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

PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.

W. Shaw, Leeds, ironfound-r, is. 7d. on Tuesday,
June 25, or any subsequent Monday or Tuesday, be-
tween eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Hope, Leeds.
J. Walton, Leeds, tailor, 7d., on new proofs, on Tues-
day, June 25, or any subsequent Monday or Tuesday,
between eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Hope,
Leeds.

J. Jackson, Lackenby, Yorkshire, corn factor, Is. 6id.
on Tuesday, Juno 25, or any subsequent Monday or
Tuesday, between eleven and two, at the office of Mr.
Hope, TAN. di._

T. M. Adams, Holton-le•Beckering, Lincolnshire,
corn factor, 45., on Friday, Juno 21, or any subsequent
Friday, between eleven and two, at the office of Mr.
Carrick, Hull.
E. Howitt, Lincoln, miller and baker, 6d., on Friday,
June 21, or any subsequent Friday, between eleven and
two, at the office of Mr. Carrick, Hull.

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. ld., on
day, Juno 21, or any subsequent Friday, between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Carrick, Hull.
R. W. Godwin, Lincoln, shipbuilder, 2s. 4d., on Fri-
day, June 21, or any subsequent Friday, between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Carrick, Hull.
Tti Procter, Preston, Lancashire, spindle and fly maker,
65., on Tuesday, July 2, or any subsequent Tuesday,
between eleven and one, at the office of Mr. Pott, Man
cheater.

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

In the Country.
J. R. Pim, Birkenhead, Cheshire, brickmaker, Julq
12, 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, Stara
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 ehven, at the Court, Liverpool.
CERTIFICATES GRANTED.

- _
T. Bretherton, Birmingham, livery-stable keeper, cer-
tificate of the first class—J. Peake, Cricklade, Wilt-
shire, draper, certificate of the second class—J. tarkey,
Old-street, St. Luke, carpenter and builder, certificate
of the first class—T. B. Cousens, Wisbeach, Saint
Peters, Cambridgeshire, ship builder, certificate of the
first class—G. F. Gardener, Rah igh, Essex, grOcer, cer-
tificate of the third class.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
T. Brown an't D. Ptitchard, Nottingham-mews, High-
street, Marylebose, ironmongers—J. King and. J. T.
Honey, Nottingham, lace manufacturers—W. H. Bell,
J. Watson, and H. Wheeldon, Belper, Derbyshire,
builders—J. Glover and T. Thorp, Liverpool steam-
packet agents—G. ,Wardle and J. Cook, Rushton,
Staffordshire, silk dyers—P. Hawks and A. Paul, Kir-
byestreet Hatton-garden, printers' brokers—Susannah
Rothwelland J. Wild, Rochdale, hat manufacturers—
Catherhall and J. Catherhall, Holbeck, Leeds, builders
—T. Finchett and IL Thompson, Liverpool, fruit bro-

kers—H. Schilling and W. S. Sutton, Brighton, soda
water manufacturers—H. Schilling and J. 11. Lugard,
Brighton, c,)rk manWacturers—D. Radford and G.
Southall, Gracechurch street, coal merchants—G. R.
AyshfJrd and W. H. 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,
Halifax, Yorkshire, wheelwrights—J. Chapman and T.
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.
Horsfield, 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, Brierly-bill, Staffordshire, tailor.
Thomas Chester, Middle Rasen, Lincolnshire, butcher.
Richard Hack, Loughborough, Leicestershire, boot maker.
William Turner, Leicester, bellbanger.
Robert Hughes, Margate, grocer.
John Coe, Snettisham, Nod )Ik, shoemaker.

Joseph Miller, St. Lawrence, near Ramsgate, common
carrier.
John Moss, Scoffer. Lincolnshire, horseman.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS. _ _

T. Henderson, Edinburgh, baker, to meet within the
It()pal Exchange Coffee•house, 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 25 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, Plairgowrie, baker, to meet within
M‘Leren's Inn, Blairgoivrie, 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.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

