The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-24 00:00:00

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE

OF FRIDAY.
DIVIDENDS.
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
W. Bk. dford, Fen Drayton, Cambridgeshire, publican,
July 16, at twelve—F. Giles and J. Giles, Steward-
street, Spit alfields, silk manufacturers, July 18, at half-
past eleven—J. M. Blashfield, Albion-wharf, Blaekfriars,
cement manufacturer, July 19, at one—F. R cketts,
Nloorgate-street, merchant, July 12, at eleven—B. Mar-
tine 11, Frederick-street, Regeut's•park, and Notting•
ham-mews, High-street, Marylebone, ccachmaker, July
19, at half-past eleven—B. Kent, Radley, Berkshire,
lodging housekeeper, July 18, at eleven—F. Tapley,
Sidmouth, Devonshire, linendraper, July 12, at two.

In the Country.
Maria Frances Thomas, Bristol, hotel keeper, Jury 13,
'it eleven, at the Court, Bristol—A. Dickson, Narberth,
Pembrokeshire, grocer, July 22, at eleven, at the Court,
Bristol—G. Davison, Alnwick, carpenter, July 24, at
eleven, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—T. Fox,
West Cornforth and Thrislington, Durham, coal mer-
chant, July 18, at eleven, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne—R. White, Thorney Close and Sunderland, mer-
chant, July 18, at one, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-
l'yne—R. Campion, Whitby, banker, July 15, at eleven,
at the Court, Leeds—B. Hepworth, Selby, linendraper,
July 16, at eleven, at the Court, Leeds—R. Lund, Black-
burn, cotton spinner, July 12, at twelve, at the Court,
Manchester.
PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.

W. Shaw, Leeds, ironiounder, 18. 7d. on Tuesday,
'June 26, or any subsequent Monday or Tuesday, be-
tween eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Hope, Leeds.
J. Walton, Leeds, tailcr, 7d., on new proof's, on Toes-
(lay, June 25, or any subsequent Monday or Tuesday,
between elegy en and two, at the office of Mr. Hope,
Leeds. _ _

J. Jackson, Lackenby, Yorkshire, corn factor, is. 6id.
on Tuesday, June 25, or any subsequent Monday or
Tuesday, between eleven and two, at ,the office of Mr.
Rope, Leeds.
T. M. Adams, Holton-le-Beckering, Lincolnshire,
vr
soy
corn factor, 48., on Friday, June 21, or any subsequent
Friday, between eleven and two, at the office Of Mr.
Carrick, Hull.
E.
Lincoln, miller and baker, 6d., on Friday,
June
two, at the office of Mr. Carrick, Hull.
subsequent Friday, between eleven and
W. Suddaby, Kingston-upon-Hull,
millwright and
seed crusher, ls. sid., on Friday, June 21, or any sub-
sequent Friday, between eleven and two, at the office of
Mr. Carrick, Hull.
J. Saner, Kingston-upon-Hull, tailor, 7s. Id., on Fri-
day, June 21, or any subsequent Friday, between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Carrick, Hull.
R. W. Godwin, Lincoln, shipbuilder, 2a. 4d., on Fri-
day, June 21, or any subsequent Friday, between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Carrick, Hull.
T. Procter, Preston, Lancashire, spindle and fly maker,
65., on Tuesday, July 2, or any subsequent Tuesday,
hetween eleven and one, at the office of Mr. Pott, Man-
'heater.

NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghall street.
N. J. Holloway, Minories, clock manufacturer, July
3, at one.

