The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-14 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNISDAI EVENING, JANUARY 14, 1863.

lain Intelligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Jax. 13.

Sittings is Beseo.—(Belion Lord Chid Justice Oookburs,
sod Justice+ Wightman, Crompton, sod Mellor.)

MAITLAND V. ALB ROBIN? rut, BART., ILP.-JDZIODICTION

OF nim COURT.

Mr. N. D. Maitland, who represents himself to be pca•
messed of considerable landed property in the Ring's and
Queon's counties, in Galway, and other counties in Ireland,
known as the " Stubber Estates," applied in person on
affidavita for a mandamus against Sir Robert Peal, Chief
Secretory for Ireland, for not giving him such mistime as
be required.
The Lord Chief Justice—ls it in Ireland?
Applicant—Yee.
The Lord Chief Justice—Then you must go to the Court
of Queen's Bench in Ireland.
Applicant—The Chief Secretary for Ireland is bound to
be in thin country six months, in the year kto answer any
charges that might be brought against bun.
The Lord Chief Justice—He is not at present within the
jurisdiction of the court—you meat go to Ireland. The
whole matter appears to relate to something that has
happened in Ireland.
Applicant—l contend that your lordship site here se the
monarch in person to assist suitors. If you have no juris-
diction in my case, I am worse off than the black man who
was brought bore from Canada.
The Lord Chief Justice—No, you are not. He wan not
brought here by mend= but on a habeas corpus.
Applicant—l hope your lordship will hear my applies-
lion. - - _ - -
-

The Lord Chief Justice—l can't; became the moment
you state it, it is a matter over which T have no juris-
diction. I cannot suffer the public time to be unnecessarily
occupied.
Apphcant—l hope you will hear me. It is a criminal
matter.

—Thehord Chief Justice—lt relates to the Queen's Bench
in Ireland. We do Dot here usurp the tuuctiou of that
apart
_ . _

iipplicant—l have been there.
The Lord Chief Justine— I repeat, we hare no iarildietiOn
in the matter. It relates to something to be done by •
gentleman not within oar jurisdiction.
The applicant then withdrew, but the nature of his com-
plaint against Sir Robert Peel in his official character did not
transpire.

BAIL COURT.—Tex. 13.

Bitting' at NW Prins at Westminster.-:(Beinre Mr. Justine

Blackburn and Common Juries. )

This was the first day of the Nisi Prins sittinp in term at
Westminster. The list contains 29 cases ; two only are
remaneta ; six are marked u postponed or withdrawn.

PELLE AND WIPE e. THE CONEDISIONIES POE THE PUBLIC
BATHS AND WAREHOUSES IN THE PARISHES OF ST. MAE-

OAHNT'S AND ST. JOHN'S, WDITHINSTEIL-NZGLIGENCE.

This Iris an action to recover compensation in damages for
injuries sustained by the plaintiff's wife through the alleged
negligence of the defendants. The defendants pleaded not
guilty ; and, secondly, that they were not possessed of the
said baths and washhouses for their profit and advantage.
Mr. M'lntyre and Mr. G. Tayler were counsel for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. G. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. D. D: Keane were
counsel for the defendants.
. _ _

The plaintiff is a working man, residing at 8, Devonshire-
place, Broaden'', Westminster. his wife earning 2/. 10s. per
week by teepee a refreshment stall in St. Jamee's-park,
and be brought this action to recover compensation from
the defendants for injuries sustained by the wife through
the defendants' alleged negligence. On the :ird of July last
the plaintiff's wile went to the wash-houses, which
are situate in Great Smith-street, to wash her
clothes. She went into the washing room, which
was floored with slate slabs, and on her putting
her foot on one of them it gave way, her leg went through,
and she fractured its small bone. She was taken to St.
George's Hospital, where she remained an inmate for seve-
tal The only question was the defendant.' lush-
grope and their liability, the parties having agreed to an
amount in case the defendants were liable. Evidence was
called by the defendants which proved that in April the Soars
of the building were thoroughly examined and repaired, the
defective slabs being replaced with new ones. 170 persons
on an average daily wed the premises, and no complaints
had been made of the state of the floors up to the tune of
the accident, though the plaintiff called evidence to show
that accidents by reason of the defective slabs had occurred
before. The slabs were put down 11i years afro, and were
repaired about two yews previous to the repairs in April.

