The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 21.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justine Cockburn,
and Justices Wightman, Blackburn, and Mellor.)

THE QUEEN r. THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
This case, which was part heard on Wednesday last, WAS
resumed this morning. It was a mandamus calling upon
the board to compensate the plaintiff for injury done to his
premises by the construction of a sewer at Lewisham. The
question raised was the right of the plaintiff to compensa-
tion. The plaintiff wu the proprietor of certain property
at Lewisham on which he had an ornamental pond in which
the water rose from springs, and thence overflowed and
formed a rivulet. The supply was at the rate of 50,000
gallons of water in the 24 hours. In April, 1855, the defen-
dants commenced the construction of a sewer near the
plaintiff's premises as part of the large sewer for that
district. The sewer was cut to the depth of 16 feet, and
cut through gravel, dm., from which the speings rose. No
part of the sewer was at first made watertight, and 300 yards
of its length were not so now. The effect of the sewer
was to drain the plaintiff's land, and the pond and rivulet
were dry.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Badeley were counsel for the
plantiff ; Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Raymond were counsel for
the defendsn
The arguments were of a purely lepl character, relative
to thefright to water uoder various circumstances', wholly
unfitting a newspaper and uninteresting for the general
reader, and only of interest to legal journals and professional
readers.
The court took time to consider their judgment.

EXPARTE CLARKE, AN ATTORNEY.-CHANGE Of NAME.
Mr. Field said be bad to make a motion on behalf of an
attorney, who bad five to Christian names, tobeallowed to
drop two of them. (Laughter.) The gentleman found that
the use of tbe-e names was a great inconvenience and ex-
pense, because he was obliged to have the whole of his
UMW set forth in documents wh it wu neoeesary for
him to be named in them. Some of the names were way
long, and some did not sound very pleasant. (laughter.)
He proposed to keep the first Christian name.
Mr. Justice Wightaan—Are the others surnames!
Mr. Field said that was doubtful. The gentleman was
, called Edmund Jonathan Hornblower Watkins Clarke—
(lsughterl—and he proposed to drop Jonathan and Watkins.
(Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Ju.stice—Then he intends to keep Horn-
blower. (laughter.)
Mr. Field—Yes. But he should have thought the gentle.
man would have been glad to get rid of it. He, however,
understood it was a family name the gentleman wished to
ret►in.- __. _ _ . . . .

The Lord Chief Justice said the court would not reject an
affidavit on the question of identity being raised because all
the names were not set forth in fall.
Mr. Field said such an application had been grouted by
the court in several instances. He swore in his affidavit
that no procesdings were pending against him in the above
LIMOS. . . .

Mr. Justice Wightman—Suppose an objection was taken
to au affidavit that it did not set out in full the names,
was it likely the court would allow it to prevail?
Mr. Field hoped not.
Mr. Justice Wightman said he should think not.
Mr. Justice Mellor asked why the gentleman did not use
The Lord Chief Justice said the court did not want to
have too many of these applications. It was not because a
man's godfathers and godmothers had been very bountiful
to him in giving him a profusion of names—(laughter)—
that the judges were to be called upon to alter the rolls of
the court.
Application granted.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Nov. 21.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
COOlO6 (BART.) V. COOKI AND 11.118 ALL.

The petitioner, Sir William Ridley Charles Cooke, of
Wheatley Hall, Yorkshire, married the respondent, Mile
Harriet Eloise Trebeck, the daughter of • clergyman, de-
ceased. For many years they lived very happily together,
but at length Lady Cooke became acquainted with Mr.
Mansfield Elmsall, the corespondent. In the spring of 1861
she had a misundei otandiog with herhusbatid or. this account;
and left her home. She came to London and lived some
time in Sloane-street, from which she addressed a letter to
the petitioner, admitting that she and the co-respondent
had been far more to each other than they ought to have
been, but denying that she had ircurred any actual guilt.
She stated that Elmsall's love for her had been of long
standing ' but that it was probable it would never have been
declaredhad it not been for some outbreak at an archery
meeting at Doncaster, which had given them • "common
ground of complaint and sympathy. She offered, however,
to return home, and promised that if she did so, the pest'
should be • sealed book between Elmaall and her. A brief
reconciliation was effected, but Lady Cooke very speedily
left home again, and, after staying for • short time with
her mother at Dover, eloped with the co-respondent on the
15th of March last. They were traced by an attorney's clerk
to • great number of places on the continent, and ultimately
to Offenberg, where he served them in May last with the
petition and citation. Lady Cooke observed that the process
bad been • long time coming, and that her husbands' legal
advisers might have obtained her address at any time.

There wu no defence.
Decree nisi, with costs.
*ORGAN R. MORGAN.

The petitioner wasThecianiCterOfiir. Quartermain, the
hone dealer, in Piccadilly. She was married in October,
1847, to the respondent, an architect, at No. 4, Dane's lon.
They had had four childnto, of whom, however, only one
survived. They lived comfortably together till Mr. Com.
merall, a neighbour of Mr. Quartermain. died. Mr.
Quartermain then became acquainted with the widow, and
introduced her to his daughter. Mr. Morgan afterwards
grew very intimate with her, and began to neglect his wife.
At last he took Mrs. Commend] down to Bexhill and lived
with hergat her husband for 11 weeks.l
Decree nisi with costa ; the petitioner to have the custody
of her child, with reasonable access to the respondent.