The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls)
THE PUBLIC ASSUILANCR COMPAN f.

This was a petition to wind up the ara;;;company, which
was completely registered in May, 1859, and carried
ou business at No. 47, Charing-cress, where, how-
ever, it obtained only a small amount of business.
The company had passed a resolution for a voluntary wind-
ing-up, and the only question was whether the petition
which was intitled under the Joint Stock Companies Acts,
1818 and 1849, and the Joint Stock Companies Winding-up
Amendment Act, 1857, was properly intitled, regard being
had to the " Joint Stock Companies Act, 1862."
His Honour thought it was properly intitled, and the
voluntary winding up was directed to be proceeded with
ruder the supervision of the cow
Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Roxburgh were for the petitioners ;
and Mr. C. Swanton for the company.
Mr. C. Swaaston subsequently asked, with the consent of
the petitioners, that Mr. SWhinney might be appointed offi-
cial liquidator to assist the directors in the winding up ; and
Ilia Honour granted the application.
. . _
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings in Basco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erle, and
Justices Wirams, Byles, and Keating.)
. -

LOVEDAY T. MOORE.—CONDITIONAL PROMISE TO MARRY.
The plaintiff in this else was • lady in a very respectable
position in life, and she was the widow of a professional
man whom she had married when very young. At that
time she had a considerable unto of money, but
rnfortunately there was no settlement, and when her has-
bead died she was left without any property at all. Some
years afterwards the defendant, a gentleman of property,
rlreed to many her, but In COOSen,:enCe of some dispute as
to what settlement should be executed, the marriage never
took place. The present action was to recover damages for
branch of promise of marriage, and at the trial before the
Lord Chief Justice at Warwick, the verdict was for the de-
fondant.

Mr. Macaulay now moved fora rule fora new trial, upon
the grounes of misdirection and that the verdict wu against
the weight of evidence. The misdirection was that Lis
lordship took this view of the case—that it was • condi-
tional promise to malty, and he directed the jury that
if the defendant promised to marry the plaintiff
ou the condition that there should ho a settle-
ment, she had no power on her part without his
consent to dispense with that condition. The fact wu
tout the settlement was entirely for the benefit of the plain-
Of, and sbe had written to the defendant offering to forego
the settlement. It wan now submitted to their lordships
that instead of he being a conditional promise to marry
there were in fact two promises—one to marry, and an-
other to execute a settlement, and that the plaintiff had •
f.ght to insist upon the performance of the first promise,
although the second did not reach such a result.
1:ule granted.
BUFM.I2.IN V. ZADEN.-AIfA7TORNET STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS.
.. •

In this case an application was made to the court some
time ago, in reference to Mr. Samuel Oldknow, an attorney.
The Lord Chief Justice now said that the court was of
opinion that the rule calling upon Mr. Oldknow to answer
the matters in the affidavit should be made absolute, and
that Mr. Oldknow should ba struck off the rolls of the
court, unlearn on or before Thursday next he showed cause
to the contrary. The court adopted this course that the
expense of appearing a second time before the court might
not be unnecessarily incurred.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Jodie Ordinary.)
nou9or e. BOUQUET.

