The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-29 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY- 29,- :1163.

lain Intelligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-JAN. 28.

---- - - -
Seiko is Boom.—(Brian Lord Chief Jiiitlee Goelolook,
Jackass Wightaeso, Covompkoh sod likelihood)

TAYLOR AND ANGINA It v. CALDWNLL AND ANOTHEL

A rule had been obtained calling upon the plaintiffs to
show own why.the verdict found he their favour for 581.
should not be set wide and entered for the defendant, per-
swat to leave reserved at the trial. The plaintiffs had
entered into en seeieneet with the defendants, who were I,
the Menses of the late Surrey Music-ball, to take that build-
tag for a certain number of nights to give grand concerti and
night fetes in the month of June, 1861. The plaintiffs were
to take the money at the gardens on those nights. The
defendants were to provide the ordinary amusements ; but
the plaintiffs were to provide the cemetery artistes,
int Mr. Sims Reeves, God's will permitting"— (laughter)
—for the monster concerts. The pletistiffs were to pay 1001.
a night, and take the gross receipts. Before the time
arrived for holding the first cowed the hall was
burnt down, so that it was impartible for the defendants to
carry out their agreement by 'WWI& the plaintiffs have the
use of the hall. The plaintiffs bad incurred certain expenses
fa making preparations for the intended entertainments.
and they Drought this action to recover those expenses, and
the question raised was whether the defendants were liable.
When Mr. Serjeant Petersdorff moved the rule be con-
tended that the agreement contained words of present de-
eds% and that the relation of landlord and tenant subsisted
bents= the pertim and it was just the same as if the
hem 'cooked by a tenant were destroyed by fire or tem-
pest,, wlich case the landlord would not be bound to re-
heat unless he bad agreed so to do. There was no under-
teklyny the defendants that the premises should be fit for
the tiffs' use.
T. Atkinson, for the plaintiff', oontended that it
was Mot a letting as relied on by the defendants. There
bad never been an idea of causing the relation of landlord
and tenant to exist between them. The plaintiffs had only
the privilege of taking the money at the dnors and of en-
gees( certain artistes. The defendants were to provide
all the reek of the amusement., and to be paid 1004 a
we Justice Wightman said the declaration Was a
demise.
Mr. Justice Crompton—Do the words " God's will per-
mitting apply in the case of a fire ?
Mr. T. Atkinson—No. Theatrical managers have to
deal with a capricious set of people, and the words " God's
will permitting " apply to Mr. Sims Reeves. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice—You online it to Mr. Sims
Reeves?
Mr. Atkinson—Yee ; I believe it is a proper provision to
put in with reference to theatrical celebrities, who are un-
fortunately often troubled with cokla. (Loud laughter.)
The Lord Chief Jwitios—le it always put in when thea-
trical stare ere to appear?
Mr. T. Atkinson—l should think so. Perham sometimes
with one feeling and sometimes with another. (Laughter.)
Mr. Pearce, for the defendants, argued with much imps-
Deity that the defendants wore not bound to provide the
hall. They might have let them into the ruins, and that
would have been sufficient. The fire had excused the de.
fondants from the performance of the contract.
Mr. Justice Crompton—The defendants are boned by the
agreement to provide a wizard. Suppose by some iniefor.
time that all the wizards had died, would that have exam.
rated them? (laughter.)
Mr. Pearce—We were also to provide a giwy.
(laughter.)
Mr. Justice Blackburn—The agreement refers to weather
permitting ; and "God's will permitting" evidently applies
to Mr. Sims Reeves. (Laughter.)
The court took time to cope/der its judgment.
Judgment reserved.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—JAN. 28.
(litittinp ht Bapeo.74ltefore Lord Chief Justice Erle, and
Artier WlDhmti Willem, and Keating.)
THZ CLAM "A" NRAINNOLDERN OP 'PSI NT. ANDREWS AND
INDMIII RAILWAY COMPANY V. TRI NEW DaI:at:SNICK AND
CANADA RAILWAY AND LAID COMPANY (mom).
This wetter came before the court upon a special case
which bad been framed for the purpose of obtaining the
judt of the court upon the question whether the Class
A iiiriebdders were entitled to have conveyed to them by
the defendants a very large quantity of land which bad
bees vested in the defendants by the colonial legislature free
of say charge upon it in respect of oertain debts due by the
defendants. The contention oo the part of the defendants
wee that the plaintiffs were to have the land subject to the
charge in respect of the debts. The question depended upon
the construction to be put upon a number of acts of the
colonial legislature, and also upon some deeds.
Mr. Coleridge appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. &Irina
Hayes for the defendants.
The argument was not concluded when the court rose.

