The Express.
London, England, 1863-07-10 00:00:00

(Stamped, id Additional.]

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURTS.—Teti 9.
(Before the Mager of the Bolin)
1180021 r. =min.
This cue was opened to-day, but uit was only part
heard, and will be proceeded with on Tuesday next, we re•
serve our report.
Mr. Cole, Q. 0., and Mr. Kay were for the plaintiff. Mr.
Kennedy appeared in person.

(Before Vioe-Chaimellor Sir J. Stuart)
BOTTOM P. =WON.
Mr. Milieu, Q.C., and Mr. E. K. Kerslake appeared in
tMi ease, which was an adjourned summate from &ambers,
asking that a Mr. Beebe, the receiver in the came, might,
notwithstanding the certificate of the chief clerk that a
balance of 2,3541. was due from him as such receiver, be
relieved from the payment of it into court ; or that a Mr.
M'Murray might be ordered to repay to Mr. Beaton a sum
of 2,8971. 4e. 6d. in respect of certain payments
which he bad made, but which the chid clerk
had disallowed in passing the receiver's aceonetat
The questions in dispute between the parties related *
their interests in the Sporting Life, the Eclipse, and the
Sporting Telegraph newspapers. After a long dimmed=
between the learned courmel engaged in the suit, the follow.
lug arrangement was made :—That this 0111110 and • craw
nine, of Beeton v. M'Murray should, together with the
adjourned summons, come on to be heard on Saturday, the
18th instant, that Mr. Beeton should within a week pay
into court the amount found due from him ; or that. in
default of his so doing, an attachment should ;base against
Wm; eked the caste of this ennunone must he reserved
until the hearing of the causes.
The Solicitor-General, Sir Hogh Cairns, Q.C.. Mr. Bacon,
Q.C., Mr. T. Terrell, and Mr. Etwanston also appeared in the
cue.

(Before Vice-Cbancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
TEI ATVORVII-GIBIRAL V. THE IIrfROPOLITAN BOARD OP

WORK&

This motion to restrain the defendants from fouling the
River Lea with the works wee mentioned this morning,
when it wan stated that the defendants had undertaken to
earry the sewage by temporary wooden troughs over the
Lea at an expense of about 90W., and
The Vies-Chancellor approved of thin arrangement, which
appeared fairly to meet the difficulties of the case.
HORTON V. LRTTMR.

This was a motion to restrain the defendant from pub-
lishing a catalogue, called by him "Topographic* Onions—
Bibliotheca Anglia, Wallis, Scotia, et Hibernia," containing
extracts from a catalogue prepared by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff and defendant were both booksellers, and ap-
peared to deal in the same clam of works, and the defendant,
in compiling his catalogue of works for saki, copied verbatim
in some please, and with slight alterations in others, the
catalogue miaowed of the plaintiff.
It was attempted to prove that such was the kustom of
the trade, bat
The Vice-Chancellor said he could give no heed to • cus-
tom which simply amounted to • custom to nee some one
alas property.
Sir H. Cairns, Mr. Lovell, Mr. Bristow., Mr. Tapp, and
Mr. C. Macnaghten were in the cue.
The Vino-Chancellor considered that the plaintiff had
clearly a copyright in hie catalogue, and that, as clearly, it
appeared that copyright bad been infringed ; an injunction
must therefore go.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BRNOlL—Jtnx 9.
After T. fla!tiags..,at Nid Moo tt Guild.ll4—(Blots

Laid MO Wide* Onkbeirn aid a Bplail Juri.)

IMP V. TN/ LONDON AND PROVINCIAL PROVIDRNT BCCINIT.
This waa an action for a wrought' dismissal, nod also for
false imprisonment. The defendants pleaded a denial of
the agreement, misconduct, and not guilty.
Dr. O'Freely was counsel far the plaintiff ; Mr. fterjeant
Parry sad Mr. Oriffits were mune' for the defendants.
The case had not concluded when the court rose.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—JULY 9.
Sittings at Ni.i Pries. it puaqh-vi --(Botwo tho Lord Chief

Baron Pcalock aid Commix' Juries.)

