The Express.
London, England, 1863-11-24 00:00:00

WOOLPZ V. HAMILTON AND *TRIM._

In this ease, •risTioarinformatioa
spinet defesdaute for a oosepiracy relative to Distriofume's
frauds, the court discharged the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLICAS.
Sittinp in Banco.--(Belore Lord Chief Justine Erie, and
Justices Williams, Bytes, and Keating.)

The defendant in this cars being fo want of a heed
gardener. sad being a member of the Horticultural
applied to Mr. Myles, head gardener of that eoctle io
t,
recommend him a perms to 611 the situation. Thir
mane was one unally pursued. Some short time
afterwards the defendant wrote to Mr. Eybe a Wier in
which he said, "On Saturday I bed neither some with
Fryer in my garden. He was extremely vides; mum
towards me with an open clasp knife in his band, and his
eyes darting from the sockets with rase ; fact, a
perfect raving madman." The plaintiff sued to re.
cover damages upon the groand that this was a
libel, and the jury having awarded him 101.
&nem the question for the court now was whether the
communication to Mr. Kyles was privileged.
The Lord Chief Justice now said that, whatever their
opinion might have been about the occasion creating a
privilege, ft the letter had contained simply • statement
of the plaintiffs conduit, they thought that the de-
fendant could not take any advantage of that,
became the letterwent beyond what the occasion
i world bare justified, inasmuch as it spoke of his
being a " raving madman," and used other expreerioes which
were in their *aim exameive beyond what any privilege
would have justified, even if it had existed The rule for a
Donna must therefore be discharged, end the verdict would
stand.

