The Express.
London, England, 1862-04-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

COURT Or QUERN% BENCH.

sittings in Banos.—(Before Lonl Chief Justice Caliber%
and Justices Crompton, Blackburn, arid Yeller.)
MOW r. Ponta —IIAINTESANCE OF A Wirt.

Mr. Serjesot Be.Mantis° said this was an action tried
e.eently at Maidstone before the Lord Chief Justice of the
Common I'leae, when the jury returned • verdict
f.. 1 the plaintiff, the amount of damages to be considered,
:mil settled ty the learned judge. There was no leave re-
served to more the court, but execution was stayed. He
(the learned serjeent) now moved fur a rule nisi for • new
trash, on the ground that the verdict was siounst the em-
deuce. The ...tom was brought by the phitutof to recover
for oficesseries supplied to the defeudatit's wife. The
plea was never indebted, and the ilefeue was
that the wife had committed adultery with a
Major Kam a married MAIL The lady her-
self wail Major Roes were both examined 00 the
teed. Roth of them denied the adultery. but they admitted
,ertain tuts in connexion with their conduct. The lady
hut left her husband's house on two or thee 00:04001 he
~mplicity with Major Roes, and bad gone to
miknown to her husband, where she was visited by
i5t...4 in • false name, and who represented himself
so he her attorney. Major 110.0, it was proved, wu in the
ilia of constantly seeing the husband while the wife was
...sent, anal he (Major Russ) was visiting her at her kik-
The husbeod was extremely anxious about his wile.
Ile consulted Major Roes with reference to her conduct, on
which occasion the latter professed to know nothing
itiout her and expressed great concern for the husband,
et it appeared be was constantly visiting her at her
lodging. The learned judge in summing up to the
J• it Y put the denial of these parties in an unfavourable light,
.cud toll them that it ought not to have any great effect
u their minds, and pointed out evidence on the
other side of • conclusive character that ought
to be tekeu into their consideration. The summing
up. he might say, was in favour of the defendant,
aiel from whet he (the learned counsel) could gather
(flio it he had no doubt this application would
meet with the Lord Chief Justice's sanction.
The defendant's answer to the use was extremely
strong. There was no doubt that his affection
for her wee pewee, and he induced her to again
tie with him. She was labouring at this tins under •
&weft for which it wail necesiwu7 she should undergo an
operation, and a nurse from one of the hospitals, unknown
to all parties, was called in. The biome in which they were
lodging wee occupied by as elderly lady and
ten not very young maiden ladies, and in
easeluence of the husband cocain to live with
them • great deal of gossip went on, it being the wee
I. toot where the lady bad been visited by Major Rase •
and the three ladies gave such • detailed account of what
tail gone on between the lady moil Major Rose that, if
t: o, it would lead to the belief in the wife's adultery.
The ilefemlut was tumble to account for the
DOO•delivery of certain letters which be expected, sad ea
spealiog shout it, the little girl said " Oh, mamma pie
letters everyday." The bushrod them spoke to the suns, sad
it then came out that the wile was mete* istfieen
Into Major Roes through one of the 10000011, sad tie sane
I utter said to him that she thought he bad better mg bike
tem., in the country, as his establishment would woo be
broken up. Ile orzt spoke to oar of the young Wien and
sh, admitted that she was in the habit of rus
letters meter cover fee the lady, which she h=
ever to her. Her husband then determined to poe-
isle himself of the next letter that came, sod
scoelingly one morning he waited for the postmen's
arrival Mid got puseesioe of • letter addressed by Major
R.. to his wife. Tue learned counsel read the letter.
It was the same impiesioned epistle that wee read
ou the trial, and referred to the annoyance It
ve him dt find that •' the brute" Ler busbaod
tia, I az.iinipanied her to the Volunteer Review at W
imble-
d•e. The same night that the husband obtained poseeesion
of the letter the hely left her house, and passed • greater
of the night with Major Roes in walking about the
streets. Afterwards the husband received a letter from his
wile imploring him to take pity on her—to see her if
for the het time, sod to let her hear her fate from his own
lips. "he else stated she was very ill and prayed him to
grant her that last favour.
Tie, 1..1,11.1,0 Justice said the court would cosimuoi-
riitla the learned judge who tried the OM before
ilevidieg whether air not they would grant • rule.
Judgement deferred.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
s.ttiso is Brow —Motors Lord Mg Justice &le, and
Junks' Minas, Bylaa. and Keeling.)
COX TOLL o. THR ROUTH EASTON RAILWAY COSIPAN Y.—

LOOS OP JEWILLEIT.

The plaintiff in lb. siesehaireilerend • verdict for LW.
1.1 jewellery lost out of • beg deposited at the cloak.
London bridge;• and the question was whether
a verdict should be entered for the defeedants upon
tb. ;round that they were protected from liability by • con-
dittos ignited iii.o the latelc of the ticket handed to the
plsiotid, awl which said that they would not be liable for
parcel, worth more thou Vu. unless the nature of such par-
cels vim declared, The nutter was argued yesterday, and
the mutt now poi judgment.
The Lool Chief ustiee said in addition to the notice
being printol upon the hock of the ticket, • large printed
copy W 4.4 stuck up in the office. The plaintiff said that she
did not see the large one, and no one asked whether she
had read that upon the ticket. Looking. however, at all
the circumstances awl at the reasonable nature of the ren-
dition, he thought that it must be taken that the plaintiff
hail notice of it. The main oostention on the
part of the plaintiff was that the company bad
received the goods as commou carriers, and that as
they bad not eotuplied with the coalition in the 7th
of the Railway awl Canal Traffic Act in reference
t., the "receiving, forwarding, arid delivering" goods, they
were aloolutely liable. The court, however, was of opinion
V. A. they did not receive the parcel in their character of
oaunp.o carriers. and that they were entitled to make
.peciAl term+ in reference to their liability.
hole aloolute to cuter • verdict for the defewlants.

tv.ps r. liLtTH.—rwrromatAruic UILENEsm Of Tlii

LAT/ mists coyw.sT.
The plaintiff in this ease was • publisher of photographic
hkeneases in Patertnaiter.roar anal the defendant, a photo-
graphic artist, was • member of the firm of Murray and
11-4th, in Iticcialilly. The action was to recover two pegs-
ttve rotraits of his late !loyal Highness, and at the trial
before the Lord Chief Justice, at Guildhall, there was
cmtrailictory evidence as to whether the plaintiff was to
have one two segetives, and there was also • difference
to to what the plaintiff should jay, he orferiog five,
rubles for two negatives, and the defendant demanding 15
..mitleas fur one. The jury found that there was no con-
tr al that the plaintiff should have two negatives, but
they aid that they thought that he should have one of
then, upon payment of five guiDeas. In answer to his lord-
sLtp, the jury addid that they thought that there
wer a cot.tract that one negative should he delivered to the
plaintiff, and leave was therefore reserved to him to move
to amens! the neon-land to enter a verdict for himself.

31r. H. South tog mural pursuant to this leave.
The Lr.l Chief Justice, :o arsaitiog the rule, suggested
that some arraugetuent ...Methl be come to to carry out the
•eItIUU 131ZIO by the jury.
Ilule greeted.