The Express.
London, England, 1862-03-20 00:00:00

MATCH.

Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey appeared for the
petitioner; Dr. Middleton for the respondent; and Dr.
Spinka for the co-respondent.
The petitioner was, in 1838, an engravers apprenties, and
in that year he married, withoutthecoguirance of his friends,
the respondent, who was the daughter of a publican at
Leeds. At first he resided with his mother-in-law, but, in
1842 be came to Loudon to meek for employment ; and in
the following year he obtained a situation at Huddersfield
as a bookkeeper. He thee reclaimed his wife, but she re-
fused to return to cohabitation. Afterwards she formed as
adulterous connexion with one Barran, a pawnbroker, with
whom she was still living. Some years ago she bad made
an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a judicial separation on
the ground of desertion.
The decision was in favour of the petitioner.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—MATCH 19.
(Before Mr. Registrar HarHU.)
IF IX DEACON.—LONG MUM/1810N OF CJOITIFICATIL
The bankrupt was formerly a draper at Gosport. The
MO has been before the court since 18.57. The bankrupt
was adjourned sine die, owing to defective amounts, and
only passed a few weeks ago. He now applied for his cer-
tificate under the old act. Debt', 2,2004 ;no assets.
Mr. F. J. Reed opposed for the assignees ; Mr. Lawrence
supported.
His Honour observed that the cue wu one of very reck-
less trading. During two years the bankrupt had tnade no
profits, but had incurred an expeitnre of 1,2001., and his
books had been most impufeetly kept. There was no
favourable feature in the cue. The certificate (third clue)
must be suspended for two years from the present time.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Botroyd.)
IN Es w. E ACBAMAN.
The bankrupt wee a merchant, of Graoschurchotreet.
'MI was the sitting feu examination and di charge. In the
preliminary statement Mad by the bankrupt his debts are
returned at 31,6361. The assets consist chiefly of coosigo-
manta to India, Australia, and China, rained at 30,0 M:
He attributes his failure to shipments to India, China, and
Australia, and to bad debts. An adjournment was ordered
for further amounts.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCIIIT.—XAuseross, MARca 19.

CIVIL SWlL—(Brian Jesike Erie and a Common
Joy.)
manual r. soon.

The plaintiff in this action, Marpret Chapman, sought
to recover damages from the defendant, who carries on the
business of a baker at Graveseod, for having, as she alleged,
sold her a loaf which contained some poisonous or delete-
rious ingredient, and thereby injured her health and caused
her a great deal of bodily mfarin.
fierjeant Shee and Mr. Philbrick were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Ribton and Mr. Rasher appeared for the de-
fendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff in this cause was a reepuct-
able lady residing at Gravesend, and the defendant,
Mrs. Scott, has for a considerable time carried on the
business of a baker in the same town. On the 18th of
September the plaintiff went into the defendant's
shop and purchased a twopenny brown loaf, which she her-
self took off the counter from among several others, and on
the following day she partook of a portion of the loaf with
her tea. She then, it appeared, went to her uncle's house,
where she passed the evening, and about 9 o'clock she was
seized with pain in her inside, and she returned home and
was very ill, with violent purging, and she suffered very
much for several (Imamd it appeared was not yet recovered.
On the following morning, under the impression that brown
bread disagreed with her, shegave the remainder of the loaf to
her landlady,and she and her three children partook of it., and
they were shortly afterwards attacked by symptoms similar
to three that had been exhibited by the plaintiff, and they
all applied to Mr. Heppe', • chemist, who gave them some
medicine, but it did not alleviate the symptoms, and on the
25th September the plaintiff applied to Dr.-RuseelLa inelical
gentleman, who prescribed for her, and she was still, it
appeared, under his care, the charge for his services up to the
present time being 6/. 18.. It was not suggested on the
part of the plaintiff that anything deleterious had been
wilfully placed in the bread, but that by accident some
poisonous ingredient, probably intended for the destruction
of vermin, had got into the loaf, and that this was
the muse of the mischief. It seemed, however, that •
portion of the suspected bread was subjected to a sort of
chemical analysis by Mr. Rowel, and also by the assistant
of Dr. Russell, and that not the slightest trace of any
noxious or poisonous ingredient was discovered. It ap-
peared in the course of the cam that the plaintiff was • per-
son of weak and nervous temperament, and in answer to
questions put to her by Mr. Ribton, ha CrOM-
examinatiou, she stated that on the same night
she partook of the bread she had pork for sup-
per at her uncle's, and that when she got home
she took a small quantity of strong gin and water, thinking
it would do her good, and that when she found the pain
increase in the night, she get up and took a dime of castor
oil, and it appeared that she bad been in the habit of occa-
sionally taking that medicine previously.
At the close of the plastid's case.
Mr. 'tibia° subntitted to his lordship that there was no
evidence to go to the jury to show that the loaf in question
contained anything poisonous or deleterious, and that the
plaintiff, therefore, ought to be nonsuited.
Lord Chief Justice Erle said he would give leave to move
to enter a nonsuit, if such • course should become neces-
sary, but he thought it would be better to take the opinion
of the jury upon the question.
Mr. Itilitoo having accordingly addressed them on behalf
of the defendant,
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
Boors V. PORTER.

This was an action to recover the sum of 101, for neces-
saries supplied to the wife of the defendant.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Honyman were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Serjeant Ballantine sod Mr. Philbrick ap-
peered for the defendant.
The answer to the action was, that the defendant'm wife
had been guilty of adultery, and that he was consequently
not liable for bar support.
From the opening statement of the learned counsel for
the plaintiff, it appeared that he was the father-in-law of
the lady to whom the defendant was married in April, 1811.
The defendant was a stock-jobber, and he was introduced
to the young lady in 1854 ; and, among the other fearful
details that would be laid before the jury, it would be
proved that he seduced her before marriage under a solemn
promise that she should become his wife. He did perform
that promise in April, 1855, but the marriage was a most
' unhappy one, and the defendant repeatedly. taunted his
wife with what bad occurred before the marriage, and also
accused her of being guilty of misconduct with several
gentlemen to whom he had himself introduced her. The
defendant belonged to one of the Middlesex regiments of
volunteers, and a gentleman named Ross wan a major in the
same regiment, and they wore on very intimate terms, and
the charge of adultery rested upon the allegation that an
improper intimacy had taken place between this gentleman
and the wife of the defendant. It appeared that the de-
indent intercepted a letter that bad been written by Major
Rosa to the lady, and he then accused her of criminal con-
duct, and left her shortly afterwards, and the present
action was brought to recover the amount of money for
necessaries that had been supplied to the lady. The lady
would be called, and she would swear positively that there
was no ground for the cheer that bad been made against
her, and he explained that anima her criminality MY esta-
blished, the plaintiff was entitled to recover in the present
action.
The following evidence was then adduced:
Mrs. Emily taster said-1 am the wife of the defendant.
Before my marriage with him I was a Him Mace, sod the
plaiatif is my fatherdo-law. I first became acquainted
with the defendant in 1854, and be paid his addresses to
me with my mother's sanction. 1 accepted him as
my niter, and was invited by him to visit his mother
before our marriage. We were married in April, 1855.
Before we wen married, mad while I wee staying at his
seetheir's hews, l woe seduced by him, and was pregnant at
the lbw of the marriage. Immediately after the owemca
we went to Park. and while we were there my husband
strLdthat I should undergo an nrit, I consented
edpreposition, and the result wee • maileardsge.
We returned to Leland en the Nth of May, and then
went to reside at Parkorillige Tiamt, Beret's-peek
Winsome sees between us cup woe after we were