The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-02 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-JAir. 31.

Sittings in Banso.—(l3efors Lord Chid Janke Eris and
Justices Williams, Willis, and Keating.)
/RIM V. Kt 010101 GRIT—APPLICATION FOR AN AVVACH-

KEIT.

Mr. O'Malley Irwin again appeared before the court in
this cue, sod moved for an attachment against Sir George
Grey and Lord Westbury for contempt of court, and mud
that the alleged contempt of Sir G. Grey was not producing
certain document• according to the requirements of his
enliven& dunes tee= ; sod as to Lord Westbury, that he
bad thrown the writ and the viaticum at the
The Lord Chief Justice interposed by laying, that it waa
contrary to the practice to grant rules for attachment upon
the last day of tam.
Mr. Irwin wished to explain some observations reported
in the newspapers, as having been made from the bench on
a previous occasion.
The Lord Chief Justice, however, declined to hear him,
for the reason previously tilted.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JIM 31.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
000 es v. woes (asap,
(Continued from Saturday's Express.)

The Rev. John Young Cooke, the respondent—l never
heard till the petition wasfileethat I was accrued of any
acts of violence towards her. ldy youngest son Arthur
is imbecile, and be is in the charge of a Mrs.
Clement and her daughters, who live in • cottage
near me. He was placed there by the advice of my family
surgeon. My youngest daughter, Mildred, is at • school,
where she was placed by the advice of Mrs. Wyld. Since
the visit of my eldest daughter; to their mother in the Isle
of Wight they have scarcely ever spoken in my presence.
Cross-examined by Dr. Spirks—l merely stroked down
my wife's face. I never forced my hand into her mouth.
She took hold of my finger to bite it. My wife may very
likely have strongly objected to a mode of endearment
like stroking her feu I did not point at her with my whip
in • menacing way ; but we were both angry. I will swear
that I did not see marks on her face or ban& the next day.
I had moved the chair when she fell, but I did not do so in
order that she might fall. I have not treated my daughters
with great harshness since they went to the Isle of Wight ;
certainly not
Mr. George Jocelyn—l reside at Ipswich, and am the
family solicitor of Mr. Cooke. I have known the parties
about thirty years. I have had two occasions of seeing which
of them was to blame. The first was about a ear I
went with Mr. Wyld to Semer. Mrs. Cooke had pre-
viously written to me, and when I was next at the rectory
she asked me if I would allow her ao opportunity of speak-
ing to me is the presence of her husband. When I was
about leaving the following day I was in the drawing-
room with Mr. sod Mn. Cooke, and she began a
connotation by saying, "I wish to speak to you,
Mr. Jocelyn, in the presence of my husband. He is con-
tinually finding fault with me, and I do not know what
for." They then went on for three or four hours disputing in
my presence about the children, the management of ser-
vants, housekeeping, and matters, so far as my recollection
serves me, of the most trivial import. The matter left
off just where it began. On that occasion the parties ex-
hibited a'oont the same amount of temper. I saw
them again in the presence of Mr. Wyld. On that
occasion I went at the request of the respondent.
Mrs. Cooke's chief ground of complaint was that
she was not allowed to sit at the head of the
table, or take the management of the household.
Mr. Wyld and myself listened for about two hours, and we
then retired. We talked the matter over, and we decided
that we would !endeavour to bring about • reconciliation.
We recommended that Mrs. Cook should resume her place
at table, but we were unable to effect that object. I then
retired with Mr. Cooke alone, and I at length prevailed on I
him to coosent. Before dinner Mr. Wyld and I arranged
that be should take the petitioner to the head of the table,
which he did. Both parties appeared during the discussion
to be equally angry and equally ill.tempered towards the
other. There was no violent language, but both kept find-
ing fault, and recriminating one upon the other. Mrs.
Cooke did not say • word about her husbaud's cruel treat-
ment of her. She did not make the most distant allusion
to it, and I bad no conception of anything of the kind. She
certainly did not appear afraid of him.
Cross-examined—My object in going to Semer wu to '
effect a reconciliation.
The Queen's Advocate having summed up the case for the 11
defence. !
Dr. Spicks replied, contending that gross cruelty had
been proved against the respondent, who, be said appeared
to have behaved more like a Turkish heehaw than
an
English gentleman. His imperiousness seemed to have no
bounds, and he appeared quite to forget that the position of
a wife in this country involved her being the mistress of his
family. With such a man nothing we. more probable than
that he should have been betrayed into acts of violence, sod
thus the petitioser's evidence would have been more credible
than his, even if it had not been so strongly corroborated
by her children and by Miss White, who must be regarded as
a perfectly impartial withal.. The cruelty, then, being
made out. he (the learned civilian) strongly contended that
it had neither been condoned, nor bad Mrs. Cooke forfeited
by delay her right to the remedy which the law gave
her. lie submitted with great confidence that there
must be a judicial separation as preyed.

_ -
Sir C. Cromwell maid he could not at oboe give judgment
in this most distressing case, a case which necessarily in-
volved the greatest falsehood on the one side, or grow false-
hood and cruelty on the other. Whatever might be the re-
sult it was necessary that be should give the matter his
gravest conaideratioo, lest there should be any misapprehen-
sion of his language in the event of his holding that there
was sufficient ground forrejecting the petition, even although
be might think the charge of cruelty bad been established.
Judgment postponed.

THE POLICE COURTS.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Hear!, KrAansy, • tall, powerful-looking man, time-
keeper at the omnibus station i• Graosohurchutreet, City,
end late a constable in the City police, who was brought up
the previous week charged with violently assaulting a gentle-
man named Smith, deidiegat 57, High Holborn, by striking
him in the eye with hie fist, appeared on remand before the
Lord Mayor in answer to his recognizance.
On the previous occasion the case was adjourned in order
So sesertion what effect the blow might ultimately have
upon the complaiaant's eye, as it was then in such a dread-
ful date that he could sot see, and be was afraid that he
rbonld lose the sight of it altogether, his other eye being
sightless. H. stated, bowers,, that his eye was much better