The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-02 00:00:00

LLOYD'S SHIPPING.

Lox non, JUNE I.—Wind at Noon, variable and light.
DEAL, MAY 31.—Wind S.W., moderate.—Arrd. Rose
Ramsey, Palermo, for St. Petersburgh. Arrd. from the
River and ald. Beulah, Calcutta; Eliza Stewart, Bombay ;
Lady Hilda and Magnolia, Barbadoes ; Egbert, Montserrat.
Orr DOVER, MAY 31.—Fortuna, Biehl, Bahia, for Ham-
burgh, in 68-days ; Anna Cecilia, Memel, for Monte Video.
JERSEY, MAY 28.—Arrd. Hebe, Le Boutillier, Rio.
PORTSMOUTH, MAY 31.—Wind N.N. W. to W.--Arrd.
Montreal, Tinker, New York, sailed 11th inst. Sid. Lord
Lowther, China ; H.M.S. Crocodile, Halifax. Arrd. off,
True Briton, Consett, Madras, sailed 2d Feb.
COWES, MAY 31.—Arrd. Jane, Sauvage, Rio ; Joven Gre-
gorio, Gullen, Havannah • Fama, Dion, Matanzas.
TORBAY, MAY 30.—Sid. Lady A. Lampton, Quebec.
BRISTOL, MAY 31.—Arrd. Britannia, Simmons, Barbadoes.
MEl.voan, MAY 30. —Arrd. Maria, Newport, for Havannah;
Trangullar, Marturlich, Trieste; Josephine and Anne and
Catherine, both from Bangor, for London, with loss of top-
masts.
FALMOUTH, MAY 30.—Wind W. S. W., light breezes.—Arrd.
Louisa, Woodside, Havannah, sailed April 24 ; Glevcairn,
Robeson, Kertch ; Elizabeth Atkinson, Neitherton, Odessa;
Sultana, Asplit, Alexandria; Louisa Caroline, Cooper, An-
cona. Sld. Royal Tar steamer, Gibraltar. Arrd. off, lane
Snowdon, Dood, Odessa, and proceeded fur London.
LivEarooL, MAY 31—Wind W. S.W., moderate.—Arrd.
Childers, Sydney, New South Wales. 81d. 4th Feb., Oro-
mocto, Gillies, Savannah. Slit. Margaret, Newfoundland ;
Ilonour, Ancona ; Wetherall, Batavia ; Golden Fleece, Bahia ;
Oulda, Hayti ; Eliza Danson and Hogarth, New York ; En-
terprise, Yarmouth, N. S. Arrd. off, Java, Trinidad.
DUBLIN BAY, MAY 30.—Arrd. Maranham, Brundel, St.
John's.

CORK, MAY 29.—Arrd. Argestes, Bilton, Monte Video;
Vulcan, Davy, Tampico.
PLYMOUTH,. MAY 31. Wind • S.W. Arrd. Falmar,
Croker, Messina. Arrd. off, Phceniz, Bahia, for Stettin.
Cow as, Ala Y 31.—The Thoburn, Watson, from Liverpool
t o Montreal, witb loss of foremast, bowsprit, and main-topmast ;
was spoken with, 19th April, in lat. 46, lon. 37, by the Fame,
arrived here. The Thoburn had been supplied with sails by
the Amnon, Pitcairn, from,Mobile to Glasgow.
HULL, MAY 31,—Wind W. S.W., randerete.—Sld. Aurora.
2.;sI;ELDt, MAY Hanover, St. Thomas.

