The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-12 00:00:00

YU RS I N.G.

The plaintiff in this case owned two or three
omnibuses running from Brompton to Islington,
and be claimed damages from Messrs. Macnamara,
Wile'', and Price, managing men of the London
General Omnibus Company, on the ground that
they had caused his omnibuses to be " nursed"
by those of the company.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Edwardes appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. E. James; Mr. Sergeant Ballan-
tine, Mr. Gifford, and Mr. Poland for the
defendants.

The case occupied the whole of Saturday and to-
day, and that evidence, as might be imagined, was
most contradictory. The , plaintiff's case was that
his omnibuses were constantly nursed by those of
the company, one of their vehicles being behind,
and one before each of his. On the other hand it
was denied that there had been any "nursing" by
the company's omnibuses, and it was positively
stated that the defendants had, so far from encou-
raging any system of annoyance, given distinct
orders against anything of the kind. Beyond this
it was said that the plaintiff and his men were the
tits an.a.ressors, and that they had "nursed" the com-
pany's omnibuses, and had annoyed and assaulted
their men. _ _

The court was very much crowded during the
trial, and in the course of Mr.-Knowles' reply some
remarks of his elicited loud applause. One of the
persons who had offended in this way was brought
before his lordship. The delinquent stated that he
was not connected with either party, and what he
had done was not from any definite motive, but
merely from the impulse of the moment. Under
tliesl circumstances he was discharged upon a pro-
mise not to offend again.
His Lordship directed the jury that there was no
evidence against Mr. Macnamara, no witness
having said that he had been guilty of any impro-
per act; and as to Mr. Willen, there was only one
witness who had spoken to anything affecting him.
This was a policeman, who said that, he. had seen
Mr. Willen making signs to the company's drivers,
instigating them to annoy the plaintiff's servants.
His lordship then went through the evidence on
both sides in reference to the other defendant, Price,
and left the case for the decision of the jury.
The jury, after considering the matter for an
hour and a quarter, found a verdict for the plain-
tiff as against Price only—damages one farthing.

COURT YOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman, Mr. Baron Martin,
the Judge-Ordinary, and a Common Jury.)
HOWES V. HOWES AND FRY.

Mr. Macqueen conducted the petitioner's case.
The petitioner, William How: s, was formerly a
grocer at Norwich, and he married the respondent
there in January, 1850; he now,prayed for a dis-
solution of the marriage on the ground of her
adultery. In 18:52 he became involved in pecuniary
difficulties, and at the end of October he was obliged
to go to London in order to make an arrangement
with his creditors. He was absent for a few days,
and upon his return he found that his wife had left
his house. She did not return for a fortnight, and
then refused to give any account of what she had
done or where she had been. She asked for an
allowance, and her husband refused to let her have
it without some explanation of her conduct. She
went away, expressing an intention to go to her
mother's house. Howes went to live with his
mother, who was a tallowchandler, and remained
in her employment. About eleven months' after-
wards Mrs. Howes applied to the magistrates, and
upon their suggestion her husband made her an
allowance of ss, a-week. He afterwards learnt
that she was living at Yarmouth, and that she had
formed an adulterous connexion with the co-respon-
dent,
a hairdresser and perfumer, and making
further inquiries he ascertained that she was lead-
ingt it ut ion The respondent, by her
. d
charged the petitioner
with desertion, but did not appearrecriminated to support those
pleas.
Mr. Justice Wightman summed up, and
The jury returned a verdict for the petitioner.
Their Lordships thought the re was not sufficient
evidence with regard to the interval of three or
tour years that elapsed
between Mrs. Howes' de-
parture from her
in husband and her leading a life of
prostitution Yarmouth.
Previous to the
rising of the Court the mother of
the petitioner w
he and his as put into the box, and stated that
from the wife
had lived comfortably together
live with hi time of the marriage until her refusal to
•
him after he became insolvent. She also
detailed the et teumstanees under which they sepa-
rated.

The Court dissolved the marriage.
HERVEY V. HERVEY AND LORD RIBBLESDALE.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. F. F. Brandt ap-
peared for the petitioner. The respondent denied
the adultery of which she was accused by the peti-
tioner. The co-respondent did not appear.
Mr. Henry Arthur William Hervey, a son of

Lorn Wm, Eerwiy, was jiparriedrin !.,
at Oclorgee gunpver.square, to pOit? f"!•
who paEsed by llaname.of Mrs. Plem3'
had had three children, by .Lord
connection- viii *Lord •Ribblesdale had been
off about two years befOko the raarriagii; and in MO
interval Lord d married. Mr. and
Mrs. Hervey.. •k-street, Grosvenor.
quare, until , el., :1858, and in that month
Mrs'. Hervey left the house, and went with Lord
llibblesdale to the Isle of Wight, where they re=
sided at Cintra Villa, near Shaul:lin.
The facts of the marriage and adultery were

proved, hut their lordships required additional evi-
dence of the identity of the lady, and also some
explanation with regard to the circumstances of
the marriage, of the cohabitation,
,and of the septi-
ration.
Mr. Baron Martin observed that the case was a
very peculiar one, and in his opinion the petitione-
had not as yet made out the allegations in the'pe-
tition.
At a later part. of the day witnesses were called
who proved the identity' of the lady xvho had lived
with 'Lord RibbleSdale since the separation with
Mrs. Hervey.
The jury found the issue of adultery for the pe-
titioner.

