The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-28 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THIRNBER V. SHEARD.
The further arguments in this case, which has already
occupied the Court several days, were resumed this
morning, and occupied his Lordship the whole day.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.
-(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF BERWICK V. NORRAY.

The further arguments in this case, which came before
the Court upon at bill filed agaist the sureties of a
defaulting treasures' of the corporation, were resumed
this morning, and occupied his Honour the whole day.
(Before the Vicc-Chancullor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
DAVIES V. MDSSETT.

The further arguments in this fart-heard case were
resumed, and ceeupied the Court the whole morning.'
(Before the Vice-Chancellor Wieners.)
O'BRIEN V. LORD KEN YON.

The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed
this morning, and occupied his Honour the whole day.
The case came before the Court upon a bill filed by cer-
tain creditors of the late Sir John Osborne against the
defendants, Lord Kenyon and Mr. Metcalfe, who were
the trustees under a deed for the payment of Sir John's
debts, amounting to upwards of 46,000/. The object of
the bill was to charge the trustees with the consequences of
alleged acts of neglect in reference to certain schedules of
debtF, being interest and the policies of insurance on the
life of Sir John Osborne.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—.(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Fritts, at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice
COLERIDGE and a Special Jury.)
SMALL V. NAIRNE.
In this case, which was a new trial, the Attorney-
General and Mr. Sergeant Shoe were counsel for the
plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by Sir F.
Thesiger and another learned gentleman.
The action was brought by the owner of a vessel
called the Susan, to recover from the defendant a consi-
derable sum of money for insurance. It appeared that
the vessel left Madras on the Ist of October, 1843, on a
voyage to Coringo. The weather was fine for five or
six days after leaving Madras, but about the 7th or Bth
of October it became very stormy, and on the 10th the
monsoon, which was then prevailing, changed, and the
weather became much worse. The result was that the
ship pitched and leaked considerably, had her topsails
and some of her masts carried away, and
otherwise sustained considerable injury. The captain
in the emergency ran his vessel into Masulapatam Bay
on the 13th of October. The inhabitants of the bay
were wholly unacquainted with the science of building
or repairing ships, and the consequence was that the
ship was obliged to remain there, being unable in her
then state to proceed on her voyage to Coringo. The
plaintiff now brought his action to recover a compensa-
don in respect of his insurance for the damage the ship
had sustained.
The claim was resisted on the part of the defendant,
on the ground that the captain ought to have known he
could not get the vessel repaired at Masulapatam, and
that therefore he ought not to have put her into tint
bay, but ought to have steered for Trincomalee.
The case, which was likely to last the whole of the
day, was proceeding when we went to press.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
ROBE V. BROWN.

The plaintiff in this action is; manufacturing chemist
at Chapel-le-Frith, near Stockport, and defendant is a
commission-agent, formerly residing in Queen's-square,
Goawell-street, and the action was brought to recover the
sum of 2151. 18s. ad. for money had and received on be-
half of the plaintiff.
It was stated that the money had been received for
goods sold, and on defendant being sued for the amount,
he filed his petition in insolvency, and inserted plaintiff
as a creditor.

The schedule being put in, a verdict was given for the
amount claimed.

WOOLLEN V. BAILEY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Jos.
Jonathan Wool:er, and the defendant is a licensed vic
tualler, in Warwick-lane, Newgate-street, and the action
was brought to, recover the sum of 8/. for eightiweeks'
board and lodging of defendant's wifc.
Mr. Parry appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. nallan-
tine for the defendant, who ph wied that he was not in-
debted.

