The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-03 00:00:00

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

RAILWAY AND OTHER BILLS IN
PARLIAMENT.

Yesterday the standing order were declared not to
have been complied with in the following cases :
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.—For tx.en,ions—The
bill has been opposed for three days in committee, and
the standing orders were declared not complied with,
chit fly on the ground cf informalities in the plans and
sections.

NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY.—TO conFtruct the Lan-
caster Valley Railway at 120,0001. Standing orders dot
complied with.

The milers were complied with in the following cases
for the following purposes :
MANCHESTER. SHRIIIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE RAIL-
WAY--For Buxton and Cleethorpe's lines at a cost of
190,0001. Also bill for Romily lines.
CWM AMMAN RAILWAY.— For a line from the Aber-
dare Rail may into and along the Amman Valley, at a
cost of 38,0001.

LEWES AND ITCEFIELD RAILWAY.—To construct a line
between these point 4 at 46,0001.

SCOTTISH CENTRAL.—Extensions of Denny branch, at
a coat of 28,0001.
SITTINGBOURNE AND SHEERNESS.—For deviations of
line and construction of branches, at a cost of 45,54C1.
CALEDONIAN IZAILWAY.—For branch to Granton Pier
and other places, and creation of separate stock. Esti-
mated coat of branches 60,000/,
TILBURY, MALDON, AND COLCHESTER RAILWAY.—For
a line between these places and Burnham, at a cost of
700,000/.
The other bills passed were Watchet Harbour (new
works), estimated at 20,0001. ; Dumbarton Waterworks,
Great Yarmouth Britannia Pier, Nene Valley Drainage,
Norfolk Estuary, and Portsmouth Water.

The Postmaster-General gave notice yesterday that
mails will be made up in the General Poet-office to
morrow evening, for the Cape of Good Flops and Mau •
ritius, to be sent out by her Alsje4ty's steamship Me-
gaara, appointed to sail from Portsmouth on the sth
inst.

117 INTELLIGENCR.—Feb. 2.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

ItENRICK V. HORDER.-CRIM. CON.

The declaration in this case tlleged that the defendant
had debauched the plaintiff's wife; that he had converted
and detained ctroin goode, the property of the plaintiff ;
and that .he acsaulted the plaintiff and cau.-cd him to be
imprisoned without reasonable cause. The defendant
pleaqed not guilty.
Mr. E. James and Mr. Welsby were counsel for the
tdaintiff ; Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Petcrsdorff for
the -le!endaLt.

It appeared from tl.e statement of counsel that the
plaintiff, who was connected with a respectable family in
Wales, was married in 1844. He afterwards went to
Australia with his wife and family. In 1853 Mrs. Ken-
rick returned to England, and took a house in Barring-
ton-road, Brixton. The defendant, who carried on busi-
ness as a chemist in the Miuories, lived within a few
doors of her. In 1855 the plaintiff returned to England.
He found his wife then occupying apartments. in the
defendant's housx, in the lklinories, and re2eived such
information as left no doubt on his mind of her guilt.
He found she had removed some of his furniture to the
defendant's house, and when be went to demand it the
defendant gave him into custody.
Sarah Whittaker, who had been Mrs. Kenrick's ser-
vant when at Britton, deposed that Mrs. Kenrick was
in the habit of going to the defendant's house and re-
maining there till a late hour. In 1855 the defendant
became bankrupt, and then went jo live in Mrs. Ken-
rick's house. He occupied a front room. Mrs. Kenrick
was constantly in his room, and took her meal, there
with him. She used to remain in his room after the others
had gone to bed. On one occasion she (witness) went
into the room and found Mrs. Kenrick sitting on his
bed. On another occasion he found her sitting on de-
fendant's knee with his arm round her waist. She told
her children to call him papa.
Cross-examined—The defendant had been ill for some
time while at Mrs. Kenrick's house, and was not able to
have his room.

Mary Whittaker, sister of the last witness', who had
been in defendant's service in Barrington-road, stated
that Mrs. ienrick was in the habit of coming to the
house constantly. The defendant wab ill at the time.
Mr. George Davis, who had been assistant to the de-
fendant, stated that Mrs. Kenrick came with her chillren
to reside at the house in the Minories in 1854. He had
frequently seen her come out of defendant's room, but
he never observed any instances of improper familiarity
between them.

Mr. Joseph A. Heirby stated he had purchased some
furniture for the defendant. He gave a bill for it, but it
was afterwards arranged that the bill should be returned,
and he gave up the furniture to Mrs. Kenrick when she
returned to England.
Mr. E. James proposed to call the plaintiff.
Mr. Petersdorff objected. The action of crime. con, was
one of those in which the plaintiff could not ba examined.
Lord Campbell would allow the witness to be c.,11.:d,
but he would confine his evidence to the question about
the furniture and the assault.

Mr. R. K. K.nriek, the plaintiff, then stated that
when he returned to Eegland, in 1855, he found his wife
at the defendant's house. Some of his furniture was also
there, and when he went to demand it defendant ordered
him out. He refused to go. Defendant then sent for a
pol•ceman. They all went to the pain-office. Defendant
charged him with creating a die .urbance. He t. 1.1 the
inspector that his wife and family were in the house, and
that he had paid for the lodgings. He was at once dis-
charged.
Cross-examined—lt was about 11 o'clock- at night
when he went to the house. Defendant said he wanted
to shut up.
Mr. E. James summed up the evidence for the plain-
tiff.

Mr. Petersdorff addressed the jury for the defendant.
He contended there was no evidence whatever of any
act of adultery. There was no proof of the plaintiff's
marriage, nor any evidence of the terms on which he had
lived with his wile.
Mr. E. James contended that the plea of not guilty
had not put in issue the fact of the marriage.
Lord Campbell would hold that it did, and direct a
verdict for the defendant on the count for the criminal
conversation, but he would ask the jury whether they
believed that adultery had been committed, and if so he
would ask them to assess damages, and then give the
plaintiff leave to move to enter a verdict for that amount
The Jury found that adulteily had been committed,
and assessed Vats damages at 20/.
Lord Campbell said he would also direct a verdict for

the defendant on the count f.)r trover of the goods ; as
to the assault, he wool' leave the question to the jury.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
51. on this issue.