Dr. Spinks appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Edward
Bouquet, a clerk in the Bank of England, who sought • dis-
solution of his marriage on account of his wife's adultery.
The respondent did not appear.
The marriage took place at Horton, on the 15th of Feb-
ruary. 1850, and the parties resided for a couple of years at
Talkies places in the northern suburbs of London. There
were no children. Evidence was given to show that
the petitioner had treated his wife with great
k'sdness ; but that her conduct bad soon become
very bad. She was in the habit of going out at night and
returning home drunk. In 1852 her husband hada serious
illness, during which she neglected him so much that a
separation, by consent, ensued in the September of 1852. The
petitioner, whose income was 1201. a year, made her an
e'lowaoce of 12a. a week, but she gradually fell into
a dissolute mode of life. His brother-in-law, a
warehouseman, earned Cornwall, bad since remonstrated
with her on her behaviour, and told her that she might
if she liked be again a respectable member of society. She
replied that it could not be helped, for she had become an
abandoned woman. She also said that while she had the
inowsuce from her husband she was receiving 21.
a week from another man, who was then in America,
and that she had had a child by him. Mr. Philip
Bouquet, also • banker's clerk, stated that in July,
Nt, he bad twice met • gentleman coming downstairs
when he had gone to pay her the allowance. Witness
hums taxed her with adultery, she said she was her own
mi-tress, and that her conduct was nothing to him.
Witness refused to give her any more money until he had
communicated with his brother ; and she made no application
lei the continuauce of her allowance. Evidence was also
given to show that she was now a common prostitute.
The court made a decree nisi.
NUTTALL V. NUTTALL.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Spicks appeared for the peti-
tioner Mrs. Elizabeth Nuttall, the wife of James Nuttall,
the landlord of the George Inn, Rochdale, who charged her
husband with adultery and cruelty. The respondent had
appeared, and denied both accusations ; but he was in con-
tempt, and was not represented by counsel
The marriage took place in May, 1851, at which time the
respondent was • widower with two children. There had
been five others born of this marriage ; but all had died in
their infancy, with the exception of one.
The petitioner said—We left the public house about
there years ago. Up to that time my husband had behaved
well to me ; but after then his cocduct was very bad. He
became addicted to drink, and he frequently struck me.
One morning, at about two o'clock, he came in and asked
me for the bedroom door key. I told him I did not know
where it was. He gave me a blow in the face and threw
me down. 1 got up, and be beat me severely. I tried to get
away, Lut he would not let me go, sod his violence continued
till four o'clock. At that time my face and neck were black
with hisbiows. In September, 1859, he came in late and
struck me several times because I wished him to go to bed.
I tried to leave the house ; but he caught me at the door
and threw me down. He also attempted to kick me,
but his feet struck the wall and lamed him. As
soon as I found out that, I went to him and offered
to attend to him, but he offered to strike me again. On
soother occasion be injured his hand in attempting to strike
me. A week afterwards, while I was sewing • button on
for him, he referred to this occurrence, and told me that I
haul struck Lim and hart his hand. 1 told him that I had
not. He thereupon knocked ins down. I immediately got
up and went away. The week following I heard him
abuse me to the servant. I went to him and
he told me in that I had lamed his hand. I again de-
nied having done so. He then said that he was going to
the doctor, and that if I was there when he returned he
would leave sue and starve me to death. One of the
children aid, " Father, you hurtyour halal in falling." He
replied that if she spoke again he would kill her. Whet he
returned from the doctor he sought me through the house.
When he toned me he told me to go. I said 1 should
not ; for it was my home, and I would stay there.
Ile then struck me on the chest, pushed me out, and bolted
the door upon nie. Since then 1 have been living with my
brothers. I have not seen my husband fur six months, and
don't know where he now is.
The petitioner was corroborated by two witnetwes ; but
no evidence was given in support of the charge of adultery.
The court therefore pronounced • sentence of judicial
separation.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registrar Miller.)
IN 52 TRONA* %INANE*.
The bankrupt was a corn merchant, of Dariesetreet,
Berkeley-8,04re. He came to the court on his own pal.
Moo. This was the first sitting. The statement of
affairs shows debts of 8,573 f. ; assets about 2,000 i. Severs!
proofs were now taken, and the Rev. Thcri. Young, of
Moreton.in.the-Matsb, Gloureetershire, • large creditor,
was chosen trade assignee. Messrs. Lawrence, Smith, and
Emden are the solicitors under the proceedings.

(Before Mr. Registrar Nadia.)
Owing to the continued indisposition of Mr. Commissioner
Fonblanque, there was DO commissioner present to-clay.
tlazlitt disposed of the cases as far as he was able,
the examinations of those bankrupts who were un-
opposed, and adjourning the sittings for discharge.
IN RE FIRER AND FISHER.
The bankrupts bad kept the Anchor Tavern, 67, Cheap.
side. This was the examination sitting. The accounts,
prepared by Mews. Simmons and Ellis, show unsecured
dela. of 52,Q.10/., with snots of 1,550/. Further debts of
:iO4/. are secured by property valued at 2,7541. An ad-
Jouranzeut was ordered by wrest.