COURT OF EXORRQUP:R.-JAN. 28.

Mines in Banoo.—(Before Lord Chid Baron P
and Barons Martin, Bramwell, and OhannelL)ak*

7HZ ATTOINZT.IIMUL&L T. JOHIS.-110Wf OW THZ MORI

TO THE BMA
.BHORZ.

This was an infee;saii-Ts filed ii the Attorney-General
against the defendant for an encroachment on the sea
shore in North Wales by the erection of a pier. The as
has been repeatedly_ before this court. There have already
been two trials at Chester, the verdict on the last oocaaica
being against the crown.
Mr. it'lntyre now showed cause against a ;de which had
been obtained by the Attorney-General for a new trial on
the ground of misdirection by The learned judge, and of the
verdict being against the weight of evidence.
Mr. Vaughan Williams and Mr. Morgan Lloyd were also
heard os the same side.
. . .

The Attorney-General, in support of the rule, contended
that there was no evidecoe to show that the locus in quo
wee within the manor of Kemis, nor of any possession of the
locus in quo adverse to the crown for a period of GO years so
as to bar the title of the crown, and that the learned judge
had misdirected the jury all to a certain grant made by King
James L
Mr. Baron Channel], who tried the came, said be could
not state that he was &satisfied with the verdict of
the
Mr. Webby, Mr. Giffard, and Mr. Bevan also appeared
with the Attorney-General for the crown.
Tha ergnments had not concluded when the court rose.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JAN. 28.
(Wont tie Judge Ordiaszy.)
lITLNIB V. IMAM AID LAP.

Mr. Gates for the petitioner, t warehouseman at Not-
tingham. Be married the respondent in August, 18.-k, cad
}Wed with her about four years, when she eloped with •
bricklayer sawed Imp.
Demo Mai.

HAVIL&JD S. HAVILASD:

The Qesea's Advocate and Mr. Keane for the petitioner,
Mn. Charlotte Haviland, the wile of a gentleman who was
ftwinerly a captain I. the Med Regiment, but who had bold
oat. In September, 1848, he serried the petitioner, then
a Mies leagetaff, of Leamington, and be cohabited
with her at Ventaor, at Healey.on.Thames, and
at No. 9, Cambridgetheare, Loodoa. They had one
child, a boy, who was born is February, 18.12. In
' duvet, 1866, Mrs. Nevi/end discovered that her Ilia-
bead bad been brim for nine weeks at Cheltenham with
thither ware as Captain sad Mrs. Desborough. When
she reproached him with his conduct, he placed a ring upon
bee finger, packed up his portmanteau. and went away.
Mrs. }laniard shortly afterwards crossed over to Boulogne,
but hit ward for her husband to follow her. He never
eases, sad, in fact, be ultimately went with Mrs. Deabo-
ronts.to New York, where be was now living with her.
Haviland, in her evidence, deposed that when she
expostulated with her husband on his intimacy with the
woman Ditsterough, and his frequent absences from home,
he became so violent that she was obliged to soy, "Go
away if you like, and when you are tired,.of that woman
00020 hack." She would not, however, let hint go till the
had sworn him on the Bible to return ; and he thee, placed
the ring on her finger, **yips, "Wear this till I oortle back."
Sir C. Cromwell could not consider that what had passed
between the petitioner and respondent was any license to
his oe her part to go away. There most, therefore. be •
decree nisi with costa, Mn. Havilaed to have the custody of
her child.

TAP.SCLL T.
In this case no evideoos was tendered on either sitie, and
The petition was dismimeL
RUMS V. SQUISZ, PART HUED,
In this ens the proof, whtsh had been left deficient, was
completed, and
The Court, on the motion of Dr. Slinks, gracte 1 a
judicial separation.