The jury found that the defendant. were not gaily of
negligence, and returned a verdict for the defendant&

COURT OF COMMON PLEA&—JA/r. 13.
(Whip in Benno.— 1• Chief Janice Erie, and
Justices Witham', Willis, and Misting.)
GANBART v. BALL—THE PIIOI.OOIIAPHIC COITILIONT CAM

It will be remembered that the plaintiff in this case is the
proprietor of Rosa Booheur's picture of the "Hone Fair,*
and of Holman Hunt's " Light of the World," both which '
works he has had engraved at a large expanse. The present
action was to recover damages in consequence of the defen-
dant having sold photographic copies of those pictures, but
the great question was whether making or selling photo-
..
pep copies constituted an infringement of the Copyright
Acts. At the trial before Mr. Judie° Willes, at G
a verdict was entered for the plaintiff for 10/., a question
law being reserved fir the full court.
Mr. Coleridge now moved for a rule for a nonfmit, upon
the ground that there was no evidence to go to the jury to
rase the question whether making or selling a photographic
copy of a copyright engraving was any infringement of the
Copyright Acta.
Rule granted.
THE SOUTHAMPTON DOCK COMPANY V. HILL.—THE SULTAN'S

CONTRIBUTION TO THE =WHITTON.
The defendant was a gentleman in business at Southamp-
ton, and last year he had consigned to him a case containing
a jewelled mirror, and also a stereosoope and stand set with
precious stones, which articles were the property of the
Sultan, and were intended for the International Exhibition.
The property was worth 7,2001., and the dock company made
&charge in respect of it of 21. 7s. 6d. per thousand pounds
of value, and they now sued to recover this amount. The
defendant disputed the legality of the charge, and paid into
court 40 ~ but at the trial at Guildhall the verdict was
for the plaintiffs for 171. Is., subject to the opinion of the
court.
Mr. M. Smith now moved for a rule to enter a verdict
for the defendant, and argued that under their act the
Dock Company had no sight to charge an ad valorem rate
upon the value of the articles in question. He added that
the question was regarded as one of considerable import-
ance by the merchants of Southampton.
Hale granted.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JAN. 13.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
WALLACE V. WALLACE.

In this ease the wife had obtained a judicial Reparation on
the ground of adultery.
Mr. Day, on behalf of the respondent, moved for an
order of access to the child of the marriage, a girl of
about 12.
The Queen's Advocate hoped that the court would allow
her father's interviews with her to be as few and as brief
as possible.
The Judge directed the interviews to be for not more
than an hour, or oftener than once in two months, and to
tgallace in the presence of the young lady's maternal
other, or some one deputed by her.

WINDHAM N. WINDHAM •ND
This is a petition filed by Mr. F. W. Windham, of Fel-
brigg-hall, Norfolk, for • dissolution of his marriage with
Agnes Ann Windham, on the ground of her adultery with
Antonio Ginglini, the celebrated tenor.
Dr. Wambey moved that the respondent be directed to
amend her answer. She had pleaded that her husband had
condoned her adultery (if any) up to the 29th of September
lad, which was no answer to • plea charging her with
misconduct in the months of September and October. She
also charged him with cruelty and with adultery during his
married life with divers women.

The respondent did not appear; hat Mr. Lewis was counsel
for the co-respondent.
The Judge said the respondent had a perfect right to file
harpies of condonation in the form in which she had done it.
The learned gentleman might, however, if he thought fit,
demur to the pa agraph. In the other two respects, the
answer must be reformed, the allegations being much too
vague and general.
A fortnight's leave was given for this purpose.
CHICHESTER V. MUM (TAMELY CALLUM HERSELF
CHICHMTER). _ .

In this one the parties had been the respondents in •
divorce snit of " Mare v. Mare and Chichester," and bad
married within three months after the decree nisi. The
husband now brought a suit of nullity.
On the motion of Dr. Middleton, alimony pendente late
wu granted at the rate of 94!. per annum.
On the motion of Dr. Spinka (for the petitioner), the cue
was ordered to be heard before the foil coact.