The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-31 00:00:00

STAY? V. HODOF.S.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange, and the ver-
dict was for the plaintiff ; but • new trial was afterwards
moved for upon the ground of misdirection, the judge
having refused to add a plea stating that the bill had
been given, so as to secure to a creditor of the plaintiff's
brother, who was compounding for his debts, an advantage
over the other creditors.

The Lord Chief Justice said they had consulted Mr.
Justice Bytes, who tried the case, and he was of opinion
that there was no ground for the circumstances sought to
be pleaded.
Rule refused.

CHRISTI' V. HODGES.
This was an action upon a deed of separation, by which
the defendant covenanted to pay to his wife 21. 2s. a week,
and in answer he pleaded an equitable plea, which set out
various circumstances., and, among others, that the wife
had agreed to take 7s. a week instead of the 21. 2s. At the
trial before Mr. Justice Byles, the verdict was for the plain•
tiff, but subsequently there was a motion to enter a nonsuit.
The Lord Chief Justice said that Mr. Justice Bytes
reported that there was no ground for saying that the wife
consented to take 7s. a week instead of the 21. 2s. so as to
get rid of the deed. The truth was that the husband
had ceased to pay her anything, and rather than have
nothing she bad taken 7s. • week, but certainly there was
no evidence either at law or in equity that by so doing she
had forfeited her tight, under the deed of separation.
Rule refused.

WISEMAN v. EASTON.
The defendant in this case had been in partnership with
a person named Landon, who had accepted a bill for 5004
in the partnership's name, but for his own purposes, and
contrary to an express provision in the partnership deed
that he should not accept bills. The defendant was sued
upon this bill, and there was a verdict against him ; but
subsequently a rule was moved for a nonsuit upon the
ground that under the circumstances the bill was not the
bdl of the defendant, and was in fact a forgery.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the point had been
made with considerable ingenuity ; but the contention was
contrary to a long course of decisions, and the court would
not be justified in casting any doubt upon the doctrine that
a trading partner must be bound by the acts of his partner
in a case of this kind. Upon the question whether as be.
tween the partners themselves the act of Landon amounted
to a forgery, the court gave no opinion.
Rule refu iixL

COURT OF MIXOHEQIJER.

Sittinp in Banoo.—(Before Lord Chid Baron Pollock,
and Buono Martin, Chimell, and Wilda.)

IN RE HARRISON.

)N OP COUNTY COURTS LI

BANZIOITCY.

A role la:.d been obtained by Mr. Beasley calling upon the
county court judge of Peterborough to show cause why he
should not prosecute • certain adjudication in bankruptcy
in the case of Thomas Harrison. The facts were shortly
these. Harrison had carried on business for six months
before the adjudication at Windless*, within the jurisdic-
tion of the Peterborough county court, but he was in the
county gaol at Cambridge, which was in another county
court district, and had been adjudicated • bankrupt by the
registrar on his visit to the gaol. The registrar directed all
future proceedings in the adjudication to be pr secuted
the Peterborough Court, and it wu the 'Cy of that
in
direction which had now to be decided by this court.
Mr. Giffard, in allowing cause against the rule on the part
of the county court judge, submitted that as the debts of
Harrison amounted to mom than 3004, the jurisdic-
tion of the county court was ousted, Lod that
the case ought to have been sent to the
Court of Bankruptcy within the district. The 88th
section of the new Bankruptcy Act provided that
the adjudication should be prosecuted in the Bank-
ruptcy Court in the district within which the bankrupt
had resided six months immediately before the filing ot
the petition, and by the 94th, where the debtor ped-
tioced himself for adjudication and swore he believed his
debts were under 309 t., the case should go to
the county court. Then the 101st section gave
the registrar, on visiting the gaol, power to
direct in what court the adjudication should be prosecuted,
" having regard to the amount of the debts and the plane of
trade or residence of the prisoner." The learned 00=011
now contended the discretion riven to the registrar most be
controlled by the 84th and 94th sections, which he wee
bound to obey. It appeared that the debts of the bankrupt
were about 5001.