ingiusxx 21.
of the House of Commons.)
(From the Votes andfarmocleedy,
SUPPLY. •
Order for Committee read ; Motion made, and Question
proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair :"
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That"
to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " an
humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that
she will be graciously Pleased to direct that such a modifica-
tion of the system of National Education in Ireland may be
made as may remove the conscientious objections which a
large proportion of the Clergy and Laity of the Established
Church entertain to that system as at present carried into
potherwise,gyand that means eoafnsthmeayEbsteabtlaiksheendtoenable
le thosess of
s of
Church,
operation aetni otn ; o
entertain e
rt,
an
such
conscientious objections, to extend the
in
Scriptural
Education in Ireland," instead
bg the Clergy
thereof:— Question put, " That the words proposed to be
left out stand part of the Question." The House divided :
MAJORITY—AYES, 225. . -
Abdy, Sir Thomas Freestun, Colonel Ord, William
Acland, Six T. D, Glyn, George Carr Osborne,lßalph
Adair, Ilugh E.- Goddard, A. L. Paget, .Lord A.
Adair, R. A., Grace, 0. D. Palmerston, Vis.
Aglionby, H. A. Graham, Sir James Parker. John
Armstrong, Sir A. Granger, T. C. Patten, W.
Baines, M. T. Greene, John. Pearson, Charles
Baring, Sir F. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Pechell, Sir G.
Barnard, Edward G. Grenfell, Charles W. Peel, Sir Robert
Bass, Thomas Grey, Sir G. Peel, Frederick
Berkeley, Admiral Or: ey, R. W. Pelham, Hon. D. A.
Berkeley, Henry F. Grosvenor, Lord R. Perfect, R.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Guest, Sir John Peto, Samuel
Bernal, Ralph Hall, Sir B. Pigott, Francis
Birch, Sir T. Hanmer, Sir J. Pilkington, Jantext
Blackall, S. W. Harris, Richard Pugh. David'
Blake, M. J.
H
Bouverie, E. P.Rawdon, Colonel
Boyle, Colonel Hawes, Benjamin Repton, G. W.
Brand, Thomas Hayter, W. G. Reynolds, John
llt John i
ilaastteihee,rchbald Pusey, Philip
Bright, John Headlam, Thomas Ricardo, J. L.
Brockman, E. D. Heneage, G. H. W. Ricardo, Osman
Brotherton, J. Heneage, E. Rich, Henry
Brown, W. Herbert, Sydney Robartes, T. J. A.
Browne, R. D. Heywood, James Roche, E. B.
Burke, Sir T. J. Hobhouse, Sir John Romilly, Colonel
Campbell, W. F. Hobhouse, T. B. Romilly, Sir John
Cardwell, E. Holiond, Robert Russell, Lord John
Carter, J. 11. Howard, Lord E. Russell, E.
Caulfeild, J.:M. Howard, C. W. Russell, F. C.
Cavendish, G. 11. Howard, E. G. Salwey, Colonel
Caylcy, E. S. Howard, P. H. Sandal's, Joseph
Childers, J. W. Howard, Sir R. Sey-mour,Lord
Cholmeley, Sir M. Hutchins, E. J. Shafto, It. D.
Clay, James Jackson, William Shell, R. L.
Clay, Sir W. Jervis, Sir John Shelburne, Earl of
Clements, Charles Johnstone, Sir J. Sheridan, R. B.
Clerk, Sir G. Keating, Robert ; Slaney, Robert A.
Clifford, 11. M. Kershaw, James Smith, Vernon
Cobden, Richard Kildare, Marquis Smith, M. Tucker
Colebrooke, Sir T. King, P. J. Smith, J. Benjamin
Cowper, W. F. Labouchere, Henry Somers, J. P.
Craig, Sir W. G. Lascelles, W. S. Somerville, Sir W.
Crawford, W. S. Lemon, Sir C. Spearman, H. J.
Crowder, It. B. Lennard, T. B. Stanley, E. H.
Da rymple, Captain Lewis, Sir T. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Darner, Colonel Lewis, G. C. Stanton, W. H.
Davie, Sir H Littleton, E. R. Strickland, Sir G.
Dawson, T. V. Locke, Joseph Stuart, Lord D.
Denison, J. E. Lushington. Charles Stuart, Lord J.
D'Eyneourt, T. Mackie, John Sullivan. Michael
Douglas, Sir C. M•Gregor, John Sutton, II Ai
Duff, George Mahon, Lord Talbot, C. R.
Duke, Sir James Marshall, William Talbot, J. 11.
Duncan, Lord Martin, Samuel Tenison, E. K.
Duncan, George Matheson, James Thicknesse, R.IA.
Dundas, Admiral Matheson, Colonel Thompson, Colonel
Pandas, Sir David - Maule, Fox Thornely, Thomas
Dunne, Colonel Melgund. Viscount Towneley, John
Ebrington, Lord Milner, W. M. Townahend. Captain
Ellis, John Milton, Viscount Tanen, Relay
Elliot, J. E. Mitchell, T. A. Vivian, J. IL
Enfield, Lord Moffatt, George Walmaley, Sir J.
Euston, Earl Molesworth, Sir W. Wellesley. Lord C.
Evans, J. Monsen. William Westhead. J. B.
Swart, William Morris, David Willcox, Brodie
Fagan, William Mostyn, E. M. Williams, John
Ferguson, Colonel Mowatt, Francis Wilson, James
Ferguson, Sir R. Molgrave, Earl Wodehouse, E.
Ilia william, G. W. Muntz, G. F. Wood, Sir Charles
Foley, J. U. Norreys, Lord Wood, W. P.
Forster, Mathew O'Connell, Maurice Wrightson, W. B.
Tortesene, Chichester O'Connell, M. J. Wyvill, Marmaduke
,Fortescue, J. N. O'Connor, Feargus TELLERS.
Fox, R. M. ' ' O'Flaherty, Anthony • Hill, Lord M.
Fos, W. J. Ogle, S. C. Bellew, it. M.

