The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-06 00:00:00

omnibus having been frightened by one of Bray's
traction engines.
Mr. Lush and Mr. J. Browne appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Pren-
tice for the defendant.

The plaintiff was the proprietor of an omnibus
running to Hampstead, and on the 19th June last
he was riding outside another omnibus. When they
were near Mornington-crescent one of the traction
engines, which was drawing a train of trucks carry-
ing earth from the reservoir, which was being
removed from the Hampstead-road, was coming
along. The horses became uneasy, and when they
got near the engine the steam blew off. This ren-
dered the horses unmanageable, one of them pressed
upon the other, and the omnibus was overturned,
The outside passengers were thrown into the road,
and some of them would have been run over by the
engine if it had not been stopped. The plaintiff was
one of those persons, and the injury he sustained
was dislocation of the right shoulder, and contu-
' sions on various parts of the body. He was attended
by a medical man down to October 29, and he was
not down to the present time fit to act as a conduc-
tor to his omnibus, an employment which he had
followed until the accident.
A number of witnesses were examined to show
that the engine was calculated to frighten horses ;
and they also spoke to many instances in which
horses had been frightened by it.
The Lord Chief Justice directed the jury that the
plaintiff was entitled to recover if the engine, by
its noise and appearance, was accustomed to frighten
horses. _ _ .

The jury expressed an opinion that the defendant
knew that the engine was of this character, and
they found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £B7.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)
SUGG V. SUGG AND MOORE.
In this case the petitioner, who is a gas meter
manufacturer, in business at Westminster, prayed
for a dissolution of marriage, on the ground of his
wife's adultery with the co-respondent, a brick-
layer, living at Finchley.
There was no appearance on the part of the co-
respondent, but the respondent pleaded a denial of
the charge, connivance, collusion, adultery, and
cruelty on the part of the petitioner.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Dr. Spinks were counsel
for the petitioner, and Mr. Day and Mr. Martin for
the respondent.
Several witnesses were called on the part of the
petitioner, from whose evidence it appeared that the
parties were married in Jan., 1853, and that they
cohabited until July, 1860, during which period the
respondent gave birth to four children, three of
whom are living. For some time prior to the sepa-
ration the respondent became addicted to intempe-
rance, and during the absence of her husband she
conducted herself in a manner that induced him to
separate from her, and she went to Totteridge, and
subsequently to Whetstone, to live, taking her
youngest child with her. The petitioner allowed
her 15s. a week, in addition to paying her rent, and
it was proved that he visited her and treated her
with kindness whilst she was living at these places,
However, he received information which satisfied
him that since she left London the respondent had
become more reckless than ever in her conduct, and
that she had on several occasions had criminal in-
tercourse with the co-respondent, who is a brick-
layer, living at Finchley. According to the evidence
of these witnesses the respondent behaved with the
most open profligacy, and had improper intimacy
with several other persons besides the co-respondent.
As soon as the petitioner discovered his wife's mis-
conduct he discontinued the allowance, and took
the child from her custody and adopted the present
proceedings.
For the defence, it was contended that the peti-
tioner had connived in the most disreputable manner
in his wife's dishonour, and that he actually paid
parties to entrap her into the commission of the
adultery with the co-respondent, and that she had
been made intoxicated for that purpose. In support
of this grave charge, a person named Axford, a pot-
man at Griffin, at Whetstone, was called; but his
evidence was merely to the effect that he had re-
ceived £5 from the family of Mr. Sugg to watch
the conduct of the respondent, who was then resid-
ing at Whetstone, and that previously he was ac-
quainted with the fact of the connection subsisting
between the respondent and Moore, and also to her
being the associate of prostitutes, and being in the
company of different men late at night and under
most suspicious circumstances.
Counsel having addressed the jury, the learned
judge summed up.
The jury found that the respondent had committed
the adultery, and that the petitioner was not guilty
of the charges pleaded agait.st him.
The Court then pronounced a decree nisi.
HART V. HART AND FLEGG.

This was a suit instituted by James Hart, a ser-
geant in the Royal Engineers, for a dissolution of
marriage with his wife en th€ ground of her adul-
tery with the co-respondent, and there was no ap-
pearance on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner
laid damages at £5OO.
Mr. Inderwick and Mr. Cutbill were counsel for
the petitioner, and Mr. Bridge attended to watch
the case on behalf of the co-respondent.
It appeared that the parties were married in
September, 1851, and cohabited in different places
in England, where the petitioner's regiment was
stationed, apparently living on very affectionate
terms. There was one child issue of the marriage.
In 1853 the petitioner was ordered to the Mauritius,
and went there, accompanied by his wife. The
climate not suiting the health of the respondent she
returned to England with the consent of her hus-
band, and took up her residence with her father at
Gillingham, Dent. In 1855 she removed to lodg-
ings in Chatham, where she was visited by the co-
respondent, who is a pensioner, and had previously
been a sergeant in the army. The respondent while
living at Chatham went by the name of Steadman,
while she represented the co-respondent, who as-
sumed the name of Kelly, as her uncle. The co-
respondent was in the habit of calling three or four
times a week, and staying for hours in the room with
the respondent, whom he had been frequently seen
to kiss. In March, 1859, the respondent gave birth
to a child, which was christened in the name of
Fiegg, and which the co-respondent was heard to
say that he would provide for, adding also that he
would never desert the mother. The petitioner
did not return to England until 1860, and having
become acquainted with what had occurred during
his absence he instituted these proceedings.
It was proved that the co-respondent had some
houses in the neighbourhood of Brompton.
Sir C. Cresswell, in summing up, observed that
the Court was left entirely in ignorance as to any-
thing but the mere facts of the visits of the co-
respondent, and as to his being possessed of some
ten or twelve houses. There was nothing to show
whether the conduct of the respondent was good or
bad before she met the co-respondent, or whether
any peculiar opportunities were offered to the latter
for the prosecution of the criminal intercourse.
The Jury found for the petitioner, with £l2O
damages, and the Court pronounced the decree nisi,
with costs.