SU MPLUOUS POI4TENp.•;-I•loldine4l4 IpabrelLl
over a clack is tbo ri.i11144!•144, part.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 1.
Lord Chief Justice Tindal, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Jus-
tice 'genie, and Mr. Justice Cresswell, sat in Banco.
Mr. Justice Erskine sat at Nisi Prius in the Vice-Chancellor
"of England's Court with a Middlesex Common Jury, and waxen-
gaged .the whole morning trying the ease of Cotes s. Terriy,
which was an action fur false imprisonment brought by the wife of
a"polio6man against a linen-draper. It appeared that the plain-
tiff laid entered the shop of the defendant, and that while she
was there some articles were missed, which, defendant accused
plaintiff of having taken. Plaintiff denied the accusation,
submitted to be searched, when none of the missing
articles were found on her, notwithstanding which the de-
fendant gave her into custody on a charge of felony. To recover
damages for this false imprisonment, the present action had
been brought.
The Jury returned a verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages 51.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, June 1.
EX PARTE THOMPSON&

This was an application made at the instance of John
Willock Thompson and Thomas Thonipson, for a rule
to show cause why the name of t.'dward Rawlinson
should not be struck off the roll of attorneys entitled to
practice in this Court; for having allowed the use of his
name, in that capacity, to a person named Isaac
Isaacsi and also why
the <id :Ileac Isaacs should
not be committed to the Cait.,l" of Lancaster, he
having practised as an attorney witlvott,t being duly ad-
mitted. • .
The case had been already argued at great length
before the Court.
Mr. WoonaoFFE, on behalf of Messrs. Rawlii:son and
Isaac's, read a number of affidavits, geiaerally.tend.i.ng to
invalidate the trustworthiness of the .deponents won
whose affidavits the motion was grounded, and said that
this was a case in which, of all others, One of his client*
(Mr. Rawlinson) was most entitled to the commissera-
tion and sympathy of the Court, as welt as of every one.
possessing the least feeling or humanity. He had been for
26 years an attorney of that Court, and about 16 years ago,
became afflicted with a total privation of sight. Having
no private resources, he would bein a state of the most
complete destitution, were it not ..for an order made
by Mr. Commissioner Law in his favour; since the ope-
ration of the new Insolvent Act, by which another indi-
vidual was allowed to transact his business in: the Way
of receiving retainers and preparingachedules, in which
the personal attendance of solicitors absolUtely re-
quired since the passing of the Act and the Messrs.
Thompson, who had just been admitted as solicitors, were
the persons who now sought to have his nave struck off
the file, because his sad visitation rendered him linable to
comply with the formulae required by the new regui;
Mr. CookE, who appeared in support of the rule b,ing
made absolute, having addressed ' the Court at great

length,
•.
The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER said that, in att
far as it was possible, Mr. Rawlinson should attend
to his client's interests, and he should say that, in
many' instances, when he (the Learned Commissioner)
had been presiding in Lancaster, he' found Mr. Rawlin-
son to he generally as well informed on matters con-
nected with his clients' interests as others. Upon the
whole, the Cburt-cleclined making the rule absolute.
Mr. Commissioner BOWEN pronounced a similar de-
cision, •

The case occupied the Court from half-past one up to
Lx o'clock.

CONSIS TORY COURT.—Tuesday, May 31.

DILLON V. DILLON.' •
This is a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by Mrs.
Dillon against Dr. Dillon, her husband. 'lt will be recollected
that a suit fordivorce was instituted by fne husband some titoe
ago, and the sentence pronounced in favour of the wife. Since
then Dr. Dillon has not returned to cohabitation, and the pre- ,
sent suit has accordingly been brought. The wife's libel was
now offered for admission.
Dr. Dillon appeared in person, and said that be was oem-
pletely tappus defacultatibus. Hei had no means of supporting
a wife who had grossly misbehaved herself. Dr. Dillon was
proceeding to bring very serious accusations against his wife,
and to enter into a detailed statement of his affairs, when he
was interrupted ay
The Couwr, who observed that if he had any accusation to
bring against his wife as a bar to her suit, he must put it ma
paper, and give it in in a formal manner.
Dr. Dillon said that he had nothing as a bar to his wife's
suit to offer, and ultimately gave an affirmative issue to her
plea. He was accordingly directed to take back his wife to
' cohabitation and to produce a certificate of his having done so
on the neat Court day but one.

