. more sherry than was consistent
with calmness; yet, looking at the whole of the case, he
saw no reason to be dissatisfied with the verdict of the
jury.

Lord Campbell said he was of opinion that no new rule
ought to be granted in this case, and the verdict ought not
to be disturbed. The evidence had been of a very conflicting
character, and the jury preferred believing Mrs. March-
moat. He was not prepared to say they wero wrong, or
that they had come to a wrong decision. Although the
conduct of the wife had been low and vulgar; that of her
'husband had been base, sordid and disgraceful, and the
jury were perfectly justififid in not paying the slightest at-
iou evidence. It was a giutitication to find
oTe of the schemes of a man who had been