The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING,_ NOVEMBER 12, 1850.

COURT OF F,XCEIEQUER,Nuv: 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BUSSARD V. BROTHERTON AND ANOTIIT:It.
Tits Ce.se 1--/:!;> tried lxf sr, the L Ord Coi t Baron at
tart la, sittin:,; in Middlesex, when a verdict was granted
for the oiaintiff.
Mr. Luau now moved, in pnrsoance of leave reserved
at the trint to enter a nonsuit. or a verdict for the di,fen-
da-lt, or, failing- in that, for a new trial, on the ground
of the verdict being against evidence, It was an action
for the non-acceptance of a quantity of rape oil which
had been shipped by the plaintiff from France, and con-
signed to the defendants, who are oil merchants, carrying
on business in Hungertotd-market. On the arrival of
the oil in London the defendants refused to take it, on
the ground that there had been considerable delay in its
transmission, and that it had not been delivered within
the time agreed upon, and the main question in the case
arose on the correspondence which passed between the
parties previous to tbo contract being made.
The Court granted a rule.
(Before Baron MARTIN and a Common Jury.)
HARVEY V. HUDSON.
This was an action against the defendant as keeper
of the Queen's Prison, for not obeying a writ of ha'o.
corn. ad sat., issued to charge one W. Hallows in ex-
ecution at the suit of the plaintiff, and for permitting
the prisoner to be Ot large on the return of the day of
the writ. The defendant pleaded not guilty by statute.
Mr. I3adeley appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. 'Wat-
son, Q.O , for the defendant.
The plaintiff obtained judgment against Hallows in
February, 1849. In January, 1850, Hallows being
in custody at the suit of another, person, presented his
petition under the Insolvent Act, and the vesting order
was made on the 7th January. On the 28:h Msrch,
1850, the plaintiff issued the writ of habeas corpus ad
sat., requiring the defendant to have the body or. Hal-
lows, then in his custody, in court on the first day of
Easter Term next (15th April), to be charged in exe-
cution on the judgment obtained by plaintiff. Hallow's
petition was heard on the Bth April, before Mr. Commis-
sioner Phillips, who on that day made an adjudica-
tion that the prisoner should be " forthwith" dis-
charged as to all debts but that of the plaintiff, and as
to that, that the prisoner should be discharged from
custody, and entitled to the benefit of the Act so soon
as he should have been in custody at the suit of the
plaintiff for the period of three calendar months, to be
compu'ted from the time of making the vesting order.l
A warrant for the liberation of the prisoner was
drawn up inconformity with this adjudication, where-
upon the defendant immediately discharged the pri-
soner from custody, and returned to the writ of ca. sa.
that the prisoner had been so discharged as to the debt
of the plaintiff in pursuance of the warrant ; the period
of three months from the date of the vesting order
having already expired.
For the defendant it was contended that the pri-
soner was entitled under the circumstances to his im-
mediate discharge, and at ary rate that the defendant
was justified in liberating him in obedience to the
warrant, on the authority of the case of " Thotnas v.
Hudson," 14 M. and W. 353, 16 M. and W. 885.
On behalf of the plaintiff it was argued that, by 1
and 2 Vict., c. 110, the Commissioner had power only
to discharge "forthwith," or at some "future Time,"
to be computed, from the making the vesting order ;
that this must mean a time future to the adjudica-
tion, and, therefore, that an order to discharge the
prisoner at a past time was insensible and invalid ;
secondly, that this defect appearing on the face of the
warrant, the defendant was not protected under the
principle laid down in the case cited; lastly, that the
warrant to discharge the prisoner from then existing
custody did not in any way affect the defendant's duty
to obey the writ of ca. so , directing him to bring up
the body of the prisoner at a future day.
His LORD3IIIP, however, was of opinion that the
adjudication was not defective; and even if it were,
that the defendant was justified in obeying the warrant
on the authority of "Thomas v. Hudson,' and therefore
' directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)
DOE ON THE DEMISE OF HOPKINS V. PRICE.
In this case, which was argued a few days ago,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he had consulted Mr.
Baron Parke with reference to the application which
had been made, and the Court was of opinion that there
should be a rule.—Rule granted.

COMMISSARY COUR7' OF SURREY,
Doctors' Commons, Nov. 11.
(Before Dr. HAGGARD.)
PARKS V. PARKS.—DIVORCE.

In this case Mrs. Mary Ann Parks promotes a suit
for a divorce, on the ground of adultery, against her
husband Thomas Wilson Parks.