Alexander, N.
Archdall, Captain
Ashley, Lord

Baldqci,E. H.

Baldwin; Barry
Bankes, G.

MINORITY—NOES, 142.
Fcllowes, E. Miles, William
Floyer, John Moody, C. A.
Forbes, W. Mullings, J. R.
Fox, S. L. Mundy, William
Frewen, C. Ti. Naas, Lord
Galway, Viscount Napier, Joseph
Alooch._,E. S.. _ Neeld, John
Gore, W. 0. Newdegate, C. N.
Gore, W. R. 0. Newport, Visct.
Granby, Marquis of' Newry, Viscount
Greenall, Gilbert Noel, G. J.
Gwyn, Howel O'Brien, Sir Luella
Hale, R. B. Packe, C. W.
lialsey, T. P. I'lumptre, J. P.
Hamilton, J. IL Richards. Richard
Hamilton, Lord C. Seymer, H. K.
Harris, Captain Sibthorp, Colonel
Heald, James Smyth, Jk hn George
Hervey, Lord A. Smollett, A.
Hildyard, T. EL T. Somerset, Captain
Hill, Lord E. Sotheron, T.
Hood, Sir Alexand Spooner, Richard
Hope, A. Stafford, A.
Hotham,'Lord Stanford, J. F.
Hughes, W. B. Stanley, Edward
Inglis, Sir R. Stephenson, Robert
JoWife, Sir W. H. Stuart, H.
Jones, Captain Stuart, J.
Ker, Richard Start, Henry G.
Knightly, Sir C. Taylor, T. E.
Knox, Colonel Thompson, Ald.
Lacy, Henry C. Thornhill, G.
Law, C. E. Tollemache, John
Lennox, Lor A. Trollepe, Sir.J.
Lennox, Lord G. H. Turner, G. J.l
Leslie, C. P Verner, Sir W.
Lewisham, Vie. Vesey, T.
Lindsay, Colonel Villiers, F. W.
Lockhart, W. Vyse, R. H.
Lowther, Colonel Waddington, H. S.
Lowther, Henry Walpole, Spencer
Lygon, General Welby, G. E.
Mackenzie, W. F. Williams, T. P.
Manners, Lord J. Yorke, E. T.
Marc, Earl of
Masterman, John
Maxwell, Hon. J. P.
Sir
Wes, P. W.

Bateson, T.
Best, John
Blackstone, W.
Blair, Stephen
Boldero, IL George
Booth, Sir R. G.
Boyd, John
Brcmridge, Richard
Brisco, M.
Broadwood, H.
Brooke, Lord
Brooke, Sir A. i
Bruce, C. L. C.
buck, Lewis W.
Buller, Sir J. Y.
Sunbury, W.
Burghley, Lord
Burrell, Sir C.
Burroughes, 11. N.
Buxton, Sir E.
Castlereagh, Via.
Chatterton, Colone
Chichester, Lord J.
Christopher, R. A.
Clive, 11. B.
Cobbold, John C.
Cole, 11. A.
Colvile, C. R.
Conolly, Thomas
Cuhitt, William
Davies, D. A. S.
Disraeli, B.
Dod, J. W.