TWo letters written by Mrs. Hervey after her
elopement were read, in which she acknowledged
her guilt, b.nd implored her husband's forgiveness.
• The Court then dissolved the marriage.
WARNER V. WARNER AND MAYO.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Pritchard sup-
ported the petition ; W. Deane, Q.C., appeared for
the co•respondent.
This was a petition by a husband fora dissolg-
tion of the 'marriage on the ground of his wife's
adultery. He was a grocer at Yeovil, and,piarried
the respondent in August 1847, and has had three
children by her. She was a person of:intemperate
habits,
,ancl he frequently remonstrated with her,
but could not' induce her to "reform. In ;Cletober.
1853 she went by-the-railway from Yeovil to Taun-
ton, and there passed a night- ,sith a man in a
house of She returnixl the some week
to her huslialy.li .bar he 'rermied-:te ..reecive her,
and-bas not =since. lived- with her. The- petitioner
charged adultery_ with the co-respondent, and with
persons driknOwn, and efaimed 'damages from
the co-respondent. The respondent did not answer,
but the co-respaudent denied the adUltery, and on
that fact issue was joined.
No evidence was given pt.theitientity of the co-
respondent with the persowtwho,-passed the night
with Mrs. Warner at. Taunton, t-nd by the diree-
tion
,of Mr. Justice Wightman the jury found a
verdict negativing the charge against him, and he
was dismissed from the suit.
Further evidence was then given pftlie adultery
of the respondent at the date mentioned, includingF
a letter from her in which she confessed her guilt
and asked for money.
Their LordShips.dissolved the marriage.
Dr. 'Deane applied for the co-respondent's costs.
Their Lordships did not think it-right under the
circumstances to ,gra.nt the application. • •

• BILLER Y. BILLER AND GREEN.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey were counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr. Biller, a clerk .in the Post-9ffice,- married
Emily :Maria Turner, at St. Paul's Cray,•in April,
1843, and during.: their cohabitation, which con-
tinued until January, 1856, they bad seven-children.
In'June, 1855, they were living at Lewisham, and
Mr. Biller let part of his house to a Mr. George H.
Green. In the following January, while Mr. Biller
was absent for the day, Mr. Green and Mrs. Biller
eloped together. She took the name of Bentley,
and has lived with Green at different places in the
suburbs of LOndon. These facts were proved by
several witnesses, among whom was a daughter of
Mr. and Mrs. Biller, about 16 years old, who had
been taken by Mrs. Biller to live with her mad Mr.
Green, and had stayed with them until she was
taken away by Mr. Biller's sister. The fact of
adultery was traversed by the respondent. -
Mr. Justice Wightman summed up, and
The jury found a verdict for the petitioner.
The Court .dissolved the marriage, and condemned
the co-respondent in costs.

PARKER V. PARKER AND WLLOYD.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Dr. Spinks appeared
for the petitioner; Dr. Swabey for the respondent.
The co-respondent did not appear.
The petitioner, Mr.. George Parker, alleged that
his wife, Elizabeth Louisa Parker, had committed
adultery with Robert M'Lloyd. The respondent
did not deny the adultery, but pleaded that the
prisoner had instigated and connived at it.
The affirmative of the issue being upon the re-
spondent, the case was opened. by Dr. Swabey, who
stated that- the marriage
took place in 1849, and
they cohabitedat various lodgings in the neighbour-
hood of Islington, until the summer of 1856. It
appeared from the evidence of the only witness
called for the respondent, a Mr& Robinson, who let
lodgings in a house at Islington, that in March,
1855, Mr. and .Mrs. Parker lodged with her ; that
at the beginning of 1858 they 'Tent to live with his
family at Queen's-road,, Regent's-park; that dif-
ferences broke out between Mrs. Parker and the
members of his family, in consequence of which
they separated, Mr. Parker remaining with his
family, and Mrs. Parker going back to lodge with
Mrs. Robinson ; that she had an allowance of 10s.
a week from -her husband, who occasionally went
to Fee her ; that in 1858 Mrs Parker brought a Mr.
M'Lloyd to the house assigning as a reason that
her husband did not give her a sufficient allowance,
and that she and Mr. M'Lloyd lived together in
the house as man and wife for*three or four months.

