The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-07 00:00:00

STEVENS V. STEVENS AND STANLEY.

This case, which was for dissolution of marriage,
was partly proceeded with, but adjourned in order
that evidence as to the marriage of the parties might
be proved.

DAVIS V. DAVIS.
This was a petition presented by the wife praying
for dissolution of marriage.

The petitioner was called and examined as to the
desertion. She said after the marriage with her
husband she lived at Nottingham, but eventually
they came to live in London, but afterwards re-
turned to Nottingham. Her husband left her for
the society of other females. She forgave him
many times, but eventually he deserted her with-
out the slightest support. In 1862 she discovered
her husband was living at Peterborough, and
she went to him to ask for some means
of support he told her to go to the
workhouse, as he was not going to allow her
any money. Since 1865 her husband had quite dis-
appeared, but she had since ascertained that he was
living at Huntingdon. A witness was called, who
stated that he was the owner of the house in which
Mr. Davis lived. He always looked upon him as a
married man, as there was a female living in the
same house, who called herself Mrs. Davis. That
person was not the petitioner, whom he had never
seen until to-day, when he saw her in that court. He
recollected one occasion, when he went to the
respondent at Nottingham, he told him that his old
woman had gone to her mother's with the two
children, but that when she returned there would
be three.
Decree nisi, with costs.

THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS.—A question to decide the
rights of the creditors of an intestate was raised in the
suit of Holroyd v. Garnett, in the court of Vice-Chancellor
Stuart. The plaintiff some two or three years since lent
certain sums of money, to the amount of £1,200, to the
deceased husband of the defendant. For a year after his
death the claim was allowed to stand without being
pressed against the estate. At the conclusion of that
time, the defendant, who had been carrying on the
basiness of the deceased, finding that it was not so success-
ful as she had anticipated, called a meeting of creditors
for the purpose of effecting an arrangement. It was
alleged that the moneys due to these creditors represented
debts that had been contracted by the defendant since her
husband's decease. It was argued for the plaintiff that
his claim hid a priority, and that he had a right to
the appointment of a receiver for the adsninis-
tration of the estate and for carrying on the
business. On the other side it was contended that
the action taken by the creditors at their meet-
ing, when a committee of management was appointed
over the business, was the most proper course to Lc.,
adopted. It was denied that the mating was other than a
meeting of the creditors of the intestate, and it was urged
that the defendant was the most fitting person to manage
the business, collect the assets, and adinhilster the estate.
The Vice-Chancellor held that the Plaintiff was jus-
tified in filing the bill for the administration of the estate,
and male an order and appointed a ree3iver, as asked,
the question of costs to be dealt with in chambers.
PROMOTING A CONTRACTORS' LINE.—At the Nisi Prius
sittings, in the Court of Exchequer, before the Lord Chief
Baron and a special jury, the case of Wyatt v. Prance
came on for hearing. This was an action to recover
£lO9 Bs. 6d., the amount of a bill and costs of a firm
of parliamentary agents. The defendant pleaded not
indebted.—Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. 11. Lloyd
appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Shaw for the defendant.—
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Wyatt and Metcalfe, were Parlia-
mentary agents in
Parliament-street, and the defendant
was a solicitor in Lincoln's-inn-fields, and acted
in that capacity in promoting a bill for a
railway half a mile in length, from Epsom to the
Downs. It was said that this was a contractor's line, pro-
jected by a Mr. Garrett who intended, when he had
obtained the bill, to transfer the scheme to the Brighton
Company, and, if possible, to obtain from them the con-
tract for its construction. The bill was, however, thrown
out, and the plaintiffs now sought to make the defendant
liable for their claim.—Mr. Wyatt said, as it was impos-
sible to work a line of half a mile independently, the
probability was that it would have been offered to the
Brighton Company, and if they took it they would have
had to pay all the expenses of obtaining the bill. It did
not follow that the promoter would have had the contract
for making the line, but if he did not they would have had
to buy him off. Upon the conclusion of this witness's ex-
amination, the Lord Chief Baron held that there was no
evidence of a retainer of the plaintiffs by the defendant, and
directed a nonsuit.