In the Country.
J. B. rim, Birkenhead, Cheshire, brickmaker, July
.2; at eleven, at the Court, Liverpool—J. Watson and
R. Y. Watson, Sunderland, ship builders, July 18, at
twelve, at the Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—T. Wake-
field, Lenton, Nottinghamshire, merchant, July 17, at ten,
at the Court, Nottingham—S. Meanley, Walsall, Staf-
fordshire, horse dealer and farmer, July 15, at ten, at
the Court, Birmingham—J. Guest, Birmingham, com-
mission agent, July 15, at ten, at the Court, Birmingham
—G. G. Mason, Ringley, Lancashire, cotton spinner,
July 15, at twelve, at the Court, Manchester—A. Brown
and W. Todd, Liverpool, provision merchants, July 15,
at eleven, at the Court, Liverpool.
CERTIFICATES GRANTED.
Bretherton, Birmingham, livery-stable keeper, eel.-
tiflcate of the first class—J. Peak-e, Cricklade, Wilt-
shire, draper, certificate of the second class—J. Starkey,
Old-street, St. Luke, carpenter and builder, certificate
of the first class—T. B. Cousens, Wiabeach, Saint
Peters, Cambridgeshire, ship builder, certificate of the
first class—G. F. Gardener, Raleigh, Essex, grocer, cer-
tificate of the third class.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
T. Brown and D. Pritchard, Nottingham-mews, High-
street, Maryleboae, ironmongers—J. King and J. T.
Honey,vv aN. t tiane a tri,. I;i% e manufacturers—W. a
Helper,rers—ge.r 1)1;5111°i,
.J.
builders—J. Glover and T. Thorp, Liverpool steam-
packet ageuts—G. Wardle and J. Cook, Rushton,
Staffordshire, silk dyers—l'. Hawks and A. Paul, Kir-
by-street, Hatton-garden, printers' brokers—Susannah
liothwell and J. Wild, Rochdale, hat manufacturers—
J. Catherhall and J. Catherhall, Hol beck, Leeds, builders
—T. Finchett and 11. Thompson, Liverpool, fruit bro-
kers—H. Schilling and W. S. Sutton, Brighton, soda
water manufacturers—H. Schilling and J. H. Lugard,
Brighton, cork manufacturers—D. Radford and G.
Southall, Gracechurch-street, coal merchants—G. R.
Aysbford and W. 11. Merry, Broadclist, Devonshire,
surgeons—R. Hunt and Elizabeth Hunt, Bristol, bellows
manufacturers—N. Cobham and C. J. Ashfield, Ware,
Hertfordshire, solicitors—T. Hitching and J. Stansfield,
Elalifax, Yorkshire, wheelwrights—J. Chapman and 'l'.
Stayley, Macclesfield, silk throwsters—J. Duck and W.
Duck, London-road, Southwark, metal merchants—E.
Symons and W. J. Symons, Old Fish-street, City, im-
porters of foreign goods—J.. Hammond and J. B.
Nicklin, Wolverhampton, oil refiners—J. Horsfield, T.
Eforsfield, and G. Glover, Wheelock, Chester, salt pro-
prietors, so far as regards G. Glover—A. Macey and W.
M. Elliott, Dartmouth, drapers.
INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
Samuel Rowley, Brierlyhill, Staffordshire, tailor.
Thomas Chester, Middle Rasen, Lincolnshire, butcher.
Richard Hack, Loughborough, Leicestershire, boot maker.
William Turner, Leicester, bellltanger.
Robert Hughes, Margate, grocer.
John Coe, Snettishans, Norfolk, shoemaker.
Joseph Miller, St. Lawrence, near Ramsgate, common
carrier.
John Moss, Scotter, Lincolnshire, horseman.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
T. Henderson, Edinburgh, baker, to meet within the
Royal Exchange Coffeehouse, Edinburgh, June 28 and
July 19, at two.
W. Muir, Glasgow, collector of the tonnage dues and
dealer in iron, to meet within Forrester's Commercial
Hotel, Glasgow, June 2.5 and July 16, at one.
J. Waddel, Dundee, manufacturer, to meet within the
house of William Anderson, innkeeper, Dundee, June
26 and July 31, at eleven.
A. M`Farlane, Blairgowrie, baker, to meet within
M`Laren's Inn, Blairgowrie, June 27 and July 18, at
twelve.
J. Houston, Paisley, draper, to meet within the Sara-
cen's Head Inn, Paisley, June 28 and July 18, at two.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 22.
GILES V. PRITCHETT.
In this action the plaintiff sought to recover da-
mages against the defendant for criminal conversation
with the plaintiff's wife.
This was certainly one of the most extraordinary
cases which ever came into court, and the defence on
the record was almost as singular as the case ; for we
cannot Gall to mind having seen a plea like the
present. The defendant first denied the allegation of
the plaintiff, by the plea of not guilty, and secondly,
alleged that the lady in question was not the plain-
tiff's wife.
Mr. HUMPHREY, Q.C. (with whom WAS Mr. Lush),
in opening the case, said that in an action like the
present, he bad not to appeal to the sympathies of
the jury to consider the outraged feelings of a hus-
band. He could not profess that they had been out-
raged, for this action was, in fact, brought in conse-
quence of there being issue by the defendant and
plaintiff's wife, who might at some future period be
made chargeable to him. The circumstances of the
case were these :—The plaintiff, at the time of his
marriage with his present wife, then Mary Eliza
Berry, was employed in the silk and ribbon shop of
Messrs. Leaf. He established himself in the same
line of business soon after his marriage, but had, un-
happily, been very unsuccessful. The plain-
tiff and his wife had, for some reason, dis-
putes, or, to use a milder term, differences,
which, although she had borne him two children,
tplaintiff by all
in thea seeing
n g means
his
rendered it expedient that they should part. The
lady went to live with her parents, who fomented the
quarrele wiinfe, and probably induced
power, obstructed
h
her to take the step which had actually been taken—
of proceeding against him in the Consistory Court to
procure a divorce, which suit ended in the Court
giving judgment for a separation h mensa et thoro.
It was clear that this was a judgment merely of sepa-
ration, and did not in English law amount to a
divorce, so as to enable either party to marry again
during the lire of the other; and further, it did not
free the plaintiff from the liability of maintaining any
issue she might have, even by another, while both he
and his wife were in the same country, for it was the
rule of law in such a case that he was to be held as
the father, who was in fact or in law the husband.
The plaintiff's wife having, subsequently to the sen-
tence, contracted an intimacy with the defendant, and
had tWo children by him, the plaintiff felt bound and
entitled to come before a jury to seek compensation
for the injury inflicted upon him. Yet he (Mr.
Humphrey) must admit that the action was, in tact,
brought, not so much for damages, as to enable the
plaintiff to free himself from the liability which
now was or might at a future period be imposed on
him, of supporting and educating children that were
not his.
The marriage was proved, and also that all con-