This being the only evidence given in support of
the respondent's pleas, the Court directed to find
a verdict upon them for the petitioner.
Witnesses were then called to prove the allega-
tions in the petition. It appeared that Mrs. Parker
was the daughter of a bricklayer at Cambridge,
named Smith, . and that in 1849 Mr. Parker, who
was then a young man employed in the Emigration
office, went to pay a visit of a month to a friend
who was an undergraduate at the University, and
there he became acquainted with her. She was
known as " Lizzfe Smith," and he married her

his visit was over without the knowledge of his
parents. She was then 18 years of age, and was
not able to write her own nailie. They came to
London and lived happily together for several
years. Mr. Parker's family were much dis-
pleased at his marriage, but ultimately became
reconciled to it, and in the skoring of 1856
allowed him and his wife to live with them in the
Queen's.road. An aunt of Mr. Parker, Mrs. Tus-
tine, stated that Mrs. Parker there gave way to
habits of intoxication, and that her behaviour to
her huSband and the other members of the family
was extremely violent and discreditable. They
remonstrated witd her, but without effect, and at
last, one Sunday morning in June, 1856, she packed
up her things and said she would go away. Her
husband and his mother told her to consider well
what she was about to do, but she persisted in her
intention. She asked her husband if
,he would
allow her 10s. a-week, and he said that he would,
and she then got into a cab and went away. She
had been brought up as a milliner, and she now
carries on that business.
Mr. Justice Wightman said that the Court
.
thought there was nothing the evidence to lead
it to infer that the husband had been guilty of
pirnolh,sids,ivhiefew'.sasadeunittitelr_pay,
conniv
Martin concurred,
somel
and,ac acquiescence eadultery
• wasaanr
leye
concuxred, but would have
to a divorce.
evidence had been given
with regard to the int •
beenAi 1.
betterß aron
satisfied
interval between the marriage
in 1849 and 1855,
when they lodged with Mrs.
Robinson.
The marriage was accordingly dissolved.
This was the last
day of the present sittings of
the full Court.

•
ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL, GRAY'S-INN-ROAD.—The
number of patients relieved at this hospital, during the week
ending July 9, was 2,417, of which 753 were new cases.
THE CITY COAL DUES.—On Friday a numerous
deputation waited on the Home Secretary, Sir G. C. Lewis,
on the subject of the dues on coal imported into the port of
London. The deputation was introduced by the Hon. G.
Byng, supported by a great number of the members for the
metropolitan boroughs. Mr. Byng- stated that the object of
the deputation was to ascertainwhat course the Government
would pursue in the event of the Board of Works making
an application to them to have the 9d. per ton that would
revert to the Corporation of London in 1862 transferred to
them. Sir G. C. Lewis said•tho question divided itself into
two objections ; the first, that the radius of 20 miles was too
large, and went beyond the metropolitan area ; and the
second was as to the 4d. which the City claimed as
icorpora-
tionde-
putation, property. He saw no practical result from
appli-
cation to him for the transfer of the 9d. duty ;
merits
;
ri and with
because the Board of Works had madaendnolfthey
did their appeal must be considered on itanine
which he would not express an otrinns
opinion.
Home Secretary
question from one of the depute
regard to the 4d. duty, it was corpor.atni.o
In property, ope
answerrt y, upon
which
manufacturerstchkentowithdrew.
s
p ofA smtasni nameddweil, s
EB
xl Blight,
saidwa e scheme
impracticable. of allTohwiendgep
BEE SWARMING.--A very singular circumstance
occurred on . • au
deputation
plucked a bough, and, strange as it may appear, stood in
to attract the road and endeavoured them to it. They flew
towards him, but instead of pitching on the leafy boug b,
swarian'uo7 'Tuesday
na theingto.
stheeeiynt'clustere'd, inches deep, on the man's head, face, neat,
and hands. Many people, seeing this, became alarmed„
but the man, knowing well the habits of bees, stood per
feetly still and composed, and directed some of the b 7
standers to procure a hive, saying that if this were do no
the bees would doubtless be attracted into it. A hive v
obtained, and the result was as anticipated. The bees f or-
sook The man for the hive, and they were restored to dr.
Elworthy, the owner..lt is a remark-able fact that althov agh
the bees stuck to the man for a quarter of an hour • 20
minutes they did him no injury. Had he moved, or b some
agitated, he would have been severely stung, and : in all
probability death would have ensued.—. Exeter Flyiet Post.

ONCE A W E E K.
No. 3 will contain a New and Original Poem by
ALFRED TENNYSON, with an Illustration by J. E
MILLAIS.
Price 3d.—Office, No. 11, Bouverie-street.

ROYAL PRINCESS'S THEATRE.
Under the afanagement of Kr. Charles Kean.
THIS EVENING will be revived 'Shakspeare's Tragedy
of HENRY VIII. Cardinal Wolsey, Mr. C. Kean ; Queen
Katharine, Mrs. C. Kean.
After which, IF THE CAP FIRS.

Commence at 7.

THEATRE-ROYAL, HAYMARKET.
Lessee, Mr. J. B. Buckstone.
THIS EVENING the performances will commence with
a sew Comedy, entitled THE CONTESTED ELECTION, in
which Mr. and Mrs. C. Mathews will appear,
After which, MARRIED FOR MONEY.
To conclude with THE WATER WITCHES.