Mr. Baron Wilde—Do you say that it the debts were
3004 and apeeey, the county court judge would have no
juriatictiou
Mr. Giffsrd said that would undoubtedly oast his jurie-
diettoo._

hltr. Baron Martin said a bankrupt very often took •
Imam estimate of his debts.
The Lord Chief Baron mid it was a too important point
to Mk them to decide on the bet day of term, when, if
they administered justice, they did so gently. (Laughter.)
It was then arr►n`ed that the ease should come on again
next term

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
MA!" the Judge Osamu.)
000 vi v. ociovs (Mau),
This case wu reamed this morning, when
kiss lisalue, the eldest daughter of the parties, was
called to eurobond* the evidence already given by the
petitioner, by her second daughter, and by Mir White, the
governess. Her mother owes taught her music, bat bar
father; after a time, forbade it, because he said the enjoyed
it. Left her failwe's holm at Semer in obedience to •
summons from the petitioner's solicitor.
Crcesuamined—Made up her mind not to return to it as
soon es she bed left it. (A laugh.) Her mother never pve
her fabler any prowseatisa whatever by word or dui For
two yews the respondent had been angry with witness, bat
she hid sot wished to be on had terms, or to quarrel with
him.

Dr. Spialcs—l have been trying to keep it back as long es
I could, but it most come out now. What have been your
father's habit& during the last three or four years as to
sobriety?
Sire Cromwell said the question was not admissible in that
form, for it did not spring out of the aose-axamination.
Dr. Snicks- On what terms, then, have you beau with
your father during the last few years?
Witnais—He we. very unkind to me. He said unkind
things to me because he wu angry.
The Queen's Advocate said he was instructed, on behalf
of the respoodent, to deny the substantial accuracy of the
charges which had been made against him ; though he (Sir
8.. Phillimore) must admit that there had been grave faults
on both sides The unhappy differentiae which had arisen
between the parties seemed to have had their origin in the
most absurdly trivial causes. The court must have been
struck with the entire absence of any act of violence worth
speaking of since the conference in 1855 with Mr.
Jooslyn and Mr. Wyld, at which the petitioner made no
charge of the sort ; sad it would be the idlest of all subter-
fuges to my that a lady who avowed that she new came
forward, hr a mere eollateealto sae for a judicial
awake ea the polled of arise' lai sitar she had lived
unmolested apart from the resprondent for seven years,
would have been the person to keep back anything
from feminine delicacy or respect for her husband. Be-
sides, the lady having missed what was equivalent to a deed
of separation, bad ever since kept up a friendly oorreepoo-
dente with him ; sad admitted that but for the advice of
Dr. Kayo she should sever have brought the suit at all.
As for the corroboratory witasmes, he (Sir B. Phillimore)
thought the wort mold not have tailedto observe the strong
spirit of partinunhip which bad impelled them to go far
beyond the statements of the petitioner herself. On the
whole, be submitted that co case bad been made out for
the haterferres of the court.

Jim Cooks moaned, told that after the conference with
Ir. Wyld and Mr. Jocelyn, she did not return to her hen-
banes bed. She never slept with her husband after the
15th of February, 1855.
Th. Rev. Jain Young Cooks, the respondent, was then
examined. Hs said—Al the time of my marriage I was
mate at Choddlesworth, Suffolk, and I resided there till

She death of ay father is 18311.—'1 the; imams reslia d
Sesser. Ify wedded life wu comfortable for a few yam
after that. Menem afterwards sprang up between=
as various rajas= One um, she wanted me to camp
up and take lodgbpp in Load= I objected to that, as the
Emend that the proposal did not suit my purse. That
me= bat sot vary swims quarrels. In 1850, when I had
had had the Owner Hall property left ma, Mr. and Mrs.
Richards came and told me that I ought to lane=
out more. Yr. Sisheeds adored me of mesa-
nese, and said that it =NY got is la poi sp
with now that I hed =me lisie =Menai P
Idy new property 1,111 however, any additionmEty
income, buts loss, fee Ili= to pay over the full rent to
another person for Ave years, while I had to pay all the
ouings. Mrs. Outs was present when Yr. Risher&
ma& these remake, and she joined in them. She
also permed the subject when Mr. Melanie was
Sat erment, sad it led to quarrels. After I had boss
soma years at Owner I began farm* eperatieen
and Mrs. Cooke objected very mueb to tie= Ohs
my " Arc you going off to your ettaldng farming again r