Dodd, George
Duckworth, sir J.
Duncombe, 0.
"Duncuft, John
Edwards, Henry
Egerton, Sit V.
Egerton, W. T.
Evelyn, W. J.
Farnham, E. B.
yarrer, James

TELLERS.
Hamilton, Geo. A.
lieresford, William

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
~„ COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 22.
GILES 2). PRITCIIETT.
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 call 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 had. not to appeal to . the sympathies of
the jury to consider the outraged feelings of a bus-
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,
rendered it expedient that they should part. The
lady went to live with her parents, who fomented the
quarrel by all the means in their power, obstructed
the plaintiff in seeing his wife, and probably induced
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 a 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 life 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 fact,
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
WM, of supporting and educating childreni that were
not his.
The marriage was proved, and also that all con-

nexion had ceased between the plaintiff and his wife
for ten years, and that he had really never interfered
with her course of life or tried to induce her to return
to him.

The LORD CHIEF BARON asked whether, under
the circumstances, it was worth while to take up any
further time? _ _ _

Mr. MARTIN, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Temple),
for the defendant, said that the lady and the defendant
had been most cruelly persecuted by the plaintiff;
but the Learned Gentleman was interrupted by
The LORD CrnEF BARON, who said—l do not
wish to know more of the case than is sufficient to
enable the Court and the jury to do justice between
the two parties to the action before us.
Mr. MARTIN—The Ecclesiastical Court pronounced
the separation on the ground of cruelty and adultery
of the husband.

The LORD CHIEF BARON-If a man permit his
wife to live with another man for so many years with-
out endeavouring to prevent the intercourse, or to in-
duce her to abandon it, he cannot maintain an action
for criminal conversation; the verdict must ncces•
sarily be for the defendant.
The jury returned a verdict accordingly.

MIDDLESEX SESSIGNS, June 22.
(Befure Mr. Sergeant ADAMS and a Bench of
Magistrates.)

Robinson Boyd, a re:,p—ectlible-looking-man, surren-
dered to takß his trial upon a charge of having as-
saulted Ann Maria Tallont.

Mr. Ballantine appeared for the defendant.
The prosecutrix deposed that she had been living
as servant at 67, Mortimer-street, Cavendish-square,
in which house the defendant occupied apartments.
On the 6th inst., at his request, she went into his
bedroom to fetch some waistcoats. lie followed her
thither, and committed the assault now charged
against him. According to her statement the defend-
ant's conduct to her was grossly indecent.
In cross-examination she denied that she had
boasted to any one that she should get some money
from the defendant on this charge. She was eighteen
years of age. She did not make any noise, nor call
for assistance when the assault was committed, be-
cause he held one of his hands over her mouth. She
immediately told her mistress and her fellow-servant
of what had occurred.

The Learned JUDGE was informed, in answer to a
question, that there was no other witness in the case.
He then said he felt bound to complain of the manner
in which this case had been treated at the police-
court. Here was only one witness bound over to
prosecute, and though it was so important that her
evidence should be corroborated, the magistrate had
not bound over the two witnesses, to whom the
girl said she complained of the defendant's conduct.
When such evidence might have been had, it was not
right to send a case for trial on the evidence of one
witness only.
It was intimated that the prosecutrix's fellow-ser-
vant was in court, and she was called. She stated
that the prosecutrix did till her that she had been im-
properly treated by the defendant on the day in
question. "When the case was before the magistrate
the prosecutrix said to witness, "Boyd will be fined
a lot of money, and I shall get half."
Mr. BILLANTINE, in addressing the jury, con-
tended that the statement of the prwecutrix was not
confirmed in, any particular, and asked them not to
convict upon uncorroborated testimony, considering
how many cases of this description were got up for
the purposes of extortion, and how extremely difficult
it was to answer such charges when preferred.
The Learned JUDGE said it appeared to him that
the issue was gross and wilful perjury on the part of
the girl, or guilt on the part of the prisoner.
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
James Thorpe, the conductor of a Chelsea omnibus,
No. 1,523, was charged with the following flagrant
act :
Mr. Henry Griffiths, of 57, Basinghall-street, de-
posed that between eleven and twelve o'clock that
morning he entered the defendant's omnibus in Sloane-
street, and shortly afterwards handed a half-crown to
the defendant, asking him for change. The defen-
dant turned adroitly round, and said, "This is a bad
half-crown," and offered him a bent one. Mr. Grif-
fiths told the defendant it was not the one he gave
him, whereupon the latter called him a " smasher,"
and told him he got his living by passing bad
money; and persisted in keeping the half-crown and
the change.
A policeman, who took the defendant into custody,
said that, on searching him, a good half-crown was
found upon his person. He had previously said that
he had no half crown in his possession.
Alderman CARDEN postponed the further hearing,
and ordered the defendant to find bail to appear on
Tuesday.
The following account of the conductor's conduct
was given by a gentleman who was present during
the above examination :—A lady got Into the omni-
bus in the Strand, for the purpose of being set down
in the City. Upon reaching Cheapside she handed
ls. to the conductor, expecting 91. change, but he
coolly deposited her money in his pocket, and when
she asked him for what she was entitled to receive he
laughed at her, gave the wink to two females inside,
and told her it was all right. Upon peremptorily
demanding her change the fellow terrified the lady
by saying she had better hold her tingue, as he knew
what she had been about, at the same time pointing
to a small bundle which she carried, and intimated to
the two women that she was no better than a shop-
lifter. The hint was soon taken by the women, and
the lady was glad to escape from their company, and
to take refuge in a shop, but she was so shocked by
the incident that she was unable to give such infor-
mation as could lead to the identification of the
offender.
Alderman CARDEN said he feared that ladies were
in many cases prevented by their fears from bringing
fellows who followed such desperate courses to jus-
tice. He hoped the encouragement which prosecutions
of the kind received in the City would induce those
who were robbed or insulted to aid the magistracy
in punishing the delinquents. He trusted that if any
other passengers had been subjected to such treatment
as that of which Mr. Griffiths had complained, they
would not hesitate to come forward on Tuesday.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE
QUEEN'S BENCH, DUBLIN, JUNE 17.
STARLING V. PAUL.

