The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-09 00:00:00

CHERRY V. CHERRY.

The wife had petitioned the Court for judicial
separaticn from her husband, a clergyman of the
Church of England, on the ground of cruelty. The
case was defended, and the Court, considering that
the alleged cruelty had not been established, dis-
missed the petition. The husband then obtained a
decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and the
wife was ordered to return home.

Dr. Deane, Q.O , on the part of the husband, ap-
plied to the Court for a decree, enabling him to
issue writs to the sheriffs of the different counties
of England to arrest the wife for contempt of Court.
The decree of 23d December, 1858, directing her to
return to her husband had not been complied with,
and a writ of sequestration against her property,
which had been settled on her, and which was con-
siderable, was then issued. This writ had been
evaded, and Mr. Cherry had no means of enforcing
it, so that be was compelled to make the present
application to give effect to the order of the Court.
Sir C. Cresswell said that Mr. Cherry would be
incurring great expense.
Dr. Deane said that he understood that if all the
write were issued they would be 4Wut 80 al aura-

ber. However, he hoped it would not be necessary
to issue them all.
Sir C. Cresswell inquired if it was usual, accord-
ing to the practice of the Court of Chancery, to
issue a writ of attachment against the person when
there was one already out against the property.
Dr. Deane replied in the negative, and said that
the writ of sequestration had not yet been brought
in.

Sir C. Cresswell said he could make no order
until the writ was returned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—May 8.

MANSION-HOUSE,—Frederick George Har-
rington, a man of about forty years of age, having
rather a respectable appearance, and in the employ-
ment of Messrs. Alfred Davis and Co., Sheffield and
Birmingham warehousemen and foreign importers,
was brought before Mr. Alderman Rose, who was
sitting for the Lord Mayor, charged with embezzle-
ment;

It appeared that the prisoner had been in the
employ of the prosecutors for some years, and it was
his duty to receive money from the porters for goods
which they had delivered, and if a large sum to
hand it over to the cashier at the end of the day ; if
a small amount Wednesdays and Fridays were the
days on which he ought to settle his accounts.
On the 21st of March one of the porters, named
Neale, delivered two parcels of goods, and
received in payment two amounts, viz., £6 9s. 6d.
and £l5 13s. 10d., which he handed over to the
prisoner. He also handed him another amount on
the 4th April, viz., £2 Os. 10d. It was proved that
he had not paid those amounts to the cashier, and,
when taxed with having robbed his employers, he
said that he intended to have paid it back again,
and lie wondered it had not been found out before,
as he had been carrying it on for the last two years.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, and said he wished
to be dealt with summarily. He was accordingly
remanded until Friday, in order to be dealt with in
petty session.

HAMMERSMITH.—Mr. Charles Cautoys, the
secretary of the London District Telegraph Com-
pany, Canon-street, City, appeared before Mr. Ing-
ham, to answer the complaint of the Fulham Board
of Works, for unlawfully placing certain wires and
other apparatus along Shepherd's-bush and Brook-
green-lane, without the consent in writing of the
authorities having control over the paths.

Mr. J. Bird attended in support Of the summons
and said these proceedings had been taken in a
friendly spirit on both sides, and the defendant had
agreed to leave it to his worship to say whether
the company had acted rightly or wrongly, and
were willing to abide by the decision of the court.
The works of the company had been carried out
under the British Telegraph Company's Act, and it
contained a clause to the effect that it shall not be
lawful for any company to suspend wires, &c., in
any public highway without the consent in writing
of the persons having control of the same.
The defendant said the whole question turned on
the consent in writing. The company had served
the board with a notice of their intention to break
open the roads and paths on a particular day, and
when their surveyor saw the board's surveyor, he
told him it was all right, go a-head, or words to
that effect. In consequence of the hard frost set-
ting in, their works were suspended, but directly
the weather broke, the men proceeded to put up
the poles in the manner complained of. The parish
considered they ought to have sent them a second
notice, but their surveyor telling their (the com-
pany's) officer that it was all right, they proceeded
with the works. As a rule they obtained the con-
sent in writing of the authorities, but in this par-
ticular case, having the approval of the surveyor,
they looked upon it as being tantamount to a con-
sent in writing.
Mr. Ingham said there the defendant was wrong,
for the surveyor could not repeal an act of Parlia-
ment. His worship then asked Mr. Bird what ob-
jection there was to the poles and wires.
Mr. Bird said they were an eyesore, and were an
obstruction to the footpath, besides being a nuisance.
Mr. Ingham inquired what power there was in
the act for their removal ?

Mr. Bird said the act did not provide any power
to remove. The case would come under the common
law.

Mr. Ingham told the defendant that no doubt a
violation of the law had been committed.

The defendant said that if they had asked the
surveyor for his written consent at the time, he
would have given it to them.
Mr. Ingham said they could not waive an act of
Parliament, even if all the notabilities of Ham-
mersmith had met and told them to go on. They
were bound to have had the consent in writing of
the proper persons.
Mr. Bird said the poles were not only an obstruc-
tion but dangerous. A short time ago the wind
blew one of them down across the road, and an acci-
dent would have occurred to a heavily laden vehicle,
if it had not been seen by the police, who cut the
wire and removed it.

Mr. Ingham would suppose a post blew down
and knocked a man on the head and killed him, the
person who erected it would be liable to be tried
for manslaughter, as it was put up without lawful
consent.

The defendant said he was quite aware they had
done wrong in not having the consent in writing,
but they thought it unnecessary after what had
fallen from the surveyor.

Mr. Ingham suggested an arrangement between
the parties, which was agreed to.
Mr, Bird asked for a nominal conviction, which
Mr. Ingham consented to inflict, and accordingly
imposed a fine of ls., and 2s. costs.
The money was paid, and the defendant pro-
mised to lay the matter before the directors, to ob-
tain their consent to placing the wires under ground
instead of above.

IMPORTAIV7 TIPEATRI( AL INQUIRY.