The Express.
London, England, 1862-07-16 00:00:00

EVIENING, JULY 16, 1862.

labs iituditgince.

HOUSE OF LORDS.--.JuLY 15.
APPEALS
ilii ATVOBSTI-GUIRAL V. /LOYD.

This was anapPOsiTrori the Conet Of Exchequer, and the
question was, at what rate succession duty was payable by
the late George Blokes, as successor to his brother, William
John &ohm, on certain estates to which he succeeded in
1866, but died within 12 months ; and by Edmund George
Bears, his son, who succeeded to him. The Court of Ex-
chequer held that duty at a lower rate than 3 per cent. was
payable in both cues. The case was argued some little
time since,

Lord Cranworth now delivered judgment, and expressed
hie dissent from the decision of the court below, and held
that the duty payable was at the rate of three per cent.
He stated that Lord Chelmsford was of the same opinion.
Lord Wensleydale concurred.
TER ATTORNEY-OE3IIAL T. RIZ Z. P. SMYTH, BART.
Their lordships stated that the same principle applied in
this cue, in which a similar point arose, and the same
judgment would apply to it.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—JULY 15.
After Term Sittings at GuildhslL—(Beftwe Lord Chief
J ustice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)

This was the last day of the post terminal sitbpi/and as
his lordship had to preside at Aylesbury this day I °dote-
day), two causes only were put into the list. The first was
an action in which the master and fellows of Pembroke Col-
lip, Oxford, were the defendants, end the question was
whether • quantity of timber belonging to the College
Which had been sold by suction to a person who had become
bankrupt, but who had not paid the deposit money accord-
leg to the conditions of the sale, was so far within his order
and disposition as to pate to his sisignees; and the other was
an action on five bills of exchange, the question being whs.
ther the defeodant, who had been a partner in the firm, who
drew the hills, and who had become bankrupt, was a partner
at the time the bills were given. The details of both actions
were devoid of general interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.--Jurr 15.
&Wisp at Nisi Prins in London.—(Blase Lad Chief
Janine Erie and a Special Jury.)

MOLLER V. LIVER, X.P.-COMMIS'
OF SHIFTS.

UPON TEX tiLLZ

This was an action against the member for Galway, to re-
cover 2501. for commission for negotiating the sale to him of
six steamers belonging to the Russian Baltic Steam Navi-
gation Company, at the price of 15,00 W.
Mr. Lush and Mr. Honyman appeared for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Clerk for the defendant.

Some evidence was given to show that the plaintiff had
negotiated the sale, which, however, it appeared, for some
cause or other, wee not completed.
The defendant's counsel raised several points of law, and
be also stated that it was from no fault on the part of his
client that the affair went off.

In the end a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, and
his lordship stayed execution upon terms, to allow the de-
fendant to go the full court

Notwithstanding that there hare been two court& for the
trial of causes during the whole of the sitting which termi-
nated to-day, with the exception of two days, the number
of oases which hare been necessarily made remanete is no
lees than 98, and of them as many as 45 ere appointed for
trial by special juries.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-Jmy 15.

ifitticp at Nisi Prins at OuildhalL—(Baton Lord Chid
Baron Pollock and a Common Jury.)

This vaa an acti;nagaita cootrector for the alleged
negligent relaying ore road over the Underground Railway.
Mr. Collier and Mr. C. Pollock were counsel for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Parjeant Shee and Mr. Bowen for the
defendant.

