The Express.
London, England, 1864-01-30 00:00:00

SATURDAY EVENING,

Kato
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-.TAN. 29.

Banco.-(Befog Lord Chief Baron Polka*
• and Barons Martin, Bramwell, lad Mansell.)
MESON V. LONDON AND NORTH WIDITZIN RAILWAY CON-
PANT.—ACCIDINI.
This action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for bodily injuries sustained by the plaintiff by an
smident on the defendants' railway. He had been a sort
of mechanic, a prover of gum but at the time of the
occurrence he followed the occupation of a commercial
traveller, or rather pedlar, saying sob more than 601.
yearly. Whilst a passenger to the midway, the trait) in
which be was travelling was run into by another, and be
received a severe shock to his whole system, which totally
incapacitated him for labour. At the trial which took place at
Liverpool, before Mr. Justice Williams, the plaintiff during
his examination fell into a hysterical fit, and was obliged to be
takers out of court. The medical men present said it was not
feigned,but real, and bad been produced by extreme prostra-
tion consequent upon his long alum. Medical evidence was
also adduced to show that the plaintiff was not likely to
sutler from paralysis, and would entirely recover in about
twelve months. The jury foiled a verdict for the plaintiff
—damage. 1.2501. ; and during the present term Mr. Ed.
ward James, Q.C., obtained a rule to show came why there
should not be a new trial unless the plaintiff agreed to ac-
cept 1,0001.
Mr. Holkam, on behalf of the plaintiff, now appeared to
show came against the rule.
Mr. Berm Martin said Mr. Justice Williams stated that
the fainting It, which be ROA satisfied was genuine, had
probably led the jury to give luger damps, and that he
thought himaelf that 1,0001. would be about the right sum.
Mr. Edward James, Q.C., said he was instructed by hie
clients to consent to a verdict for that sum.

TiltrrZeiort ciflooTte;iisT, it inesintSci between the parties
that the rule should be wade absolute to reduce the daimon
to 1,0001.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
J wir. 29.
(Bohn tbe Judge Oalleary.)

The Queen's Advocate and Mr. Hannon for the petitioner;
Dr. Spinks for the respoodent.
This was the petition of a wife for the dissolution of bee
marriage, on amount of her husband's cruelty and adultery.
The marriage took place on the 9th of Octoter. 1860, and
was followed by the birth of two children, one of whom •
only was living. The defence consisted of a simple denial
of both charges.
Mrs. Emily Hall—l was married to my husband after an
acquaintance of three months. I was then residing with my
father, Mr. Allhasen, at Elawick-ball, near Newcastlenpos-
Tyori His father was• bene6oed clergyman near York.
Iffy htudiand was a lieutenant in the 12th Regiment. Abut
six weeks after the marriage be begets to use alarming La-
guna to me. He told me that he had soother wife living.
He also began to drink. One night he threatened me with
a knife. In May, 1861, we went to Memel, where we ea-
gaged a servant, named John Kelly. We afterwards went to
Caen. While we were there he proposed that we should
pack up and go off at onos to Paris. I said I was not well
enough to pack : but he insisted os it with so much vio-
lence that I did pack. While I was so engaged I fainted
twice ; but as soon as I was better he made me
mummeries. He threw a rug at me. I said,
" You had better not throw the things about,
or we shall not get finished." Shortly after/rails he threw
a large tin match-box at me without saying a word. It
struck me under the left eye, and cut me. At Paris he
scarcely ever dined with me, and he kept very late hours.
On one occasion became in at about four in the morning, and
ordered me to get up and procure some poached eggs for
him. When he had bed them he upset all the things upon
the flaw. He afterwards took some cub out of the stove,
and tried to throw them at me, but John Kelly interfered.
Told the respondent that I could not bear his treatment,
and that I should go home. He said I might have another
room. I had one, but he was never out of it, and so I was
no better off. On another occasion he began kicking my
clothes about the room, and he also kicked me on the leg.
It bruised me a good deal, and I was lame after it. In
1861 1 was prematurely confined of a still-born child.
We afterwards went to Elswick, where he proposed a sepa-
ration, statiog that be woo not fit to he • married man.
He set off to America, but he came back again, and begging
my forgiveneu wanted me sgain to leave my father's house
with him. I consented. In 1862 we were living near
Barnard Castle, where we stayed till March, Ititi3. The
day we arrived he insisted on unpacking the same night.
In oeosequeoce of something the landlady said to me I went
down to the kitchen, and told him he had mach better let it
be till the next day. He came up to the dining-room and re-
proached me for going into the kitchen. He also struck me
on the arm, and toads • mark which lasted six weeks. On
another occasion he mid he had a bread knife in hi sleeve,
and he threatened to give me two inches a cold steel. On
another occasion Ito would have struck me, but the land-
lady interfered and pushed me away, so that the blow did
not fall on me. At length I wrote to his mother, request-
ing that I might have an attendant, in order to protect me
against the respondent's violence. The respondent himself
agreed to that proposal, and a man came to the house for
that purpose. On the 2nd of March we went to Walsbford.
My wooed child had been born in the October previous.
At Walshford he told me that he was now in a house of
his own, and that if I did not do all he told me he would
shoot me. The attendant bad just left. We bad bad
several, but they would not stay, the respondent
ill-
treated them so much. The respondent said to me, "The
quickest mode will be to cut your throat ;" but he looked
out of the window and said, I think this is high enough
to d.uh you to pieces." I said that if be did cut my throat
he would only put an end to a miserable life, and that he
would be hanged. He replied, " Nobody would think of
hanging me. lam a lunatic, and have bad a keeper." On
the loth of March be took a knife, and passing it across
his throat, he said, "This is the way I shell polish you off."
Then he was cooing to me, but I ran out of the room ; and
the same evening I left the house. . .

Croes-examiad—l was not warned before my marriage
that be wasa man of vile habits. I knew that be bad occa-
sionally been intoxicated; but I did not know that it was •
matter of centrum talk. He never cal ibited say sign of
madness—he was simply • person of intemperate habits and
violent temper.
Sir Jamas Wilde said that, as the witness had not been
croasemurined as to the cruelty, the court could have no
doubt on that Doom The only question was whether the
court could proceed to decree a dissolution after evidence
which seemed to raise • suspicion that the respondent wu
not responsible for his actions'
The Queen's Advocate contended that the court could
not take cognizance of the nepoodent's state of mind unless
insanity had been formally pleaded, and proved by substan-
tial evidence ;or at all events, unless the madness of the
respondent was shown to have existed before every act
of violence or adultery. Even if insanity had supervened
before the separation, be (the learned advocate) contended
that the petitioner would be entitled to protection in respect
of acts committed previously to the Irina", setting in.
A woman named Elisabeth Blake proved adultery • and

The court took time to consider iti decision. If tit «wary
the petitioner would be allowed to produee further evidence
to clear up the state of the reepondeet's

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.--JAN. 29.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fans.)
re U DE NAM'S.
A summons we. returnable in this ease to-day but, on
the application o Mr. Sedgwick. for Mr. De Mattes, who
stated that a deed of arrangement had been prepared, and
would be registered in a day or two, the matter was allowed
to stand over.