The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before the Right Zion. Sir J. P. Wilde and a
Common Jury.)
BURROWS V. BURROWS.

This was a suit to obtain a judicial separation on
the ground of the husband's adultery.
Mr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner, and Dr.
Tristram for the respondent. •
The parties were married iu 1836, and had two
children, both now grown up. The respondent was
a dentist residing in the Commercial-road East.
Soon after the marriage he appears to have
formed a connection with a girl named Jane Hoare,
who was in his house. In 1860 a separation took
place, respondent agreeing to allow petitioner £1
a week ; which, however, he did not keep up. This
suit was then brought.

Evidence was given to the effect that the peti-
tioner had committed adultery in 1848.

Mrs. Jane Gibbs, examined said that she re-
sided at Old Ford, near Bow. She was the mother
of Mrs. Jane Colson. The latter was in the ser-
vice of Mr. and 11rs. Burrows, in Commercial-
road, East. He was a dentist. She used to go to
the house. This was about 15 years ago. She
SAW Mrs. Burrows at the house. Her father took
her away in consequence of something that had
transpired. He took her away suddenly without
notice.

Cross-examined—She knew Mr. Burrows. She
never told Mr. Burrows about the statement her
daughter had made. They thought they had a
right to do what they liked with their own. Sarah
Colson went to Mr. Burrows' house, and he after-
wards came to them. He alluded to Mrs. Burrows
carry:ug on a wrong game while he was out. He
did not tell her how long he had known about it.
He did not call more than three times.

The son and daughter of the petitioner and re-
spondent stated that they never saw anything im-
proper in their mother's conduct, the daughter con-
stantly sleeping with her mother, and the son in
the next room. The son had also been maintaining
his mother for some time past.

The Judge having summed up, the jury found
that the wife had not committed adultery, but that
the respondent had, and the Court decreed a judicial
separation.

THE " SPORTING LIFE."— An application was made by
qr. Fry to Vice-Chancellor Stuart to restrain all proceed-
ngs in the suit of Kelly v. Hutton—in which his Honour
sad made a decree on the 9th of February last, declaring
;hat the plaintiff was half-proprietor of the Sporting Life
newspaper—until the appeal brought by the defendant had
been heard by the Lord Chancellor. It was stated by the
learned counsel that immediately after the decree was
made the plaintiff's solicitor wrote to the attorneys acting
for the defendant, announcing that their client, having
been declared to be part proprietor of the paper, would
attend at the office to inspect the books, accounts,
&c., and see how the business generally was
carried on. To this it was replied, that until the
decree was drawn up the defendant's solicitors must decline
to do anything in the matter. Mr. Kelly, however,
attended at the office, but was refused by the publisher an
opportunity to inspect the business transactions. It was
now asked that he might be restrained by the order of the
court from asserting the right which the decree in his
favour gave him, while the matter was under appeal.—
Mr. Pearson, Q.C., opposed the application, stating that
his client had been kept out of rights for snore than twelve
months, and that all that he desired was that he might see
that his property was not wrongly dealt with. He had not
attempted to stop the publication of the paper, or to inter-
fere with the management.—The Vice-Chancellor said the
property, being a newspaper,was of a very peculiar character;
and though he was himself satisfied that the decree he had
made was a right one, it might very possibly be held to be
wrong by the superior court. Although he thought there
ought to be no objection to the plaintiff being allowed to
interfere in a quiet way in the affairs of the paper, the
defendant was entitled to the order he asked, which
was granted. Costs to be costs in the cause.