The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-01-26 00:00:00

THE DIVORCE A.

LAMBETH POLICE Como', Tuesday, January 19.—Mr.
Solomon applied to Mr. Elliott for an order, under the
21st clause of the 20th and 21st of Victoria, chap. 85,
commonly called the "Divorce and Matrimonial Causes
Act," to protect his client against her husband or his
creditors in any property she may have acquired since
the desertion of the former, or which she may hereafter
make.

Mr. Solomon said his client, Mrs. Lucy Freeman,
had been married on the 14th of September, 1842, at
Deptford Church, to Mr. John Charles Freeman, but
on the 20th of June, 1856, her husband deserted her,
and had never since returm d ta or contributed in any
way to her support. In the month of March last the
husband had been brought to this court on a charge of
deserting his wife, and, the charge having been clearly
proved againct him, he (the husband) was committed to
prison for 21 days for such desertion. His punishment
had not the effect of bringing the husband back, and
the consequence was that from June, 1856, up to the
present Mrs. Freeman supported herself by her own in-
dustry; and, aa it was the wish of her friends to assist
and put her into business, she requested an order under
the Act to protect her property from her husband, or
his creditors claiming under him.

Mrs. Freeman, a respectable-looking woman, was here
sworn. and corroborated the statement of her solicitor.
She also said that siace the desertion of her husband
she had maintained herself by dressmaking, and her
friends were about to assist her to get into business.
Mr. Elliott, having read through the clause in the
Act referred to, granted the order, the first that has
been granted under the statute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, J. 20.
(Sittings in Banco.)

WILBY V. THE WEST CORNWALL RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was a special case, arising out of an action to
recover £25 from the defendants as carriers from Pen-
zance to Wolverhampton, for damage done to certain
property of the plaintiff. The case set forth that the
defendants' line was 25 miles long, and extended from
Penzance to Truro, whence there was wagon conveyance
for goods by road for 65 miles to Plymouth, the nearest
railway which when once reached would afford con-
veyance by rail all over England. On the line of the
defendants' railway is Hayle, a small seaport, whence
there is water communication by steamboat to Bristol
where the continuous line of rail throughout England is
again reached. The defendants usually carried goods by
the inland route, but where goods as was the present
case, are specially directed to be carried by sea, rid
Hayle and Bristol, they have accepted them and for-
warded them accordingly, but they have no connection
on the one hand with the steamers or with the wagons on
the other, or with the lines of railways into which both
work. On the occasion in question the defendants' cart
called, according to orders, at the office of the plaintiff's
agent at Penzance, and received two cases which were
addressed to the plaintiff at Wolverhampton, rid Hayle
and Bristol, and delivered them in due course and safely
to the Steamboat Company at Hayle, but on their
arrival at Wolverhampton the boxes were discovered to
have been carelessly treated on their journey and
damaged. Under these circumstances the question was
whether the defendants were responsible for the negli-
gence which had so damaged the goods of the plaintiff,
though the damage had not been committed while in
their custody, by reason of their having received them to
be conveyed all the distance, or whether their liability
as carriers terminated when the goods quitted their
hands.

Mr. Gray appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. Phipson argued for the defendants,
The Court, without calling on the learned counsel
for the plaintiff to reply, gave judgmant in his favour,
it being their opinion that there was evidence, from the
general dealings of the defendants, that they had re-
ceived the goods in question to carry over the whole
distance, and were responsible therefore to the plaintiff
for their safe delivery at the terminus ocl quern. ,
Judgment for the plaintiff accordingly.

APPLICATION TO STRIKE AN ATTORNZY OFF THZ
ROLLS.—In the Court of Queen's Bench on Friday Mr.
Garth moved, on the part of the Inoorporated Law
Society for a rule calling upon an attorney whose name
he did not mention to show muse why he should not be
struck off the rolls. He WU admitted an attorney in
November last, and the grounds on which the present
application was made were that the relation of master
and clerk never existed between him and the person to
whom ho wee articled ; that the articles were never
served according to the Act of Parliament, and that he
had been guilty of conduct which untitled him to prim-
Sim as an attorney. Rule nisi.
CUSTODY OF CHILDREN UNDER THZ New DIVORCE
ACT.—By the 315th section of the New Divorce Act, in
any suit or other proceeding for obtaining a judicial se-
paration, or a decree of nullity of marriage, and on any
petition for dissolving a marriage, the court may, from
time to time, before making its final decree, make such
interim orders, and may make such provisions in the
final decree as it may deem just and proper with respect
to the custody, maintenance, and education of the chil-
dren of the marriage, and may, if it shall think fit,
direct proper proceedings to be taken for placing such
children under the protection of the Court of Chancery.