Mr. PARRY stated ti e case, from which it appeared
that the ch fondant had expelled his wife from his houie
on the evening of the 17th of September, between eleven
and twelve o'clock, on some impression which he (the
Learned Counsel) was instruet,d to say was erroneous,
and had ever since refused t') maintain her, and hhe had
been compelled to take refuge at the plaintiff's, who now
claimed fir eight week,' board, lodging, and necessaries.
He considered that the law was clear, that if a wife was
compelled to leave in consequence of the ill-usuge of her
husband, either under an erroneous impression, or from
wilfulness, or antipathy, he was bound to support her.
It would no doubt be set up,by way of defonce, that Mrs.
Bailey bad committed adultery, but as there was no
special plea on the record, he should contend that evi-
dence to that point could not be received. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to call witnesses.
John Fulgar, Sergeant City-police, proved that on
the 17th of September last, he was ou duty in Novgate"

.~

1

it azket. when he heard a noi.io in the house hetwee no,
1
and 12 o'clock, and went in. Mr. Bailey (chfendiatti 0
was very much excited, and there was a dispute w.
a that
Mr.
Stopford, and defendant said he was determine, od
Stopford should leave the house, for he had Itearucon.
seen sufficient to prove that there was an improper
.iso.
nexion betw( en Stopford and Mrs. Bailey. Defeuden:
gir fora
struck at Stopferd, and Mrs. Bailey interfered to T
him. Defendant they said he would charge -i.„-Iness
with being there with an improper purpose. "1 Was
dtook the litter to the station-house, but the ease oid
ismissed. On returning to the house defendant did
he was determined his wife should go out, and if shell&
_ .
not go he would turn her out. She said it was toe
`O.
to
go out that night as she did not know where to geent
Defendant said he .did not care, and el3,e ed.
up steirs and put on her bonnet an 54 so,
Witness said he must leave, and Mrs Bailey saw' ' sin
she must leave, for it would be unsafe for her to rent
behind. He afterwards saw her to her sister% '"
Princes-street, Barbican. had
Cross-examined—Knew Stopford by sight' a°en we
frequently seen him come out late from the house,
times half an hour after the house had been closed. that
Mrs. Wilkinson, sister to Mrs. Bailey, Proved 'el
she went to defendant next morning, and he wat,,l„ey,
much excited. He refused to give his wife any 133:,„:' ed
but sent a black satin gown. Mrs. Bailey reto7lo
with her for three weeks and she afterwards sfen'eli
plaintiff, who resides in, Carburton-street,
ritir-i'
square, and she had seen her there with the Weill.
Cross-examined—Plaintiff has an office in South °IP
ton-buildings, and Stopford was also there.
his closed the case for the plaintiff. and old
Mr. BALLANTINE then addressed the jurYi s.„ aor
that the ease required few observations from ill r it
would it be necessary for him to call witnesses, °do
appeared abundantly clear from the evidence, thet.r•
defendant's case had been made out by Quidlai°loo.
evidence.n He had no doubt that the jury be .' to
vt ced that the defendant had had no alternative thal., •
act as he had done, and that they could not eaterteltilte
doubt on the subject. He contended that there vies et„na.
sufficient to show that there had been an improper eci.
nexion between Stopford and Mrs. Bailey, end it /13104
dent that Stopford was in reality the plaintiff in -th•
suit, but had shrunk from coming forward iet°ooo
witness-box to be examined, although het ;14 er
have been a competent witness. Nor had Stop is
glade
Mrs. Bailey for a moment denied the assertion
presence of the police efflux.. , h Elf
The UNDER-SHERIFF summed up, and said
e. t-e t
man causelessly turned his wife out of doors she sip
clothed with his authorit
hanodwhoeulwdaLseltlteifiteetimint ik
her, but if she was impure'
tee. her out of doors at any hour. The real questioet.%
!s case was, whether the jury were satisfied on
they
evidence that the defence had been made out, if so t fo
would find a verdict for defendant. In reference to ttlble
fact of the case against Stopford being dismissed tli rep
police, the Learned Under-Sheriff said he was tf *I /
that a man might be indicted for such' an offence tIS ths
charged against Stopford, but he was not cert.tin.
The
jury gave a verdict for defendant.
•