The Express.
London, England, 1862-01-25 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-JAir. 24.

Sittinp in Bitneo.—(Belore Lord Chief Judie* Eris and
Audios WOW and Keating.)
TAT= Ir. CHIPPENDAIJL—BASTAIDT.

Thiswas an appeal apt an order of bastardy declariog
=an to be the father of a child of Mary Chippos•
t, who was a married woman, but had
?it apartni=ter husband for 10
Mr. Temple appeared for the t ; end Mr. Kemplay
forth' reepoixlent.
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the child
of a married woman must be presumed to be legitimate
salsas it was shown that the husband had se Noses to his
wife. In this case the wife lived alone in a toll4seass,
whilst her husband resided 25 miles away ; and although
there was some little evidence that t►e husband was never
seen with his wife, still it was contended that 1111119 was not
enough to justify the magistrahm to allow—es they had
dose—the respondent to swear the 'Wild.
The court, after some discoed" was of opinion that the
case was not stated in proper form, and sent it hack for
ameodment.

Caw seat accordingly.
Sittinp at Nisi Prins in London. —(Before Yr. Justice
Bybee and a Comas Jury.)

C. ?mug.- DISPOTZD 81001110 MATCH.

The plaintiff and Mr. Worthington had been parties to •
match of shooting at piteous for a stake of 251. • aide, and
the defendant was the stakeholder. The plaintiff contended
that he had woo the match, and be sued to recover the
stakes ; but the defendant's ease was, that it resulted in •
" and therefore he paid the plaintiffs own 231. into
court and withheld the other 261.
Mr. Philbrick appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. 811111.
*at Parry and Mr. Barnard for the defendant.
The match came off at Aeoiky on the 12th Desember
last, each party baying 21 birds to shoot at, and Mr. Gibes.
waltd referee far lb. plaintiff, Mr. Monk for
Worthington and Mr. Seabrook was umpire, and Mr. Hind
poorer. r. Hind's moors was that the plaintiff killed 12
birds, whilst Mr. Worthisgtos killed only 11. At the con-
clusion of the match, however, • dispute was raised as to
whether Mr. Woethingte• ins entitled to score his 18th
bird as killed, and some illfillee• was made to the umpire.
What be did, however, was, acooselbag to the plaintiff's view,
immaterial, as any such dispute should have been raised
and settled before the next bird wee shot at.
Mr. Justice Dylan mid if head the jury had to decide
upon the fits of each of the 42 birds, he should pestpons
the ease so that it should be the last ot the list, than' be
wee prepared at once to bear endow,* upon the gentian
what took plea with the umpire.
This mune was adopt d. and Mr. Gibes, was called as a
witness, and Mated that when the dispute shoat the 18th
bird was raised at the end of the match Mr. Seabrook de-
cided that the bird was " deed," and that this made it a
" tie."

Mr. Justice Bytes held that this decision was anal, because
the find, of the " Battens rules" which the plaintiff relied
upon said, "Two referees and as umpire to he chosen,
whose decision shall be final" Whether it se referred to
the unpin at the proper time was immaterial, Isamu& as
it bid at all snots been referred Slim and diode&
Upon this ruling the plaintiff was weeenited.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-JAN. 24.
BEOOND COURT.

Sittings at Nisi Prim at Guildhall.—(Betare Mr. Baron
Bramwell and s Daemon Jury.)

BATTT P. !!►NB.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the proprietor
of Astley's Amphitheatre, "punt the defendant, a hreww,
to recover the sum of SU. 10s., for injuries does to a horse
and phaeton. The defembut pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Huddleeton, Q.C., and Mr. Dixon were counsel for
the plaintiff. Mr. Hawkins, Q. 0., and Mr. Orridge, for the
defendant.

--it appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that on the
26th of July last he was driving a phaeton and pair of home
down the Marylebone-road when he met the defendant's
dray coming towards him, and the driver walking on the
pavement some distance off. He at once pulled close to •
hoarding on the left-hand side of the road, when the bores
in the defendant's dray drove the abaft against the hind
part of one of the plaintiff's horses, and the shaft glancing
off 'truck and broke the splash board of the phaeton, which
cost the plaintiff three guineas to repair. The whip was
broken and oost him 28s. to replace. The harness was in-
jured and cost Os. or 7s. to repair, and the home, which cost
50 guineas, was so much injured that the plaintiff alleged
he would sell him for 20/.

The defendant called several witnesses, who gave a very
contradictory account, for the purpose of showing that the
blame was on the plaintiff's side.
His lordship mid he did not suppose the jury would
place much relianos upon the defendant's case, and the only
question was, what was the amount of damage.
The jury returned • verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.