The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-26 00:00:00

lIALL V. WItTOIIT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench in favour of the defendant.

This was an action of damages for breach of promise o
marriage. Defendant pleaded physical incapacity and in
ability to perform the contract.

Four of the judges were of opinion that the judgment of
tho court below should be reversed ; and three of their lord-
ships were of opinion that the decision of the court below
should be affirmed.—Judgment reversed.

HARLOW V. HARRISON'.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Conrt of Queen's
Bench, as to the sale of a horse named " Garnet " for bi 1.
Their lordships allowed plaintiff to amend his declaration
and granted a now trial, without costs.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
LLOYD Y. LLOYD AND CHICHESTER-EXTRAORDINARY

CASE.

The marriage took place at Paddington on the Ist of May,
1853. Tho petitioner was a captain in the army, and the
respondent a daughter of Mr. Cheese, of Kington, in Here-
fordshire. Captain Lloyd having fallen into pecuniary diffi-
culties, was in 18.56 arrested and confined in the Queen's
Bench Prison. Hero he was visited by his wife, and here it
was stated that her intimacy with the co-respondent, Mr.
George Augustus Hamilton Chichester, commenced. It was
followed by their cohabitation, and by the birth of two
children, in addition to two which Mrs. Lloyd had had by
her husband.
Mr. Edward Thomas Isaacson, who described himself as
an agent, was examined by the Court. Ile had been in the
Queen's Bench Prison with Captain Lloyd, and had dis-
cussed the subject of his matrimonial affairs. Had after-
wards entered into communication with the parties and with
Mr. Cheese. Had merely done so as a matter of feeling.
Would swear that Captain Lloyd did not stipulate that he
should have a certain sum before he would sign the peti-
tion. He had been selected to serve the citation on Mr.
Chichester..
Sir C. Cresswell—By whom
Witness—By Captain Lloyd.
Sir C. Cresswell—Not by Mr. Strutt, the attorney ?
No.

Sir C. Creswell—Why were you selected ? Because I
had been acquainted with Mr. Chichester for many years.
Sir C. Cresswell—And therefore Captain Lloyd "selected
you for the agreeable task of serving your friend with the
citation ? (Laughter.)
Examination continued—l went to Paris to serve the cita-

tion. I was there about three works. I did not find the co-
respondent for a week. I used afterwards to dine with the
respondents. I paid for some of the dinners. They were
at their own residence, not at a restaurant. I agreed to ad-
vanee a certain sum to Mr. Chichester on Mrs. Lloyd's
order on her father. That money was to be applied to my
own uses. (Laughter.) I was to have half of it, and Mr.
Chichester half. On my oath that money was not for the
_ _

purpose of procuring evidence. Mr. Cheese mad© his
daughter a monthly allowance, and Mr. Chichester wished
me to get an order of Mrs. Lloyd for X,50 cashed. If I had
done so I was to have had half.
Sir C. Cresswoll—What was that for ?

Witness—lt was kindness on Mr. Chichester's part.
(Loud laughter.) My bill fur going to Paris was £llO.
(Sensation.) I went to serve the citation and to collect evi-
dence. When I dined with Mr.Chichoster he know, of course,
what evidence I had got, for I had found him in bed with
Mrs. Lloyd when I served them with the citation. He said
there was another ease against him, and ho hoped that this
would not come on first. (Loud laughter )
Sir C. Cresswell—Now listen to this item :—" Mr. Isaac-
son proceeds to Paris for the purpose of obtaining neces-
sary evidence, according to the directions of Mr. Cheese,
Mr. Cooke, and Mr. Strutt, he having also advanced to Mr.
Chichester a sum of money for the piirpogn of enabling
him to effect a certain arrangement by which tho chain of
evidence would be completed ; and writing a long letter to
Mr. Cheese thereon." How did you advance to Mr. Chi.

cho4tor " a sum of money to enable him to effect a certain
arrangement by which the chain of evidence would be com-
pleted

Witness—l advanced him a sum of money to enable
him to come from Dieppe to Paris.

Did you advance a sum of money " to enable him to corn
pleto the chain of evidence !"—I did.