The pliantiffs, the well-known carriers, °winds "trolley,"
which, on the day in question, was loaded with an iron
girder weighing nineteen and a half toes, and drawn by
twenty horses. This apparatus wan crossing from Albany-
street, Regent's-park, to the Portland-road, on ha way to
Clapham, where the girder was to be used in some works on
'the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, when it sunk
' about a foot in the roadway, and was damaged to the ex-
tent of 221. The accident took place at a part of the
Marylebone-road, shove the Underground Railway, where
the road had been re-kid about • fortnight.
The defence was that the contractor, in relaying the road,
had complied with all the requisites of the act of parliament,
and that the "trolley" with its load, being of enormous
weight, the pkintiffis servants ought to have selected the
opposite side of the enclosure, at the end of Albany-street,
' which bad been re-opened nine months, and was in • harder
and firmer state, and more equal to such unusual traffic.
A good deal of evidence was adduced on both sides.
The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, said he presumed
that the defendant had en interest in the question far be-
yond the amount of '121., or be would hardly have gone to
the expense he had done in support of his case. His lord-
ship said he understood the meaning of the act of puha-
meat to be that when the company had con-
structed the railway and arched it over, they
should put the road in as good • condition
as they found it in, and that the public should not be
deprived in any way whatever of their lawful use of the
road. The principal question for the jury was whether
" trolleys" with these heavy weights formed a portion of
the recognised traffic of London, and ought therefore to be
provided for by those who had the charge of the different
thoroughfares.
After the jury had been in consultation a short time, one
of their body asked the learned judge whether he thought
the act of parliament meant that the first day the road wee
open it should be in as good • condition as the old rod?
The Lord Chief Baton said he believed that was the
meaning of the act ; and, in his opinion, if the proper means
were adopted, a road might at once barnacle as bard as any
thoroughfare over which the traffic of London bad passed
for 12 malaise. His lordship suggested that if they were
not agreed in opinion they lad better retire and consider
their verdict.

—fie Foreman—We are equally divided in opinion.
The Lord Chief Baron—Perhaps the parties may come to
some arrangement.
Mr. C. Pollock said that on the pert of the plaintiff be
was prepared to agree to the discharge of the jury.
Mr. Serjsant ffbes said he would prefer taking their
verdict.
. . . .

The jury then retired, and after being locked up some
time, the Lord Chief Baron sent for them, and on their
return the foreman said they had made no advance to an
agreement, air being one way and six the other, and that
there was no chance of their arriving at a verdict.
His Lordship then discharged them.
This was the last day of the sittings before the long
vacation.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JULY 15.

(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

Mr. Aspland, on behalf el Mr;.iiaceiis, applied to make
absolute a rule nisi which she had obtained for a sequestra-
tion of her husband's estate and effects, and especially his
pension from the War-office, to satisfy a claim of 1354,
which she had against him for arresrsof permanent alimony.
Mr. Hannan, on the other side, oonteoded that his client's
discharge by the Bankruptcy Court had relieved him from
all liability to pay the debts he owed up to that moment.
The Court took time to consider.

NORRIS V. NORRIB.7I

This °sae, which was heard a few weeks since and was
very fully reported at the time, was a petition for a judicial
separation on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner, the
wife of Oiptsin Norris, an officer in a militia regiment, was
admitted to have cohabited before her marriage with her
husband in her father's house, and with the knowledge of
her mother. She charged the respondent with various
threats and acts of personal violence, and also with conduct
towards her which had affected her health. The husband I
in his evidence utterly denied the more diegrueful allege-
tioos, and explained away some of the acts of vio-
lence deposed to as mere jokes, or sportive
trials of strength. He admitted, however, that be had
once or twice struck the petitioner, but he urged that it
had been done in a moment of irritation, had been at once
:pologised. for, and bad, u he believed, een forgotten. In
hart he attributed the whole of his matrimonial troubles, I
and especially the present suit, to the interference of his i
mother-in-law.
Sir C. Creaswell observed that there were some who
thought the publication of the proceedings of the Divorce
Court mast necessarily have a prejudicial effect upon
sodety. In some cases that might be so ; but on the other
hand the calm consideration of the state of feeling, and the
utter recklessness of consequences to the parties' own
reputation to which matrimonial disputes often gave rise,
must act beneficially on every mind that was not blinded by
vindictiveness. In this case the object of the petitioner
might have been obtained by a private arrangement ; and
the petitioner must have known that in coming before the
court she rendered herself liable to he asked quashes'
which must necessarily have a serious effect upon
the social position of herself and her mother. On the
other band, the respondent had made a disclosure of his
wiles ante-nuptial frailty, apparently for no other purpose
than that of injuring his mother-in-law —an unge-
nerous course, which must impress at least as deep
a stain upon his own character. The learned
judge, after examining the evidence relating to
the more painful charge*, said he was not satisfied
that either of them bad been proved; and no uncoil-
doned act of cruelty had been established against him.
The future of the parties was in their own hands. If they
could place a restraint upon their tempera, and reform their
habits, there might be many years of happioess in store for
them ; but at any rate the court could not interfere.
Petition dismissed.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.