The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(7hts Day).

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before Sir Cresswell Cresswell, Judge Ordinary, Mr. Jus-
tice Wightman, and Mr. Justice Williams.)

TAYLOR, CALLING HERSELF WING, V. WING-WING V.
TAYLOR, FALSELY CALLED WING.

This was a suit by the wife against her husband for a
dissolution of marriage. The petition showed that a mar-
riage had taken place at Hedmin, Yorkshire, in October,
1835, between Ann Taylor and Thomas Wing, the parties
in the two suits ; that at the time of the celebration of the
marriage Thomas Wing had on divers occasions earnal con-
nexion with the mother of Ann Taylor, and the said Ann
Taylor was well aware of the fact at the time of the mar-
riage. That, in consequence of such carnal connexion, the
said Thomas Wing and Ann Taylor were in law deemed to
be, and in fact were at the time of the celebration of the said
marriage within the prohibited degrees of affinity, and
therefore null and void, to all intents and purposes whatso-
ever. There was another prayer that the ceremony having
only been performed in the presence of the officiating
clergyman, and therefore against the Rubric; but this
point did not come under discussion. A demurrer was
put in that there was not any matter in the substance
of the facts that would in law justify a sentence of
nullity of marriage. In the answer of the wife to the peti-
tion of the husband, it was alleged that, even if the circum-
stances were sufficient in law to justify a dissolution of
marriage, Thomas Wing could not avail himself thereof,
because the facts were within his own knowledge, and he
was not allowed to seek to take advantage of his own
wrong. There was also a general denial of the other
facts.

Dr. Tristram argued for the demurrent, and Dr. Spinka
for the respondent.

The Judge Ordinary, at much length, reviewed the dif-
ferent acts of Parliament and authorities pertaining to the
question, and said that no Oufficient grounds had been
shown for proving the act alleged to have brought the
parties within the degrees of affinity, and thereby justify-
ing evidence for the dissolution.

The demurrer must therefore be allowed, and the decree
for dissolution of the marriage refused.

GRAY V. GRAY-NOVEL CASE.

In this case the wife filed a petition praying for a disso-
lution of marriage, on the ground of her husband's adultery
and bigamy, and the trial took place on the 17th January
last. The adultery and a conviction of respondent for
bigamy were established, and the Court made a decree nisi.
The Attorney-General subsequently intervened, and
pleaded collusion between the parties and adultery on the
part of the petitioner. The latter then applied to the Court
to have the petition taken off the file, which was re-
sisted by the:Attorney-General, who contended that accord-
ing to the provisions of the statute, which enabled him
to intervene, the court was empowered to prevent a
petition from being withdrawn when once the case had been
heard and a decree made. On the hearing of the application
the Judge-Ordinary decided that under the circumstances
the petition could not be taken off the file.

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey, on behalf of
the petitioner, appeared before the Court this morning in
support of an appeal against the learned judge's decision.
The Court decided that the appeal should be dismissed,
and accordingly the case on the part of the Attorney-Gene-
ral will be proceeded with.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH. STREET.

ASSAULT BY A PORTUGUESE MERCHANT.—Mr. Edward
Pinte Barbosa, a Portuguese merchant, of No. 2, Golden-
square, was charged before Mr. Mansfield with assaulting
a young man named Thomas Hinde, of 3, Hertford-street,
Fitzroy-square.
The complainant said that on Saturday night, about half-
past 11, he was passing a hoarding in Great Windmill-
street, having a parcel under his arm at the time; He stood
sideways to let the deft ndant and two of his friends pass,
and remarked that there was plenty of room, when the de-
fendant tore his shirt front. tried to throw him into tho
road, and then tried to bite his hand.

Mr. Charles Beeching, of 7, Great Windmill-street, said
he saw the complainant passing the hoarding, and saw the
defendant strike and try to bite him, as stated. The com-
plainant had been in his employ some time, and was a very
inoffensive young man.

Defendant said he did give the complainant a blow, and
ho was sorry for it, but he was pushed against.
Complainant denied this.
Mr. Mansfield said evidently something had passed, and
the defendant in a sudden fit of temper struck a blow, which
he ought not to have done. He should fine him 20s.

COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL FOR ASSAULTING A CON-
STABLE.—Two ruffianly-looking fellows, named Michael
Henley and William Smith O'Brien, were charged, before
Mr. Mansfield, with committing a violent assault on God-
frey, 215 C.

The prisoners were standing outside of a public-house in
Brewer-street, Golden-ssluare, on Saturday night, making
a great noise. The constable requested them to go away,
when Henley wanted him to have a " box" with him. The
prisoners were again requested to go away by the constable,
when they forced him against the railings, hurting his
back, and then got him on the ground, and while there
severely kicked him about the lower part of his body. A
young man, Louis Schofield, 12 Heddon-street, Regent-
street, then went to the constaille's assistance, and some
constables arriving the prisoners were taken to the station.
He was much exhausted, had scarcely slept since, and at
the station had had two fits.

In answer to Mr. Mansfield, the constable said he was in
the doctor's hands.

Mr. Mansfield said every protection ought to be afforded
a constable, and the witness Schofield had done his duty in
doing so. He had always found that the best men got most
injured, as they interfered to clear the streets of drunken
ruffins, while a less careful constable passed on. He con-
sidered in such cases the magistrate had not sufficient power
to deal with them, and should therefore send it to the
sessions.