Did you go to obtain evidence by tho directions of Mr.
Cheese, Mr. Cooke, and Mr. Strutt f—l went according to
the instructions of Mr. Strutt alone.
It was by his direction that you went to Mr. Chichester
and advanced him a sum of money to complo the chain of
evidence !—lt was my own idea.
Sir C. Cresswoll—You may stand down. The court will
require the attendance of Mr. Strutt, Captain Lloyd, an 1
Mr. Cheese.

Mr. 11. James, who appeared for the petitioner, said that
Mr. Strutt, though he had once been engaged for Captain
Lloyd, was now acting hostilely, in consequence of Captain
Lloyd's having refused to pay the items the court had read,
and which he had disallowed by the taxing officer of the
court. Captain Lloyd had now no means of bringing him.
Sir C. Cresswell—llo is now the witness of the court,
and must attend.

Tho further hearing of the case was then adjourned.
The hearing of the cause was resumed this morning,
when the following witnesses were examined by direction
of the Court, to ascertain whether there had been any cot-
ision on the part of the plaintiff to obtain the dissolution
of the marriage.

➢ir. J. Strutt, solicitor, stated that he was employed by
Captain Lloyd, the petitioner in the present suit. He was
acquainted with Captain Lloyd for years, and had transacted
business for him. He did not go on with the suit, and
Mr. Jones, of Gray's-inn, was employed. The bill pro-
duced was his, and some of the costa had been taxed. He
had a communication with Capt. Lloyd's relatives with
respect to the expenses of the suit, and suggested that Mr.
Cheese, the father-in-law of the petitioner, should advance
him £2OO or £3OO, in right of a reversionary interest
which ho possessed, which money should be applied to the
prosecution of this suit for effecting a settlement with his
creditors, and for other personal expenses. Mr. Cheese had
a conversation with him on the subject of the suit, and he
(Mr. Choose) knew that a portion of the money was to be
appropriated to promoting the suit. Mr. Cheese proposed
that Captain Lloyd should concur in obtaining a divorce,
but ho did not recollect that it was suggested that Mr.
Cheese should be made the co-respondent.
After a short consultation,
The Judge Ordinary said the case was a singular one,
and under the pawer given to the Court by the 37th sect.,
the petition would be dismissed, as .the collusion proved
had been too gross and palpable for any Court to overlook.

CLERKENWELL COUNTY COURT.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Jones.)
EXPOSING GOODS IN THE PUBLIC DIGHWAY-IMPOR-

TANT DECISION-DENTON V. NOBBS.
This was an action to recover a small sum of money,
damages sustained in consequence of the reckless driving
of one of defendant's servants.
Plaintiff is a butcher, and his witness, a whitewasher,
said that upon a certain day a table containing meat was
in the road in front of the shop—
His Honour—lt had no right there.
Witness—Yes, it had. Everbody does the same. De-
fendant's van came up and ran against the table.
His Honour—There is no occasion for any more evi-
dence. By placing his table in the public highway plaintiff
has contributed to his own wrongs, and therefore defendant
will have a verdict with costs.
Witness—Why I suppose, then, if I stood in the road ho
might run over nse ?
His honour—Go to whitewashing. We won't argue.
IMPORTANT CASE UNDER THE MASTER AND APPRENTICE

ACT.-SEAGRAVIi V. WATKISS.
This was an action to recover £4 15s. Plaintiff, who was
a builder, said he had brought the action upon public
grounds, so that, in cases of apprenticing boys, every one
might be warned. The present claim was made up as fol-
lows :—X2 Bs. for stamps and drawing up indentures, and
five weeks' board and lodging of defendant's son, at 10s.
per week. Plaintiff had agreed, upon receiving a premium
of £5O, to teach defendant's son as per the terms of thein-
dentures put in. After the indentures were completed, and
the boy had been employed for a short time, plaintiff had
occasion to call upon defendant, who called him a robber.
Plaintiff did not say much *bout that, but defendant hap-
pened to repeat the same language in plaintiff's house, and
then the boy was removed. As a consequence the inden-
tures were valueless.
Mr. Jay, for defendant, then cross-examined the witness,
and elicited that he had filled in the indehtures himself, and
charged 6s. for so doing. By the terms of an agreement
sent by witness to defendant before the apprenticeship, the
boy was to be taught the general building and carpentering
trades, to have the run of the joiners' shop, and to be in-
structed in the method of taking out quantities and pre-
paring estimates. By the terms of the indentures he waS