The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-22 00:00:00

BAIL COURT -(TI-116 DAY.

FINLAY V. BIRD.
This was an action for 3 1. Si. 50., the price of work done
for the defendant by the plaintiff. The plaintiff entered into a
contract with the defendant to survey the ground from Staines
to the Grand Junction Canal, a distance of seven miles, which
it was necessary should be completed by the 30th of November,
in order that the•suryey may be lodged in the House of Cora-
mot s. But the plaintiff, and those whom he engaged to
complete the work, did not commence the survey till the ?4•h
of November, and he told the defendant that it would be
scarcely possible to complete the work at the time specified, to
which the defendant replied that they should only do their
best, because though the survey was not complete by the 30th,
he might afterwards get the standing orders of the House of
Commons suspended and the survey lodged. The plaintiff in
consequence °Meted the survey, and it was proved in evi-
dence that the surveyors made every expedition. The defence
set up was, that the survey not being complete it was of no use
to the defendant.

His LORDSHIP briefly summed up the evidence, and the Jury
brought in a verdict for the plaintiff to the full arnount claimed.
Mr. Thesiger appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Richards
for the defendant.

IN SQJLVENT COURT-(THIS DAY

IN RE JUIN WHITE.

The insolvent in this case was a boot and shoe-maker, carry-
ing on business at Newington•causeway, where he also kept the
post-office. His petition to be discharged was supported by
Mr. Cooke.

Mr. Nicholls, on behalf of a person named Kemp, who was
I a bill-discounter, in Finch-lane, opposed the insolvent's dis-
charge on the ground of having made away with property to
the detriment of his creditors. After a number of witness: s
had been examined, whose evidence occupied the entire morning,
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN said he could not entertain the
opposition for a moment, as there was no proof of the insolvent
having disposed of any property in such a manner as to render
him amenable to the discretionary clause of the Act.
The insolvent was then discharged forthwith.
IN RE JOHN ABRAHAM SMITH.
The insolvent appeared in Court to receive judgment. He
had been already brought up for hearing, when the case
was adjourned for further evidence. The facts have been
already reported in The Sun. He was remanded for six
months from the date of his vesting order, at the suit of Mr.
Swan, who was appointed assignee.

CONSISTORY—(THIS DAY.)
JUDGSIENT.—DILLON v. DILLON.
On the opening of the Court, Dr. Lc SHINGTON gave judg-
ment in this case. This was a suit brought by the Rev.
Dillon against Frances Charlotte Dillon, his wife, for separa-
tion, by reason of adultery. Certainly, since he had sat in
that Court he had never met with a case in which the evidence
required more careful and painful investigation. On the part
of the wife the adultery :was denied, and it had been further
alleged that the conduct of Dr. Dillon, after the discovery of
the adultery, was such as to bar him of any remedy, even if the
charge of adultery should be found to be sufficiently established.
It was to this point that his attention must be directed. The
marriage took place at the end of November, 1839, and it was
truly stated by the counsel for Dr. Dillon, not under happy
circumstances, for it was proved by Mr. Wingett, a wit-
ness for Dr. Dillon, and his intimate, that previous to
such marriage, Dr. Dillon had seduced this young woman,
who was under twenty years of age, and had had a child by
her. When this case was adverted to by the counsel in
favour of the remedy for which Dr. Dillon prayed, it was
observed, that however reprehensible the conduct of Dr. Dillon
might have been in this particular, the Court ought not to visit
him with punishment, on account of it, in this suit. Certainly
not, and the Court wholly disclaimed both the intention and
the power to do it. Farther, a marriage under such circum-
stances, is of itself commendable; for it was making all the re-
paration in the power of the individual for the injury he had
already done. What had occurred between the parties previous
to marriage never ought to be allowed to operate on the circum-
stances occurring after marriage, so as to form a bar to Dr.
Dillon's claim. Still, in a claim like this, facts occurring
prior to marriage were not altogether without a legiti-
mate bearing, for the Court apprehended that a hus-
band, contracting a marriage under these circumstances,
was bound to exercise a more than ordinary degree of care and
circumspection to prevent his wife deviating into those paths
of vice into which he was the first to lead her. The cohabita-
tion was of no long continuance ; the citation was taken out
on the 10th of May, 1841, and there was not much evidence
to show on what terms they lived together during such cohabita-
tion. From all appearances, however, they were not happy
ones. Dr. Dillon had often complained of his wife absenting
herself, but under what circumstances there was no evidence
to prove. He would now proceed to the charge of adultery,
which was contained in articles 4 and sof the libel. It was
alleged that it took place on Tuesday, the 29th December,
1840. It was stated that Francis Charlotte Dillon went on that
day to Gravesend, in the county of Kent, for the ostensible
purpose ofa visit to her mother, Mrs. Drury, for several days,
her mother residing at or near Gravesend ; for this visit she
had solicited, and obtained the consent of the husband, who
accompanied her to Blackwell, from whence she went by the
steamer, as if fur die purpose of going to her mother's house.
That some time previous to the premises, Frances Charlotte
Dillon had for used an adulterous intercourse with some man
whose name is unknown. The deponent alleges that, on the
arrival of the steam packet at Graeesencl ,Mrs. Dillon was wet
and joined by some man, and shortly efterwards proceeded in
an omnibus or public conveyance to the Sir John Falstaff Inn,
Gadshill, where they spent the evening and slept together,
Oe Wednesday, the 30th, they left the inn for Gravesend, on
which occasion she stated to the chambermaid, while assisting
to dress her, that she had a mother living, to whom she
was going. The first oleereation naturally occurring On reading
this statement was the absence of all preliminary circumstances
leading up to and rendering the adultery probable. In most
cases it was true that the adultery is clandestine, but it was
equally true that when the parties were living together there
s, in the great majority LI cases, evidence after the discovery
.1 the fact that rendered the fact probable. It was the com-
"len and ordinary course of things that the previous circum-
stances came to light, and were appealed to and proved. This
of evidence was always looked for ; and, indeed,
required where the circumstances allowed of its production.
It was more than once observed by Lord Stowell, that the
Court looked with extreme jealousy on cases where the fact of
adultery alone was appealed to, and all the previous circurn-
,tances rendering the adultery probable were entirely omitted.
It was upon these facts the Court looked, as tending to show
whether the fact was probable or not. Upon the present occa-
-ion all such evidence was wanting, and it was only on the