The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-02 00:00:00

and bottom cleaned and coated, will be put out of
No. 4 dock at Devonport to-day.
Rear-Admiral Sir T. S. Pasley, Admiral Super-
intendent of Devonport Dockyard, having returned
from leave of absence, has rehoisted his flag on
board the Royal Adelaide, 104, Capt. W. K. Hall,
C. 8., in Hamoaze.
The screw steam gunvessel Surprise, 5, having
had a thorough repair, was hauled yesterday out of
the north basin in Keyham steamyard, and placed
in the lock ready for removal to-day into the stream
in Hamoaze.

The screw steamship Prineess Royal, 91, Captain
Charles Fellowes, flag of Rear-Admiral Robert
Smart, K.H., in command of the Channel squadron,
was put out of commission at Devonport on Tues-
day, the 30th nit., and on Wednesday the screw
steamship Revenge, 91, was commissioned to take
her place. The crew will be paid wages and granted
leave of absence probably on Saturday. The Re-
venge was removed yesterday morning from No. 3
Dock in Keyham steamyard, and moored in the
basin. The gunboats Trinculo and Gleaner were
placed in the dock immediately afterwards.
The screw steam frigate Emerald, 51, Commander
A. Cumming, flag of Rear-Admiral Warren, having
received supernumeraries in Plymouth Sound, left
about 5 o'clock on Tuesday afternoon, under steam,
for South America.
The paddlewheel steam vessel Lightning, 3,
Master G. Williams, having had defects made good
at Devonport, left Plymouth Sound on Wednesday
afternoon for Pembroke.
The following appointments were made 'yester-
day at the Admiralty :—Lieut. Richard Roche, to
the Excellent ; Lieut. Constantine O'D. Alling-
ham, to the Mersey ; Edward Spence, master, to
the Desperate; and Patrick Mahonny, promoted to
the rank of acting master in the Argus, revenue
cruiser.

LAW IN7ELLIGENCE.—May 1.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
JESSOP V. JESSOP.—ALLEGED COLLUSION.
In this case the petitioner, Mary Lucy Jessop,
prayed the Court for a dissolution of marriage with
her husband, on the ground of different acts of
adultery, cruelty, and desertion. The petition was
duly filed, and the citation to the respondent issued
on the 26th of December, 1860. The respondent,
John Thomas Jessop, pleaded, denying the adultery
and desertion, and on the 30th of January last the
case was ordered to be heard before the Judge
Ordinary by oral evidence. However, on the 20th
of March last the Queen's proctor received infor-
mation which induced him to suspect collusion
between the parties, and under he provisions of
the statute passed last session in reference to his
right to interfere to prevent fraud on the Court, he
intervened, and filed a plaint to that effect.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., with whom was Mr. D.
Keene, applied to the Court on behalf of the wife,
that the Queen's proctor should be directed to set
forth particulars of the alleged collusion between
the petitioner and her husband. He contended
that a mere general allegation was not sufficient,
according to the statute, but that the parties who
were accused of collusion in endeavouring to obtain
a divorce should be placed in a position to meet
fairly the charge against them.
The Attorney• General opposed the application,
and argued that if the Queen's proctor were to set
forth circumstances and evidence in his allegation
it would have the effect of defeating the intention
of the Legislature, which had provided a safeguard
by requiring the Queen's proctor to act with the
consent of the Attorney-General, and under the
order of the Court, before he intervened.
Sir C. Cresswell—This is a mere matter of form,
as the Court assumes that the Queen's proctor has
grounds for intervening.
The Attorney-General said it would be contrary
to all practice to set forth. the nature of evidence in
the pleadings, and it was quite sufficient that the
parties should have notice that the Queen's proctor
intended to bring forward a charge of collusion.
Dr. Phillimore and Mr. Keene having been heard
on the other side,
Sir C. Cresswell said that as this was the first case
of the kind that had arisen he felt that there should
be something like a statement as to the character
of collusion alleged, but at the same time that no
evidence should be set forth. He would take time
to consider his decision.
The case accordingly stood over.
DRUMMOND, COMMONLY CALLED VISCOUNTESS
FORTH, V. DRUMMOND, COMMONLY CALLED VIS-
COUN T FORTH.
The facts of this case have already been fully re-
ported, and at the trial the Judge Ordinary inti-
mated that the petitioner had established the cruelty
alleged, but a legal question was raised on the part
of the respondent as to whether she was entitled to
a judicial separation when it appeared she had been
guilty of adultery.
The Attorney-General, on behalf of Lady Forth,
applied to the Court to have the arguments heard
next Saturday, but the learned judge explaining
that there were some cases to be heard that day, it
was arranged between the counsel that, they should
be heard on Wednesday next.
HEMSWORTH V. BUTTERFIELD—JUDGMENT.
Sir C. Cresswell delivered judgment in this case
to-day. It was a testamentary suit, and certain
issues raised had been heard at nisi prius, when
decision was given in favour of the validity of the
will. A motion was then made to this court for a
re-hearing, on the ground that both witnesses at-
testing the disputed instrument were not examined,
and the defendants, the next of kin, also alleged sur-
prise. It appeared that one of the witnesses, a
female, named Routledge, who lived with the de-
ceased, stated that matters came on her by surprise,
and that she would now be able to depose to facts
which she omitted at the trial. He considered that
was very strange. Having gone through the evi-
dence, he thought there were no grounds for a new
trial, and he must dismiss the motion.
On application of counsel,
The learned Judge pronounced probate of the will,
and condemned the defendants in costs.