The Sun.
London, England, 1829-07-17 00:00:00

DOUGLAS V. DOUGLAS.

This was a suit for divorce by reason of adultery,
promoted by Mrs. Mary Douglas against her husband
Mr. Richard William Glow Douglas. The adultery
was alleged to have been committed with a person
named Julia Bree.

Dr. PHILLIMORE, for the husband, said, that he
could make no opposition to the suit, the adultery
being fully proved.—Separation granted.

COURT OF REQUESTS, JULY 16.

A very dashing young woman, named Jane Smith-
son, was summoned before the Commissioners of the
hundred of Ossulston, on the complaint of a poor
man named Edward Forbes, to chow cause why she
refused to pay him the sum of 11. ss. 9d. for meat,
drink, and lodging, supplied her, the said Jane.
The dashing exterior of the defendant, and the
miserable plight of the plaintiff, excited much notice,
and the developement of the facts connected with
the affair produced no small degree of interest.
Forbes stated, that about twelve months ago he
lived with his family in the town of Birmingham,
where he worked as a journeyman tea-tray-manufac-
turer; but work being extremely slack, he deter-
mined to leave the town. Just before his departure
the defendant came to his house in the greatest state
of distress and wretchedness, and requested he would
give her shelter for the night, and said, although she
had then no money or means to repay him for his
kindness, she would, when she arrived in London,
transmit him some remuneration, as there she had
some friends living in great respectability. Witness
took compassion upon her, and agreed to take her in.
She continued with him for some days, always partak-
ing of whatever food he could provide for his family,
and when they left Birmingham she accompanied them
on the journey to London. Upon their arrival she left
him in Holborn, promising to meet him in the even-
ing and settle with him, but from that time till
within these three weeks he had never seen her.—
He then learned that she had either got married to a
respectable man, or that she was cohabiting with
him, and lived in Lisson-grove. He had waited
upon her repeatedly, and solicited payment; but she
always put him off, saying that Mr. G—was out of
town, and that she was without cash, and could not
pay him. He was a poor matt, he said, and had
sought this mode to recover the debt.
The CHAIRMAN asked him how long the defend-
ant boarded and lodged with him in Birmingham ?
Forbes said that she was with him for a fortnight
before he left for London.

CHAIRMAN—How (lid you travel?—Forbes—We
walked every step of the way, Sir; and whenever I
and my family halted to take refreshment, the de-
fendant always shared with us.
CHAIRMAN—How did you manage at night ? Did
you go to bed, or did you walk all night ?—Forbes
—We went to bed; and I always paid for the bed
for the defendant.

CIIAIRMAN—Upon my word this is rather a sin-
gular case.
Forbes assured the Chairman, that however sin-
gular it might appear, it was nevertheless true.
The defendant was then called upon to answer
the complaint. She appeared to treat it with very
considerable indifference, and said that she was not
aware that she owed the plaintiff any money. He
certainly had behaved very kindly to her, but she
had made ample acknowledgment to him for his
kindness.

Forbes declared he had never received the least
acknowledgment, unless that of ingratitude.
The CHAIRMAN asked the defendant in what
manner she had made the plaintiff an acknowledg-
ment for his humanity.
The defendant here hung down her head, and did
not answer the question.
The CHAIRMAN reiterated the same question,
when

The defendant, with the greatest impudence
imaginable, said, " Well then, I will tell you, Sir :
I was in a great measure the means of supporting
him and his family upon our journey to London."
CHAIRMAN--How can that be possible, when
you were in such great distress. Defendant—Well
then, if I must be plain, I must. (She then described
in what manner she had obtained the means of sup-
plying food for this man's family.)
CHAIRMAN—Oh, fie, fie, you ought to be ashamed
of yourself, if your story be true, to make such an
admission.
Forbes declared most solemnly that she spoke an
untruth.
The CHAIR➢fAN said he believed him, and that
he did not think there was a word of truth in her
statement, which was most abominable.
The defendant was ordered to pay the debt and
costs at Bs. per month.

OLD BAILEY, JULY 16.

NEW COURT.

The following pleaded guilty to indictments
charging
them with larcenies :—Thomas Haw-
kins, Moses Miers, John Thompson, George
Hodgkins,Chas.Denes, Joseph Benton, and Emmett,
Ann Roach was acquitted, and the following were
found guilty :—James Harris, Peter Corvel, James
Davies, Thomas Bonning, Wm. Ellwood, Richard
Hudson, Emma Markwell, Charles Tupp, Eliza
Bright, and Eliza. Waters, The latter prisoner
was found guilty on two indictments, for roblling her
master.
Mr. Sergeant ARABIN said he should send her out
pf the country.

An Insolvent Debtors' Conn will be held at
Hortihan3 on the 2fith instant.—Brightp7; Gazette.
The breed of the partridge is likely to be vory
great this season: there have been seen many coveys
already on the wing, and the dry weather and the back-
ward grass crop will prevent many nests from being de-
stroyed.--13riyhton Gazette.