The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-03 00:00:00

THE , EXPRESS, WYADDIESDAY EYENING,

bought it for riding, but ha latterly need it in a brougham.
About • week after he bought the horse he bad an attack of
strangles, and be suffered twice from lameness. The horse
was constantly node, Mr. Mayor's are. Is March the
bane we takes ill, and Mr. Williams was sent for, Mr.
Mayor being from home. Mr. Williams said it was only •
eight coogestios of the lungs, and advised mustard poultice..
Defendant, however, had the horse bled. The bone very
shortly after got well. He had several offers from dealen
for the horse. He did not tell the plaintiff he
purchased the horse in Yorkshire, and that he
wee the soundest creature in the kingdom. Hs told him he
had had the horse two years, and that he had bad the
strangles. He did not say the hone was perfectly sound,
and had always bees so. He objected to the plaintiff going
to the stibles because he did sot wish the hone to be pre-
judiced if he objected to him after he got then. Be did
sot mention the words " coping fellows." Defendant also
contradieted the plaintiff and his son on many minor points,
and said the plaintiff very minutely examined the horse.
He told the plaintiff that so fares be knew the horse was
sound, but that if he was not satisfied he had better take
him to Mr. Mayor, or any other veterinary surgeon, and have
him examined. Plaintiff uerer mid, '• Of course, colonel, you
warrant the horse sound." After the sale he saw the plaintiff,
who expressed himself satisfied with the horse, and said he
was able to make him step considerably higher than when he
purchased him ; he we. much surprised when the plaintiff
asked him to take back the horse, and told him he ought
to have had the horse examined before purchase, if he was
not satisfied with his owu judgment. At Tatterstll's per-
mission was given to try the horse, but the plaintiff ob-
ipcted.
12 cross-examination, be said be told the plaintiff the
bone ,teas bought of Sewell, and that be understood the
horse cants from Yorkshire or Norfolk. Mr. Cotterell, Mx.
Sewell, and Mr. Toinbee's agent saw the horse with • view
to a ousabasa, Plaietiff did not examine the hone's wind
be did'
spa ask for warranty, and nothing was said about
it. Mr. Mayor last saw the horse in February.
By the Lord Chief Justice—lf the pleintiff had had the
horse examined before seNliog the cheque and had found ,
him unsound, he should have taken back the horse.
The case had not concluded *ben the court rose.

BAIL COL-RT.-FEE. 2.

&Wogs in Banco. —(Before Justices Crum/Am, Blackburn,
tenor, and Slue.)
- -

The court dispoeed of two cases in the new trial paper,
which were purely of a technical nature, and devoid of in-
terest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Fan. 2.

Sittinp it Nisi Prins in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Bytes.)
sysTszsa OF THY COURT.

This was the 6rst day of the sittings after term in Mid-
dlesex, and the list contained 52 entries, and of these 21
eases were appointed for trial by special juries.

SECOND COURT.

Sittin2u at Nisi Prins in lliddiesez.—(Before Mr. Justice
Keating and a Common Jury.)
GALBRAITH r. BCCELET.-BLOCKADH RCICSIBB.

This was an action to recover the amount of a bill of ex,
change accepted by the defendant for 20/.
Mr. W. Williams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Renal y fur the defendant.
The defame set up was that the plaintiff was a merchant
engaged in the American trade, and that he had entered
into as arrangement with a Mr. Davidson to get goods into
the Southern States of America, through the blockade.
This being an arrangement which wee contrary to public
policy was, of course, illegal, and it waa contended that the
bill had been given in connection with this arrangement, and
was itself 000sequent/y vitiated. Later in the ONO it was
admitted that this defence could not be sustained, but it
was still contended that the bill was at all events
an accommodation bill for which no value had been received;
and that the defendant was not liable upon it.
The jury found for the plaintiff for 201. se.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
FEB. 2.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
o'uns v. O'ILANE AND PALMERSTON (VISCOUNT).
Mr. D. Seymour, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Jerre), ow
behalf of the respondent, moved to make the rule to dismiss
the petition absolute.
Sir J. Wilde—The case is not in the list.
Mr. G. Browne—l appear on behalf of the petitioner.
Sir J. Wilde—But is the co-respondent represented
The Queen's Advocate—Yes, my lord, by myself. W•
have not received any formal notice of this proceeding ;
but if the motion goes on I will appear for Lord Palmer.i
sten ; and will offer no technical objection on the ground of
want of notice.
Mr. Browne—la this case my friend Mr. Seymour has
kindly shown me the affidavit which has been made by his
client. The facts therein stated as to the filing of the pist-
i-1 Um)• and the order for particulars are perfectly correct. Os
Saturday bud the rule was served upon Mr. Wells ; and
yesterday Mr. Wells filed an affidavit, to which is appended
• letter. To that letter I shall allude but very briefly. In
the first paragraph of his affidavis, Mr. Well says. [The
learned gentleman here reed the paragraph.] There is here
no statement that the settlement has been made either with
the respondent or with the co-respondent. There is indeed
DO law that I know of which would prevent • petitioner
from settling with the parties whom he alleges to have
done him wrong. The law itself prescribes a pecuniary re-
medy for this evil. There is, therefore, no reason why a
petitioner should not make • settlement with three who
have wronged him. It is true the law is against • collu-
sion to carry on a snit ; hut there is no reason why • settle-
ment should not be come to. In this case, however, it is
not so. rhere in no imputation on the noble co-respondent
or ea the lady, that either of them knew of the estee-
ming. The Inwood paragraph of the affidavit is as follow,:
[This the learned counsel also read.] It is well known that
the Roman catholic church has always looked with peculiar
disfavour--