SECONDARIES' COURT, 'Guildhall, May 31,
efore Mr. Secondary bars and a Common Jury. )
CRINI CON.-STREET V. WATSON,__

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Henry
Street, a gentleman of large property, residing at }lirtley, in
Surrey, to recover of the defendant, Mr. John Watson, for-
merly a midshipman in her Majesty's navy, but now an actor at
one of the theatres, compensation for criminal conversation with
the plaintiff 's wife. The damages were laid at I,oto/.
Mr. Pexeitsno4, for the plaintiff, Said the circumstances,
of tLe painful ease which it was his duty to lay before the
Jury weee certainly of a very peculiar and extraordinary de-
scription, and, as the defendant had admitted his guilt by
allowing judgment to go by default, he would as briefly as
possible state the whole case. The plaintiff was the only soil
of a gentleman possessed of great property at Birtley.
in Surrey, and by his father's death he was entitled to
the whole estates, subject to a life intereit payable to his
mother. In the year 1826 he formed an acquaintance with
Miss Eliza Waldegrave (the subject of the present unfortunate
proceeding), a young lady of great personal attractions and
accomplishments, an orphan, living with .7a relative llama
Elkins, at Guildford. She was then nineteen years of age, and
the plaintiff was fully as old. A strong attachment grew up
between them, and their love appeared mutual. On the 29th
of June, is the same year, they were married with the con-
sent of the relatives on both sides. For the Srat two years
after their marriage they lived on the most affectionate terms,
but from that time the plaintiff discovered that his wife was
much given to drinking ardent spirits and Wine to great excess.
The plaintiff, however, continued to live with her until the
year 1835, when he separated from her, allowing her fifty
pounds per annum for her maintenance. The money was
regularly paid by the agent to Mrs. Street until the latter
end of the last year, when not being able to ascertain
from her where she was residing, suspicions were raised, and
she was found to be cohabiting with the defendant, who said
that he had been a midshipman in her Majesty's navy, but was
now attached to one of the theatres, in what capacity he (Mr.
Petersdorf) did not know. The plaintiff had the greatest
difficulty in finding out where his faithless partner was living.
having to follow her home after she had received her month a
money. Having stated the history of this-melancholy case, he
would now state the reason for asking damages. It was not to
put whatever money they might give into the plaintiff's pocket,
but it was to enable him to proceed with the inquiry'elsewhere
to get wholly separated from that wife, whom, although be had
been temporarily separated from, he had hoped to have re-
claimed from her vicious habits of inebriety, and one m. re be-
come the partner of his bed and home. He did not, in the ab-
sence of the defendant, ask for vindictive damages, lett only
such as would enable the plaint* to get the separation which ,
he now desired, in consequence of the adUltery committed by
the defendant. The Learned Gentleman called Mrs. Mary
Bicknell, sister of the plaintiff, and several other witnesses, who
confirmed the statement of Counsel.
The Learned SecoenAev said, that the plaintiff in this
erase was entitled to the verdict, and the defendant, though ab-
sent, could not complain of unfairness in the speech of the
Learned Counsel. They had no evidence as to the Way the iu-
inP
hichhe there
wasere not.coa
Id
timacy first. took place between the defendant and the plaintiffs.
%Nib., and from the evidienicied,ointe awprioanngre:oif
that
w
wealthy n ; but if lie a
be no 'doubt, lie must suffer in person what he could not in
pocket.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, gave a verdict—
Dainage 2'ol.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
L.
Darrey was charged with creating a disturbance in
the surrey Theatre, and assaulting the constable in the execu-
tion of hi; duty.
The complainant stated that the defendant was in the gallery
of the theatre on the preceding night, and, by the violence of
his conduct interrupted the performance. He first endeavoured
to oust a female of her seat, and finding she would not give way
he threw himself forward, and knocked several persons off their
seats, and was proceeding to further ihts of violence when be
was taken into custody. He then Made a most determined
resistance, awl kicked the witness severely on the lelirs.
In dcfeme, ho said that,he w2S tipsy ; he wv fined 'AN.

'.fir. James Morrison puixed 6e. 41ii* the luc.t•
44 9 Tway uight with tit Chules I.lprc.
•. .