The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
• ttings in Error.—(Before Lord Chief Justices Cockburn
saJ Erie ; Justices Crompton, Blackburn, sad Malicr,
from the Court of Queen's Baia ; and Justices Williams,
Willes, and Keating, from Um Common Plass.)
7,E ArToRYCY-GENEILAL. cULLIII AND 01111.8.—THE

In consequence of the inconvenient arrangement of the
moll Exchequer Chamber, when their lordship. usually
sat in error, and the possibility of the over-crowtheg of the
cruet from the intensity of the popular interest in the
Icienam case, the learned judges sat to-day in the large
tea roore convenient Court of Queen's Bench. The argu-
ments are not likely to occupy so much time as wee cos-
ivrea in movie; for and showing cause against the rule in
she Court of Exchequer, the usual practise in error being
to hear only one counsel on each side.
The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Queen's
.rtarcieste, Mr. J. Locke, Q.C. and Mr. T. Joni appeared
for the m 'in • Sir H. Cairns, Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., Mr.
Q.C., and Mr. Kemple, for the defendant".
Sir Hugh Cairns said he had to submit a preliminary
objection to the jurisdiction of the court to en-
tertain the appeal, sod of which be bed given
notice to the legal advisers of the crown. Having
recapitulated the facto of the proceeding' in the case
rep to this time, the learned counsel observed that Luce the
judgment of the Court of Exchequer discharging the rule,
when the proceeding in that court was at an end, except In
ch„,nteging the mere ministerial act of entering up judgment,
the defendant had been served with notice of appeal to that
court. The question, therefore, risked under those circum-
stances was by what authority the appeal had been brought.
Before the poising of the Common Law Procedure Act of
1.5.2 there could have been no such appeal, but be under-
good it was said that a rule had been made by the Court
of Exchequer, which gave an appeal is this COI% which
role or order had ben made a general role or order of the
court. dated the Bch November last. He understood, but
only from the ordinary channels of Information, that the
no was made by the Court of Exchequer on the applica-
tion of the advisers of the Crown in this can before the
tale nisi for a new trial was obtained. If that wee correct,
no doubt the learned and enneet judges who made the rule
provided on the considerations of the highest policy of its
tom in their own minds, but at the same tame one could
not help feeling that their making the rule apparently
general in its terms, and applying to all cases, upon the
application of the parties to one particular can, and to meet
was a come that might be attended in some cans
with danger and inconvenience. The 17. i jo.roe,:
fend to be made under the act for
the office of the Queen's itemembrannr, which 'euraM
the provisions of the Common Law Procedure Acts of
and 1854, and extended their provisions to the
revenue side of the Court of Exchequer, which the
learned counsel contended had reference only to he
earn power and authority over its own jurisdiction, and
provided appeal to themselves for new trials, dre, but that
it did not give them power and authority to establish new
worts of appeal, as had been done in this case. That was
a legislative power and it could only be given by parliament
alone, and would have been directly given by them in this
case, as it had in other eases, if parliament had handed it.
The Attorney-General, at considerable length, argued
that parliament had given the Court of Exchequer the'
power to make rules for the practice, process, and mode of
proceeding of the Court of Exchequer. This he oar
tended was a step in the cause in the Court of Exchequer,
and ultimately the court must issue its judgmeet after the
appeal had been decided. By the old law there was a nit
of error on the revenue aide of the Court of Exchequer on
a bill of exceptions, and was it to be said the legislature had
taken away the power of appeal ?
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said the sot a:primly
gave a power of appeal in all an but this. If is had in-
tended it, in all probability it would have been so enacted.
The Attorsey•Oetionil said the Lord Chief Baron pen-
lively refused to sign a bill of exceptions, and surely the
r.gbt of going into error on appeal was not to be denied.
This rule did not create a new jurisdiction any more than
the other rules which give a right of appeal in other cases. If
the court confirmed the objection, the crown and the subject
would be without a remedy. The Court of Exchequer had
the power to extend, apply, and adapt the rules on the civil
Ode of that court to the revenue side, and he further urged
that the appeal was bat a step in the cease in that court,
from which final judgment would nine.
Sir H. Cairns then replied.
After some further argument., the court said they
would give judgment on Monday.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Or slimy.)
GRAVES V. GILMS.

Dr. *inks forth. petitioner;kr. G. H. Gomm for the
respoodent
This was a somewhat peculiar owe. It was the petition of
Dacia May Graves, fora disabilities ea aseenet of her
heaband's adultery and desertion of her. Her maiden same
Irll lochs, and on the 29th of May. 1860, else wee married
at Dublin, to the respondent John Bellew Greven,
a gentleman of independent property. After the wedding
the parties came to England and lived tigether till the list
of August. At that time they were residing at Tenby ; and
the petitioner said she wept away because her husband bad
been constantly telling her that lie wished her to reria to
her family. The night before the separaticie be had in-
sulted her before her friends, and she thought that he bad
done it for the purpose of driving her away. Having
a fortune of her own, she had paid all the
expenses while she was with him. At the beginning
October she saw him at an hotel at Ferthside, a station on
the South Western Railway, mad asked him to allow her to
remain with him. He told her that that could sot be, sod
she returned to her old lodgings at Teeby, where she stayed
for some little time. Al number of letter pawed, but no
reconciliation was effected, and the petitioner at length re-
turned to Ireland. Several other sateen* were made both
by her and by ben friends, to come to a better
nuderstandieg with him, but they all tailed, the
dent flatly refusing to have her bask. It must be y=
that during the matrimonial cohabitation of nearly three
mouths the respondent had newer mole any attempt
to complete his marriage. He had since left the
country. The explanation of his strange eeedoth
which he pyia to • friend was that he had been years ago
attached to Miss Howlia, that the augacement had been
broken off, and that it was only the perinasioon of hie friends
that had induced him. much against his will, to renew it.
He had also written the following letter to his brother-in-
law :