The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-04 00:00:00

APPEALS.-RAMS 4Y AND ANOTHER V. FORBES ET AL.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Session
in Scotland. The judgments against which this appeal
has been brought were pronounced in an action raised in
the Court of Session, at the instance of the above-
named appellant and of the father of the appellant,
Alexander Ramsay, jun., against Sir James Ramsay,
of Balmaine, patron of the Ramsay Mortification
of the United College of St. Salvador and Sc.
Leonard, at St. Andrews, and against the Principal and
Professors of the said United College, and as such admini-
stratc,rs of the Ramsay Mortification. The Court of Session
Second Division decided against the appellant's claim as a
competitor for the Ramsay Bursary at St. Andrew's Col-
lege. In 1854 the appellant was a competitor for the
Ramsay Bursary, along with two other individuals of the
name of Alexander Ramsay, of Forfar, and John Ramsay.
The examinal ors preferred and certified Alexander Ram-
say, of Forfar ; but, after holding the bursary for several
years, his right was challenged, and his election was set
aside as beyond the proper ago in 1859. The appellant
now claimed as second best at the examination of 1854.
The Court rejected his claim, and he appealed.
On hearing the appellant's counsel, and without calling
for a reply, the Lord Chancellor affirmed the decision of the
Court of Session, and dismissed the appeal, with costs.
Messrs. Connell and Hope, Prince's-street, Westminster,
and W. and J. Cook, W.S., Edinburgh, were solicitors for
the respondent.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before Sir Cresswell Cresswell.)

MILLS V. MILLS.

This was a suit instituted by Maria Antonia Mills for a
judicial separation, on the ground of her husband's adul-
tery, and there was an appearance by the respondent, but
no answer.

Dr. Fhillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Alewdell were counsel for
the petitioner.

It appeared from the statement of council that the parties
were married at Vienna on the 3d of November, 18 ?5, and
cohabited until 1837, when the respondent deserted her,
and formed an improper connection with a female, with
whom he had since been living, and by whom he had a
family. It was not until 1857 that the petitioner dis-
covered where her husband was residing, which was
at Seine Port, near Melon, in France, and as
he evinced no disposition to atone for his misconduct she
resolved to adopt the present proceedings. Her application
was limited to judicial separation, for although she alleged
desertion, being a Roman Catholic, she could not, accord-
ing to the doctrines of that Church, avail herself of the full
relief which the Court was empowered to afford by a disso-
lution of marriage when that offence or cruelty on the part
of the husband was established in addition to adultery. It
farther appeared that at the time of the marriage the peti-
tioner was living with her father, who was a retired profes••
sional man named Kriel, and that there was nothing
in her conduct to justify her husband's desertion. The wit-
nesses in support of the petition were resident in France,
and their evidence had been taken by commission before the
Tribunal Premiere Instance at Melun.
The evidence, which was very voluminous, was then
read, and it set forth that at the present time the
respondent was living at his chateau at Seine Port
with a female, who passed as his wife, and that his son by
her was 15 years old. The way in which the petitioner
discovered where her husband was living was by receiving
a letter in London from him which was intended for the
woman with whom he was cohabiting, who also happened
to be in London on a visit at the time.

Dr. Edward Zumnerm, a jurisconsult, was examined to
prove the validity of the marriage certificate produced.
Sir C. Cresswell said that he must take time to read the
depositions before deciding.
The case accordingly stands over.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)