AIft3COMB V. BOLUBSON.—urn Ili nil ILITCKDT.
This was en oscine for moult. The defendant pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Henry James and Mr. Matthews were counsel for the
plaintiff; end Mr. Murphy for the defendant.
The plaintiff, Matilda Anscomb, was a young woman
who formerly held the position of bead kitchen maid at the
Great Western Hotel, Paddington, and the defendant,
Aleaud Boniason, the chief cook at the same establishment.
Mr. Henry James, in his opening statement, said that the
defendant, who engaged all the servants employed in the
kitchen of the hotel, had succeeded in seducing the plaintiff
under • premise of marriage, and after the 00011011011 had
gone on for some time she urged him to fulfil hie promise,
when, to ber astonishment, she toned that be had married
another person. Having been thus betrayed she insisted
upon breaking off the intimacy, but this greatly exasperated
him, and from that time he practised towards her a system
of cruelty which ultimately compelled her to leave the
hoteL The plaintiff brought an action for breach of pro-
mise of marriage and assault, but the learned judge before
whom it came held that it must be divided into two actions,
which should be tried separately. On the trial of the
action for the breach of promise the plaintiff could not be
called as • witness, and the only other evidence she was
able to give being that of a foreigner the learned judge held
that them was no came, and directed a nonsuit. The learned
counsel added that the action for the assault now came on
for trial, and be bad no doubt that after they bad beard the
evidence they would be of opinion that the plaintiff was
entitled to substantial damages.
Matilda Anaoomb, the plaintiff, said that in March, 1861,
she was employed by the defendant as head kitchen maid
at the Great Western Hotel. Afterwards they became
engaged to be married, and the defendant then seduced her.
In August last she first discovered that he was mar-
and, she then broke off all intimacy. with
him. On the 20th August she was spealung to
Hardy, the wood cook, when the defendant peeped
by on his way to the larder. On his return he abused
her in the most violent manner and spat in her face.
He tbeo threw a kitchen knife at her, but it only jest
touched her shoulder. On another occasion he said he would
kill her, if he were hung at Newgate for it. He was con-
stantly using bad language to her. At another time, when
she was in conversation with Hardy, be told her
he would smash her face if he had to pay 200 f. for it. On
the 29th August he struck her a violent blow in the face,
sod threatened he would kill her. On other occasions a
bottle and a silver entree dish were aimed at her. He
threatened to kill her if she spoke to Hardy win, and once
or twice she was frightened for her life, end ran into the
street or upstairs. The effects of one of his blows remained on
her forehead fora fortnight. In consequence of this treatment
she gave notice on the 2nd of November to leave in a month,
but at his request the remained a month longer. During that
time his violent conduct continued, threatening to stab her
and break her head, and throwing dishes and various other
missiles at her. She left the hotel in January last.
Cross-examined--I remained after the expiration of the
month's notice, because be prevailed upon me to do so. I
never made any complaint to Mr. Higgs, the manager of
the hotel, because I was afmid of my life. Tbedefecidant is
still head cook at the hotel. I did not consul a doctor about
the blow I received on the forehead, but I was confined to bed
three or four days. I was engaged to be married to Hardy,
but through the defendant's behaviour lof coarse lost it.
(Laughter.) He told Hardy whatbappened between him and
me, and said to him, "If you marry her you mod take the
consequence of her having • child.
Thomas Johnson, who bad been employed at the hotel,
deposed to hearing the defendant use filthy epithets to the
plantiff, and seeiog him throw things at her.
Edward Hardy,the second cook, was called, but did not
apF. He was then called in the customary form on his
11l Da.
his was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Murphy then addressed the jury cat the part of the
defeudant. He commented upon the improbability of the
plaintiff's story. uncorroborated as it was by any other tes-
timony than that of one witness, although the alleged
cruelty and assaults moat have been seen by all the persons
employed in the kitchen, and characterised the action as
one simply of extortion. Theddendent, who was • foreigner,
having last year got married and settled, and wishing to
throw a veil over his bachelor life, the plaintiff or her ad-
visers no doubt thought that if she brought this action
against him he would rather settle the matter than brave
an exposure in court, and run the tisk probably of losing
his situation.
Alnaud Boniuon, the defendant, was then examined. He
desired to be examined through as interpreter, but there not
being one present, he gave hie evidence in very intelligible
English. He denied in tote that he ever struck or beat the
plaintiff, or threw anything at her, or threatened to take her
life. He said be was married on April 28, 1862, and that
before he went to the Great Western Hotel he bad been
io the service of the Duke of Sutherland aid the Marquis
el Londonderry.
Cross-examined—lt is true that I was intimate with the
plaintiff, but I cannot my when was the lest time. I
never promised her marriage. I was married at St.
George's, HaDoverequare. No one from the hotel went
with us to the church, nor did I tell any one when 1 re-
turned that I was now &happy man. That was my business ;
but the marriege was soon known to every see,
(Laughter.) I did not put my marriage in the newspapers
nor send round any cards. (Laughter.) We bad
no marriage breakfast at the hotel, but we breakfasted at my
lodgings in Porchester.place. I did tot ill-use the plaintiff
after she refused to renew the intimacy.
Hiza Day, the fish maid at the hotel, was called to prove
that the defendant used no violas°, to the plaintiff. She
admitted that once, when the defendant was in a passion
with everybody in the hitches, he threw • silver entree
dish at the charcoal stove, brit denied that be aimed it at
the plaintiff.
John Parkes, whq wit employed at the rout, save similar
testimony.