The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices.)
APPEAL-PEARCE V. LINDSAY.
Tho further hearing of this part-heard appeal was resumed
this morning.

Mr. James, Q.C., is now being heard for the respondent.
APPEAL-MOTION-LIFE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTLAND V.
LIDDALL.

This appeal stands over for further consideration and in.
quirt' into the facts of the case,

ROLLS COURT.
GIBSON V. GARNETT.
This cause stand' over.
citossmAN V. BIWAN.-.-JUDGMENT.

The contention in this case arises under the codicil to the
will of the late George Crossman ; and the question raised
was, what is the true construction of the provision in favour
of his daughter Lucy ?

The testator, by his will and codicil, bequeathed £5,833
and £5OO to his two daughters Elizabeth and Lucy, under
certain conditions, in the event of their marriage and dying
with or without children. -Elizabeth married Mr. Duftain,
and power was given to her and her husband to dispose of
her share, £3,000 in'; he event of her having children, and to
herself in the event of there being no children of the map-
riage. By a codicil to his will ho made the same provision
in favour of his daughter Lucy, by referring to the previous
bequest in favour of his daughter Elizabeth and her hus-
band.

His Honour made a declaration to the effect that Lucy
was entitled to take her bequest under the same powers and
conditions as her sister Elizabeth. That she was bound to
make her election between the two sums of £5,833 and
000, in respect the testator was not entitled to bequeath
both sums. Costs of all parties to be paid out of the estate.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before tho Lord Chief Baron and Barons Channel and
Martin.)
KING V. KITCHENER.

This day an action for slander, was brought by the plaintiff,
a navigator, against the defendant, the landlady to the
Chequers' public-house, Fanny Stratford. The plaintiff
was a member of a cricket club, and, in consequence of a
quarrel about a bet, the defendant accused the plaintiff of
not paying his bets.

The Judge said it was a very frivolous one, and ought
not to have boon brought into court.
A non-suit was decreed.

DIVORCE COURT.

:Before the Judge Ordinary Baron Bramwell, and Justico
Williams.)
M‘E.ECHNIE V. liI'EIECHNIE AND MENZIES.

This was a suit instituted by John M'Kechnie, a copper-
smith, for a dissolution of his marriage with the respondent.
No appearance was entered.

Mr. Macqueen appeared for the petitioner. He said the
petitioner was married to the respondent in Scotland, in the
year 1832. In January, 1854, he removed to Birkenhead,
where he procured employment in an ironwork factory, and
resided in a row of buildings called Dock-cottages, which
were built to accommodate about 300 labourers. Some time
after the removal from Scotland, the co-respondent, who
was a young man about 16 years of age, went to Birken-
head, and called on the petitioner, who had known him
when he was residing in Perth. He appeared to be in great
distress, petitionerobtained him employment. Until theyear
1857 the respondent, who had given birth to five children,
conducted herself with great propriety; but she then ac
quired habits of intemperance, and became extremely
violent in her conduct, and in the January of 1858 he was
obliged to leave her, but at the solicitation of ono of the
children he returned. From some information which he
had received he was induced to suspect that she had been
guilty of adultery, which she subsequently admitted,
stating that the youngest child was Menzies'. She ulti-
mately went away with the co-respondent, and had not
returned to the petitioner.

Evidence was adduced in confirmation of the preceding
statement, and the court decreed the dissolution of the
marriage.

HASWELL V. HASWELL AND SANDERSON.

Dr. Phillimore in this MC applied for a decree dissolving
the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent. The
petitioner was the son of a gentleman residing in the city,
and in 1852 ho married a lady named Mary Jane Black-
wood Gilbert, who resided in a kind of tavern in Eastcheap.
The marriage was a clandestine one, and the difficulty was that
there was no matrimonial domicile. The two parties, it ap-
peared, had been in the habit of secretly meeting after the
marriage; but during the absence of the petitioner, who was
an artist, in Scotland, his father found out his son's mar-
riage. The wife aftewards formed a connection with a per-
son of the name of Sanderson, with whom she was now
living in open adultery.

The father of the petitioner, Mr. David Haswell, was
called, and proved the marriage of his son with the respon-
dent, Miss Mary Jane Blackwood Gilbert, kt the registrar's
office, in Bethnal-green. He became acquainted of his
son's marriage by accident, by the discovery of a letter
signed "Mary Jane II.," at his son's chambers, in Lyon's-
inn, lie sent to the residence mentioned in the letter for
the writer; the lady came, and said she was the wife of his
son. She afterwards visited his (witness's) residence, as
she had a general invitation, but altogether she did not
wino more than three or four times. Her absence caused
some surprise. lle afterwards saw the respondent at
a house in Alpha-road, New-cross. Knocking at the
door, it was opened by Mr. Sanderson, who in answer to
questions informed him Mrs. Sanderson was not yet up.
On the respondent coming down stairs witness asked her if
she was married to Mr. Sanderson, and she said that she
was.

By the Judge—He could not say where his son was living
in 1852. lle left home when he was 18 or 19 to follow his
profession as an artist.
Agnes Haswell, sister of the petitioner, said she had a
slight knowledge of the respondent before her marriage.

Her brother used to visit the boershop in Eastcheap with
other men, and ho was told by different members of his
family that the connection he was forming was not a good
one, as the young woman was seen walking with other
gentlemen.

Jane Cooper said she was in the service of Mr. Sander-
son, son., in 18.52, and during that year she had fi equontly
seen tho respondent walking with different gentlemen.
Harriett Bayley, first cousin of the respondent, said, in
1852 she was visiting her aunt, at No. 11, Easteheap. She
recollected Mr. Haswell coming to the house. She recol-
lected a person of the name of Sanderson also used to come.
Miss Gilbert told me of her marriage, as we slept together.
She used to get up and let Mr. Haswell in. She did so
three or four times. During one of the times I was on a
visit I saw a gentleman kiss her. She always appeared
flirty.

James Bayley, the husband of the last witness, said he
knew the petitioner and resp ondent. Mrs. Haswell told
him her husband had left her because he had caught her
withlHohnes.

The la Ay of the house in Alpha-row said the person whose
name she now knew as Haswell resided for 12 months in her
house with a Mr. Sanderson, as his wife.
The Court had not given its decision when we went to
press.