It was pleaded on behalf of the wife that the par-
ties were married in May, 1844, shortly after wnich
Mrs. Parks was compelled to leave her husband owing
to his neglect and ill-conduct, and reside with her
friends, not apprising him of her place of residence.
That in the course of the year 1845 Mr. Parks went
to live at Hereford, where he followed the profession
of a solicitor; and that while so residing he became
acquainted with females of loose character, with whom
he carried on an adulterous intercourse during the
years 1846 and 1847. It pleaded that the wife was
first inf armed of her husband's misconduct in this re-
spect in the year 1845, when she immediately in-
structed her professional adviser to commence the
proceedings now before the court.
The allegation given in by the husband pleaded an
alibi with regard to the charge of adultery, and denied
the other misconduct imputed to him. That the whole
case not only entirely failed deficit prohatio, but that
the. Court would see such evident marks of distinct de-
termination to evade her duty on the part of Mrs.
Parks, that one of her modes to evade this was to
trump up a false charge et' adultery.
Dr. R. PHILLIMORE, on behalf of the wife, con-
tended that the adultery of Mr. Parks was fully and
amply established by the evidence, and the counter
plea set up by him altogether failed in proof. That
at the time of her marriage Mrs. Parks, who was pos-
seised of upwards of 30,0001. settled upon her, was
deceived by her husband with respect to his debts and
liabilities, and also his religious and moral character;
and that shortly after such marriage she was grossly
neglected by him, he never taking his meals with her,
and coming home at all hours of the night. The
Learned Advocate contended she was therefore per-
fectly justified in withdrawing, and placing herself
where she could be free from the molestations of this
man, and that the whole conduct of the husband, as
proved by his own witnesses, was such as fully to
justify the steps taken by Mrs. Parks in the case.
With regard to the counter plea of an alibi, he con-
tended it was not proved ; but that on the contrary,
an act of adultery was clearly proved against Mr.
Parks, on a certain evening in 1845, with a female of
loose character near Hereford. He therefore called
upon the Court to hear the prayer of the wife.
Dr. Twiss appeared on the same side.
. Drs. HARDING and BAYFOED were heard on behalf
of the husband. They contended the present case
was one of persecution on the part of Mrs. Parks.
That she, having determined, in defiance of her mar-
riage vow and every obligation, not to live with her
an ample command of money,
sincgrupulous friends, wilfully deserted
ate purpose of never returning
tlioniumlcboahl.n3ildbh, havingitatahnt eido dh.
deliberate
b Thater
all his searches for about two years, as
soon as he found her, and was preparing
to assert his undoubted right, she, with the
assistance of her friends, got him placed in prison by
making him an insolvent debtor, and afterwards
trumped up the present charge of adultery, employing
a solicitor of Hereford for that purpose, and having
recourse to the police inspector at that place, by
whose mewls women of the town were induced to
come forward and swear falsely. They contended the
medical testimony was only on a par with the rest of
the case ; and that, taking the whole of the evidence,
it was such as no Court could for one moment rely
upon. The Learned Advocates submitted it was a
case of deficit probatio, and broken down from be-
ginning to end, and that no reason whatever had been
shown why the Court should deny the marital rights
to Mr. Parks.
Dr. R. PRILLIMORE and Dr. Twiss being heard in
repl y.
The Learned JUDGE said there had been many
topics urged and discussed in the course of this case
which appeared to the Court not to advert to the real
issue in it, and therefore he felt it would not be in-
cumbent on him to follow all the arguments
which had been adduced on collateral or outside
points. The marriage of the parties took
place in May, 1844, Mrs. Parks being the senior
of the two, her husband being about thirty, and
herself forty years of age. The lady was pos-
sessed of a considerable fortune at the time of her
marriage, and there appeared to have been an acces-
sion to that fortune at the death of her uncle, in
1846, with whom she was residing, and at whose
house the parties cohabited until their final separation.
From the evidence of the ladies of the name of Col-
lins, who were related to Mrs. Parks, and who lived
in the same house with her and her husband, it ap-
peared the marriage was not a happy one; that there
were many differences between the parties; and that
shortly More Mrs. Parks withdrew from her
husband's sight and knowlecie, in October, 1846,
Owing to his violent conduct she went into hysterics,
and became so unwell as to require medical treat-
ment. Mr. Perks on that occasion went down to
Hereford without his wife, but declared his intention
of returning and fetching her away by force. Upon
this Mrs. Parks withdrew herself, and kept her place
of residence a secret from her husband. Without
in the slightest degree vindicating the course
adopted by
the wife, it appeared to him (Dr.
Haggard) that the act, although her own, was
forced upon her by her husband's conduct, and if she
did improperly withdraw herself in the eye of the
law, at least that would not justify Mr. Parks in
adopting unlawful measures. The Court could not
therefore approve of his conduct, when in 1848 he
avowed his intention of compelling Mrs. Parks by
violence to cohabit with him. Stripping the case,