Rule dietbarged.
PWIIIOI V. THE 001

.-r 0011 PAIL-

THE BUIJIEG or THE INDIAN 131711JL
The plaintiff in this case was the owner of the ship WWI
which was beret in the Themes some time ago
At time there wren insurance of the ship against bre
for 10,0001. on the defendants' °See ; and the policy de.
scribal the ship as "lying in the Victoria Desk, Londria,
with liberty to go into dry dock and light her boiler arm
caw or twine skiing the currency of this policy." At
the time of the ire the ship was ad to the
dock, but was lying in the Thames; an 3 UM question
was whether she was covered by the policy whilst
lying there. The fury farad for the plaintiff for
but a rule having base granted to enter a nonsuit, the
question was whether it should be made absolute.
The Lord Chief Justice, in thin judgment. mid that
altotnizette Victoria Docks there was a &raving-dock, in
which were lifted high and dry by means of pontoons,
'bat the width at this ship prevented her from foitig into
the pootcoadook. She was takes late the time, and
thence two miles to Langley's Dock, the nearest
convenient dock. To go la them it was neemeare that the
lower hell of her paddlombeelg should be removed. When
the repairs were nearly completed she was taken to the
t buoy in the river, about 60 yards from the
%vZain:e nDoek. and the., her peddles were replaced and the
remainder of the repairs completed. The utmost &spat&
was used, and at the sad of tea days, when the
retain were needy computed ; the ship was
bunted at her moorings. The evideses showed that it
was wail for vessels of great weight to have their paddles
replaced in the Thames after repots. It was also proved
that the ship might hide had her paddles replaced in the
Victoria Donk, bat the cost would lave boa four them as
much as in the Thames. The evidence further showed that
is the Victoria Dock there were very careful priggeratioes
against damns by are; whilst in the Themes there were
only three floating seethes, which were a los( way apart,
and an hour elapsed before one of them engines got to this
particular ship when oa are. It was further gime in
evidence that the geed insurance offices charged the .me
premium whether the ship were in the Thames or is
dock; but this was a prodies which had been coat/sued
train far distant times; and the dereadeate oh.
that their rights should not be effected
ty3ted other contracts with other oompsales. The
deadest (cathodal that the ship was not covered by the
=upon three (moods—that she was not lying in the
Drit or in the dry dock adjoining, that she was
ad in reaayy dock whatever, and that the was net in a dock or
in tramlfioa from one dock to soother within the mesa-
lag of the polio,. As to the two brat gamed, the
court thought that the defendants failed. As to
the first ground, the policy did not cooing the liberty
to go to any particular dry dock, and if the defendants
intendri to confine the liberty to the graving dock they
should have expreserd their meaning more clearly. As to
the third ground they thought that the defendants were
entitled to succeed. The ship was not in any dock, noria
trough from one dock to another, within the manias of the
policy. The court coosider,cl that the task contemplated
by both patjes way sabetestially the risk of firs
in a dock; end elthough the defendants were held by
implication to have undertaken so much risk in the
liver as =Mad in the exercise of transit from dock
to dock, yet this risk in the river was limited to that
transit, and did not, in the judgment of the court, extend
to any time that the ship stopped in the river not for the
rupees of the transit. The plaintiff placed much
reliance upon the fact that it way usual with great
shipbuilders to replace the paddle-wheels in the
t:war ; but the question here did Dot depend
upon the coati. of business usual with shipbuilders,
but on the contract between the parties. According to the
coast:tidbit' of the company, the ship was not covered by
the policy unless she pissed direct from one dock to an.
other ; and this ship did not so pass, but was delayed, god
this delay was not owing to any muse connected with the
pegiage. It followed that during the ten days' delay the
defendants were not liable, and therefore the role must be
absolute for a nonsuit.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
HUDSOS r. HODMON.—JUDGNINV.
Sir J. Wilde delivered sentence in this owe. which was
heard a few days ago. It was the petition of a farmer's
wife on the ground of cruelty. It was impossible not to see
that the petitioner might have somewhat suffered from weak
hulth and distracts of mind ; and that bee sufferings might
possibly ban been caused to some extent by the conduct of
her husband. lie (the learned judge) forebore to add ano-
ther attempt to supply a legal delluitioo of ci aelty ; but
be could not discover suck danger to the petitioner or even
that such intolerable hardship to her would accrue from her
return to cohabitation, as ought to induce the cow t to grant
her prayer. The husband might be a coarse rough Man, and
pivot) to sudden ontbanne of pasaion, but he wan neither
implacable see vindictive ; neither had he shown any defi-
MOUT in that Ng which was the bed safety of
the sex. No doubt be bad oast iidiculous accusations upon
hie wife, but for these she had par ay to thank herself, for
she knew his feelings ; and with regard to the quarrel with
Mr. Underhill, which nr th. most eerions of them ell, her btu-
band had forbidden him the house. The court could not offer
the petitioner any relief from the duties of ter
married life. The law was not in say manner re-
sponsible for her choice ; and it could not be too
widely kooe n that the court had neither power
' nor inclination to deal with mere unhappiness arising
from Plano, ted marriages, or with the destruction of the
happiness of oonjugsl life which might at ise from that most
detestable vice—de unkenness. The petitioner must return
to her duties u • wife, and seek to remedy by the influence
of natural affection the grievances she now complained of.
Petition dismissed.
ROWLEY V. HOMEY.—JUDOMINT.
Bra. Rowley bad brousht a suit for a divorce on the
ground of adultery and c:aelty, but the es% bad been
compromised, es she stated, without her consent. She bad
anon placed new charges in bee petition. and asked to
have it again set down for List To this the husband had
replied by an appliestion to sti dread the new clauses.
Sir J. Wilde decided that he could not allow the validity
of the compromise to be spin questioned, for the matter
had been already disposed of by the full court. As the
parties had lived soother eine° the first snit, the eller.-
lion of a Nulty must be altogether omitted, the costs of this
motion to be costa is the Canoe.

Le elms up again the prisoner and • w►termau, named
,I..mes Metcalf, laid bold of him and brought him on shore.
The boy narrowly escaped with his life. It was sworn po-
sitively, sod not denied, that the prisoner shoved the boy
overboard, but on the other hand the prisoner promptly
misted Metcalf in mooing the boy, and taking him on

Mr. Woolrych mid this was • owe of a very serious
nature, and must be soot before • jury. He committed
the prisoner for trial for attempting to drown the boy.
Mr. Gomm subsequently waited on the magistrate, and
eked blur to dispose of the come summarily by the imposition
of a fine or to allow the prisoner to compensate tile=
for the injury and iDOORTOSI4OOII he bad sustained.
parties were willing that the latter course should be adopted.
The pi boner was a very respectable and well-conducted led,
apprenticed to Mr. Henry Kent, the muter of the ship
Charles Napier, which was just about to moceed on
a coveting voyage to Valentin, in Ireland. The pri-
soner had shandy served seventeen months of his time, and
t would injure his future prospects in life if he wee sent to
prison, and he regretted very much what he had done. In
the anxiety of the prisoner to awe his master's property from
damage, and to save the oar which had rose overboard, he
pushed the boy into the water. He thought the clue might
with propriety be disposed of in the way s
Mr. Woolrych saw so valid resume fonliffeed.
*ispatag of the
cage summarily, wallowing • compromise. e committed
Blundell for trial for attempting to drown the boy Kirby.