The Queen'a Advocate—l have not seen any of these
affidavit& I was anxious ou the part of the 00-respondent
that the case should have been disposed of, but really the
learned counsel seems to be going into some statement re-
specting Roman catholic marriages which has nothing to do
with the matter before the court.
Sir J. Wilde—The case not having been brought before
the court at the proper time, I should certainly not have en-
I •
terterned the application, the less so as, having read the
! affidavits, I saw in them things which it might be important
for the co-respondent to have an opportunity of answering.
As, therefore, the Queen's Advocate says he has not received
them, I shall at once put an end to this motion. Until the
learned counsel has read them be will not be in a position to
exercise a reasonable discretion as to whether he should let
the matter proceed or not.
The Queen's Advocate—l understood that the question
was merely one of whether certain directions of the court
bad been complied with.
Sir J. Wilds—That is the only question which is pro-
perly before the court.
The Queen's Advocate—Understending that to be the
limited issue before the court, I was ready, and I still
am ready, on the part of the co-respondent, though not
formally cited here, to allow the matter to go on, in order
that there might be no further procrastination in disposing
of the snit. If other matters are to be gone into, of course
I should require time to consider them.
Mr. Browne—l have stated that there is no imputation
upon the co-respondent that he is cognisant of the arrange.
moot.

Sir J. W ilde —This matter may be dealt with iodependently
of any affidavita. If the learned counsel is prepared to go
on without them, there ie no reason why he should not do
so. But if these affidavits are to be brought in, sod irrele-
vant matters dragged before the court, the Queen's Advo-
cate ought to have an opportunity of reading them and
seeing whether his client should make any answer?
The Queen's Advocate—l hope, after that intimation from
the court, the learned counsel will atones throw away these
irrelevant matters, and will allow the case to proceed.
Mr. Seymour—l am not aware that the affidavit of Mr.
Horsley contains soy irrelevant matter ; and I hope the
court will allow me to refer to it.
The Judge-1 woe% allow the motion to proceed in this
half .and•balf sort of way. The learned counsel must take
one line or the other. If he likes be may abasidoo the affi-
davits ; or, if not, he must allow the Queen's Advocate time
to read them.

Yr. Browne—Thee, my lord, I will adopt the latter
alternative.
The came them stood over till Thursday next
HALL V. HALL.—..II7DGXIO.T.
This was a case heard a few days ago, and very fully re-
ported. It was a suit for diseolutioa oe the grimed of
cruelty and adultery ; but it had appeared in the course of
the trial that the respondent had had a keeper in the house
to protect the petitioner from his violence. SirJ. Wilde had
therefor* reserved the point whether he should not call for
further evidence es to the state of the respondent's miud.
Thia morning the learned judge decided that he would re-
quire the additional evidence i and directed the farther
bearing of the cane to be poetpoaed for that purpose.
HARMON V. HAMMON. —.II7DOMINT.
This case merely stood over for the court to consider
whether sufficient explthatiou had been given of the delay
that had occurred in the institution of the suit, the cause of
action having occurred thirty yews aso.
Sir J. Wilde thought that as the wife bad been shown to
have been without mew herself till quite lately, and sa the
husband was evidently a vagabond without property, it
would be a denial of justice to refuse Clio decree.
Decree nisi socordiogly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Fes. 2.
(Before Yr. Registrar Roche.)
IN RI DION BOUCICAOLT.
The bankrupt, late the lessee of Astley's Theatre, phased
through this oourt about six mouths ago. This was a divi-
dend sitting. It wee reported that there was about 1,3001.
in hand, which is expected to yield a dividend of from 2.. to
2s. 6d. on the unsecured debt.. Some disputed claims,
arising out of share trumactions, were adjourned.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT-
(Diforetheco;mon Serjeant.)
Adolphus OppenAire', 2d, clerk, surrendered to t►ke his
trial upon an indictment charging him with stealing the
sum of 94/. Si. 10d. and other sums, amounting to 549/. Is.,
the monies of his employer, William Virgo Wilson,
The defence set up on the part of the prisoner was that
be was a partner, and had drawn the money is that capacity.
The Common Serjeaut having summed up. the jery, after
a very short deliberation, returned a verdict of Guilty.
Sentence was defend.

THE POLICE COURTS.