This was an action for breach of promise of mar-
riage, and the defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. WilmslDE, Q.C., stated the case of the plain-
tiff. The present was an action for breach of pro-
mise of marriage—one happily occurring but seldom
in this country, and the more seldom the better. The
plaintiff was a widow lady, and formerly a Miss
Palmer; and at present her age was about 26 or 28.
She was left a widow with two young children ;
and Mr. Sparling, during his lifetime, was possessed
of a good landed property, and a gentleman of respec-
tability. The defendant was a partner in the house
of Vincent and Paul, implement manufacturers, pos-
sessed of an extensive foundry in Blackhall-street.
The defendant was a Scotchman, and nothing
could be said against him for belonging to that
noble country. He was about thirty-eight years of
age ; and, therefore, in the age of the parties there was
nothing unsuitable, and nothing which would have
been calculated to make it unlikely that their union
would have been a happy one. The time covered by
the events which would be the subject of inquiry by
the jury extended from November, 1849, to March,
1850 ; and in November the plaintiff, who was a
lady of agreeable manners and attractive appear-
ance, came to town on a visit to her brothers,
who carried on the business of drapers in Thomas-
street. It appeared that the defendant met her
at the house of a respectable lady, whose name it
was not necessary to mention. He was attracted by
her person and manners, and saw her home that
evening. He then visited at the house, and com-
municated his intentions to the plaintiff's brother.
His visits became frequent, and finally his :Wen.
tions were such as led him to be regarded as the future
husband of the lady. He invited her to his house.
He had a party to meet her, placed her at the
head.of the table, which she expected to occupy for the
remainder of her life ; and although there was a very
pleasant company present on that occasion, he left
them to see the plaintiff home, although thereby he
might have appeared to have neglected the duties ex-
pected from a host seeing his guests in his own house.
It would be unnecessary to go through the various
acts which showed the nature of his attentions. But
he spoke frequently to her of their marriage, and
asked if Mrs. Sparling intended that the two young
children should live with them ; and, looking no
doubt, to the prospect of a large family, he stated
thane the house in Blackball-street, which he erected,
would not be large enough, he would build a
larger one. He disclaimed against the idea of mar-
rying for money. His worship was at a purer shrine
than that of Mammon. He said he might have had
girls with money, but that his affections were placed
on the plaintiff, and that he was desirous of uniting
himself' to a sensible and judicious woman calculated
to make him happy through life.
The Learned COUNSEL proceeded to detail how the
defendant won the lady's affections, and then broke
off his solemn engagement to marry her.
Mr. John Palmer, the brother of the plaintiff,
deposed to the facts stated by counsel.
Cross-examined by Mr. MARTLEY—I will not say
that the plaintiff's husband was not alive in August,
1848. He died in either that or the previous month.
It was in the latter end of November I first saw the
defendant at a party at her house.
What was going on there ?—The ladies were
drinking tea and the gentlemen doing the same.
Was there nothing stronger than tea?—There was
punch afterwards.

And were the ladies taking a share ?—Yea ; they
were taking a little.