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

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 20, 1868.

GUILDHALL.

Closing I Business
Price. done.

35 17
81 85
2J 30

3 4
75 77
70 72

101 102'
30
034 74 1
15 10
107 10i
1081 1014
124 126 1

vo as
Sgt 151

45 47
25 30
29 B 1

/I 821 411

i 274 4-28!

4di 401
111,t
12 15
1161 1•Q
15.5 87
115 I'll

00 102

71 117;

75 7S

314 354

105 107

9d luu
130 134
1)4 136

291 ;

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

A HUNGRY THlEF.—Thomas Toms, a young lad
who had a very robust appearance, and gave the ad-
dress of 6, Three Herring-court, Red Cross-street,
was placed at the bar before Alderman Finnis,
charged with stealing seven -quartern loaves from
a barrow in White Cross-street, the property of Mr.
Andrew Alford, 15, Mount-row, Liverpool-road,
Islington.

Alfred Spelcer, 136, said that he watched the pri-
soner for some time near the barrow and at last saw
hint take seven half-quartern loaves from it, put
them into a bag he had with him, and run away
with them. He pursued and overtook him, and
brought him back to the barrow, when the man who
was in charge of it came up, and on examining his
stock missed the loaves in question and others.
William Henry Almond said he had lost eleven
half-quartern loaves, and on previous occasions had
had bread stolen from his barrow.

The prisoner said he took it because he was
hungry.

He was sent for two months to prison with hard
labour.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A BASE RETURN FOR KINDNESS.—John Clark,
alias Buckley, a young ma❑ of good education, was
charged before Mr. Knox with stealing the pocket-
haudkerchief of a gentleman in Oxford-street, and
also with having another handkerchief in his pos-
session supposed to be stolen.

Henry Coxhead, a postman, living at No. 43,
Marshall-street, said that shortly after five o'clock
the previous afternoon he was passing along Oxford-
street, when he saw the prisoner follow a gentleman
and take his silk handkerchief out of his pocket.
lie spoke to a constable and told him what he had
seen, and went along wi►_h the constable after the
prisoner, and on coming up with him he was in the
act of blowing his nose in the gentleman's hand-
kerchief.

Police-constable Tyler, 65 0, said that on taking
the prisoner into custody he found upon him a silk
handkerchief, which was subsequently identified by
Mr. Thomas, a landscape gardener.

The prisoner said that he was well known to
several of the constables of the F Division as a re-
spectable young man, and he would like to ask Mrs.
Shee if she had not a young man of the name of
Gallivan lodging in her house ?
Mrs. Shee said she had, but that the prisoner
never said a word about him last night.
Mr. Knox remanded the prisoner for a week, to
give the police an opportunity of making inquiries
about him.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—TI 'tis Day.

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before the Right Hon. Sir J. r. W 'tide 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 in 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
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 sirs. Burrows, in Commercial-
road, East. Ile 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
carrying 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 LIM"— An application was made by
qr. Fry to Vice-Chancellor Stuart to restrain all proceed-
ng,s in the suit of Kelly v. Hutton—in which his Honour
iad made a decree on the 9th of February last, declaring
that the plaintiff was half-proprietor of the Sporting Life
le wspaper— until the appeal brought by the defendant had
een heard by the Lord Chancellor. It was stated by the
learned counsel that immediately after the decree was
made the plaintiffs 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 hie
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 more 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,wa s of a very peculiar character;
and though he was himself satisfied that the decree he bad
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.