The Express.
London, England, 1863-05-05 00:00:00

wad be a etrong fact for the jury, that General Peel was
not dealing fairly with Lieuteoant-Colooel Dickson.
yr. Justioe Blackburn said he doubted if au action could
be brought against a Secretary of State for a bias against
per,eos in the discharge of his official function,.
Mr. Coiendge said suppose that the plaintiff showed that
the Earl of Combermere and Earl Wilma wished to get rid
of the plaintiff, and, with General Peel, they agreed that
• report should be made for that purpose, he apprehended
that General Peel would be liable. A certain amount of
public decency must be kept by men of such distinction,
and the dismissal of an officer meet appear to proceed on
the report of • regular tribunal ; and supposing • report had
be.o procured for that purpose (he did not say it was
true), surely he was amenable for such conduct The
last interrogatory had reference to General Peel's know-
:edge of the plaintiff's intention to publish a full statement
of his case.. . . . . . . .

v.ihe court granted a rule on the whole of the interroga-
tories—the objectiooeble one to be modified.
Rule granted somrdingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittinp in Buioo.—(Before Loid Chief Baron Pollock and
Barone Martin, Bramwell, and Wilde.)
MOCKER r. ZLIAS:--FALAZ
.111PILISONNIIIT.

Thin was an action for false imprisonment. The plaintiff
was • German, who had received 700 dollars from the
father of • young lady in Prairie, on the understanding, as
alleged by the defendant, that he would marry the daughter.
The plaintiff came to this country without making the girl
his wife, and the defendant, in consequence of communi-
cations with her family, gave him intocustody on a charge of
obtaining money under false pretences, but the magistrate
before whom be was brought discharged him, on the ground
that the alleged offence having been committed out of the
country he had no jurisdiction. The trial of the action
took *ft at Guildhall before Mr. Baron Bramwell, when
the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 25t.
Mr. Serpent Parry now showed apse against • rule
which had been obtaried for • new trial, on the ground
chiefly of certain untrue statement. made by the plaintiff
during his examination.
Mr. Denman, Q.C., having been heard io support of the

The Court said that the plaintiff had cm Lately not stated
some matters correctly ; but if the cue went down again
(or trial the defendant could not get a verdict. Under the
circumstances they would grant • new trial, but give the
plaintiff the option of having it disch►rged on agreeing to
rodeos the damages to IW.
Mr. Serjeaat Parry said he would consent to accept 101.
Rule discharged on that understanding.
COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Jndge Ordinary.)

(tries V. GIPPS air, null; Y.P.
Dr. %sinks said that in this case an appeal had been en-
tend to the I{oolll at Lorda, nod he had now to ask the mut
to lie tut et=
the stating that amatory had
been dimiased onbetre
pound of connivance.
Mr. Lopez, for the co-respondent, submitted that the
judgment was in strict and literal conformity with the act
of parliament.

Sir C. Cromwell thought that wreathing ought to be done,
but he would take time to deliberate on the form in which
he would direct the decree to run.