The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 17, 1861.

BRITISH POSSESSIONS._

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

A MAUVAISE PLAISAIVTBRIE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.)
APPEAL MOTION.-SPURGIN V. WHITE.

This is an appeal from an order of Vice-Chancellor
Stuart to dissolve an injunction against the defendant
White, a bookseller, in Bloomsbury-street, restraining him
from acting as agent of the Society for the Sale of Sweden-
borg's Works, and occupation of the premises.
Mr. Bacon, Q.C., resumed his arguments for the appel-
lant.

The case was proceeding when we went to press

COVET OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before the Lord Chief Justice, and Justices Crompton,
Hill, and Wightman.
RUSSELL V. THE GREAT SHIP COMPANY.

This was an application to the Court for a rule to show
cause why the award made by the arbitrators in this case
should not be set aside.

Mr. Bovill, Q.C, showed cause against the rule. From
the observations of the learned gentleman, it appearedithat
Mr. Scott Russell was employed in the first company in
constructing the Great Eastern, and in the contract signed
there was a clause which set forth that in the event of
any difference between Mr. Russell and the company
arising, it was to be settled by arbitrators. During
the continuance of the contract the company was reorgan-
ized, and a new set of directors were chosen in place of
those who constituted the original board ; a dispute as to
the meaning of the contract then occurred, and the matter
was accordingly referred to arbitrators. The arbitrators
decided in favour of the plaintiff for the whole amount
claimed, which included the alterations which were not
mentioned in the contract. A rule was asked to set the award
aside on the ground that the arbitrators had no power to deal
with matters not mentioned in the contract. Mr. Bovis
contended that the arbitrators had such right, and that the
extras fairly came within the meaning of the contract. On
the other side it was contended that the arbitrators had
exceeded their powers in dealing with the extras in
the contract, as the words of the document were
that " there shall be no extras," and that the contract
only provided for the reference to arbitrators of those mat-
ters referred to them.

There was also a cross-rule calling upon the company to
show eause why they should not at once pay to Mr. Scott
Russell the amount awarded him by the arbitrators.
The arguments were being proceeded with when we went
to press.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
SIMPSON T. SIMPSON.

This was a petition presented by Mrs. Mary Ann
Simpson praying for dissolution of marriage on the ground
of desertion and adultery. The respondent denied the de-
sertion without reasonable cause, and also that if adultery had
been committed, the wife had condoned the offence. The
marriage between the parties took place on the 12th of Feb-
ruary, 1849, and the learned counsel for the petitioner
stated that the neglect of the wife commenced a very short
time after marriage.

The following witnesses were then examined :
James Whiteside—l reside at Preston, and am an attor-
ney's clerk. I have known the respondent for upwards of
20 years. I also know the petitioner. I produce the mar-
riage certificate of Mrs. Simpson. They, after the mar-
riage, lived together for about two years. Mr. Simpson
is not now in Preston. In 1859 I went to Mul-
house, Upper Rhine, and saw Mr. Simpson at the Ville de
Paris. I visited him in his bedroom. I saw a female
in bed with him. It was not Mrs. Simpson. I saw
him the next day. When speaking of the fact I had
seen the night previous, he told me he never would live
with his wife again. He had cohabited with the person I
had seen for two years.

TEIS DAYS MARKETS.

Joseph Redhead—l live at Preston. lam an operative
cotton-spinner. In 1850 I ,Event with Mr. Simpson to a
brothel in Preston. I did not know where he was going to
at first. He stopped at the house, and we both went in.
Mr. Simpson sent for a bottle of wine. I partook of it,
and then Mr. Simpson went upstairs with a woman, and I
returned home.

Mrs. Simpson—l am the petitioner in this suit. I last
saw my husband in 1851. He sent to me at the place
in which I was then resident. He told me he was going
to the Exhibition in London, and wished me to go with
him. On the Tuesday following he returned. I heard he
had left England, and since then I have never seen him.
He has never contributed to my support or written to me
since.

Cross-examined by Dr. Spinks—My husband has said
he could not live with me on account of my violent temper,
but that is untrue. He never complained of my extrava-
gance. It is untrue. He never paid bills for me. He
never promised to amend his conduct. I did know of his
intention of quitting England.
Rule nisi granted.

The Courrzer of Lyons reports the following
curious case as having come before the Tribunal of
Correctional Police in that city on the 10th inst. :
A well-dressed gentleman, of respectable appear-
ance, is brought before the court. He is pale, con-
fused, and seems ashamed. Everybody's eyes are
fixed on him. What fault has he committed ? The
witnesses shall inform us.

Madame Piot (with tears in her eyes) states her
name, Christian name, age, and profession.
The President—Tell us with what you charge
the defendant.

Witness—On Christmas-eve that gentleman, who
is an acquaintance of my husband's, paid us a visit,
and asked us to go and sup with him after midnight
mass. We thanked him, but told him we meant to
return home after service. He insisted, saying
that he meant to give us a capital jugged hare. He
then left. I had, Monsieur le President, I had then,
but I have now no longer—(here the witness wept)
—my poor Juliette.
The President—You mean a cat that you called
Juliette ?

Witness—Yes, M. le President. (Laughter.)
I had then my poor Juliette—(renewed laughter)
—and during the gentleman's visit she came
and rubbed herself against his legs and mewed r
and the gentleman said, " Madame, you have
a very fine Angola there." He then passed his
hand along her back, and said, " Its fur is very
silky; it is very fat; it would do capitally
for a jugged hare." I did not pay any parti-
cular attention to his words ; and I believe
my husband said, laughing, " If ever you kill it, I
beg you will keep the skin to make a muff for my
wife." Some time after the gentleman's departure
I felt a sad presentiment ; the joke came into my
mind, and I called " Juliette, Juliette," but Juliette
did not answer. (Here the witness wept again,
and there was laughter in court, while the defenant
hid his face behind his pocket-handkerchief.)
The Presiden t—Be calm, madame; we understand
your emotion, but after all it is only a cat.
Witness—lt was such a nice one, and I was so
fond of it. If you only knew. Well, that gentle-
man there called it down stairs, killed it, had it
cooked like a hare, and gave it us for supper. It
was abominable. My poor cat ! (Laughter.)
The President—Sit down.

The witness then retired wiping her eyes:
After the evidence of a witness who had seen the
defendant cut up poor Juliette, the defendant was
interrogated.
The President—Why did you take away the
complainant's cat, and above all why did you kill
it?

•
Defendant—lt was a joke that I wished to play
madame and her husband, by giving them a jugged
cat as a Christmas supper. I did not mean any
harm. I had often said to madame's husband

" You have a very fine cat; it would make a capital
stew, and I should like to treat you to a dish of
that kind." Madame's husband always replied
" In any case yon will say nothing to my wife till
we have eaten it, and you will take care to keep
the skin for me." I regret to have caused grief to
madame, but I repeat that I only intended a joke.
The President—lt was an ill-natured j oke. Besides
the destruction of a domestic animal is an offence.
Remember that.
The Court fined the defendant 30f.