The Express.
London, England, 1863-06-10 00:00:00

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

Jun 9.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
UAEMAR o. ILLEXAB.

In this case the wife of Major Harman, the standard.
bearer to her Majesty's Hoe. Company of Gentleman at
Anna, had obtained, in July, 1856., a divorced mead et
thorn, and the judge of the Consider, Court had awarded
her alimony at the rate of 1601. &year out of a net income of
7261. Since then the respondent had attained a considerable
addition to his faculties by the death of his brother ; and
Dr. Spinks moved to increase the wife's alimony.
Dr. Toes, Q.C., and Mr. Pritchard appeared contra.
Sir C. Croswell reserved his declaim].
GILL V. GILL AND HOGG&
- - -- • - •

In this cue tl;marrisge oieaptainTill had been dis-
solved on account of his wife's adultery with Colonel Hone,
of the Sod Grenadier Guards, to whom, it was alleged, she
bad since been married. There had been one child of the
union. By the marriage settlement, the petitioner's step-
father (Sir W. Maxwell) had bound himself to pay an
annuity of 300/. to the petitioner, with remainder to hi
widow, so long as she remained unmarried. Sir W. Max-
well also agreed that his executor should pay within 6months
after Ms death the sum of 5,0001. to be disposed of accord-
ing to certain trade met forth in the indenture. The
lads's father, Mr. James Sebright, bad also settled 5,0001.
on the parties, over which his daughter had a power of ap-
pointment.
Dr. Spinks now prayed the court to declare that the
moneys should be held for the benefit of the parties who
would have been entitled to them if the respondent
had died on the 3rd of March last, the day on which the
marriage via finally dissolved.
Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., appeared for the respondent.
Sir C. Cromwell reserved his judgment.

FITZGERALD V. FITZGERALD.

This wu a petition against Major Fitzgerald, for a disso-
lution on the ground of cruelty and adultery. There had
been a correspondence between the parties, and
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., applied to the court to order the
petitioner to give the respondent copies of the letters, which
he alleged would afford him material asaistance in framing
his defence.

Sir U. Orgasm'll was of opinion that there was no pretenoo
whatever for the motion, and rejected it accordingly.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)

Benjamin Everett, 42, a respectable-looking man, described
as a printer, was charged with receiving • quantity of
leather and other articles, the property of George William
Shelton.
The facts of the ease appeared in yesterday's Express.
Mr. Chambers made an earnest appeal to the jury on be-
half of the prisoner, and he contended that the charge
rested entirely upon the evidence of the man Yates, who,
he said, was upon his own showing • witness entirely
unworthy of belief. He also called witnesses to prove that
on the night spoken to by the witness Yates he was engaged
in sitting up with a sick person named Kendrick.
The Recorder having summed up, the jury retired to deli-
berate upon their verdict, and after toeing absent about
twenty minutes they returned into court and gave a verdict
of Guilty.
Evidence was then given that the prisoner was convicted
of felony in this court. The conviction, it appeared, took
place as far back aa the year 1847, and the offence was
stealing a purse.
There were several other charges of a similar nature
against the prisoner, but as Mr. Chambers objected to their
being tried by the Lime
°try, and no other jury wall in at-
tendance in consequence there being three courts sitting,
it was arranged that the other charges should stand over.
Henry Kitt, 18, pleaded guilty to two charges of forging
the signatures to Post-aloe money orders, and he was sen-
tenced to eighteen months' hard labour.
John Lewis, 19, pleaded guilty to a charge of forging an
order for the delivery of a banker's cheque book, and he was
also sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour.
Julius Louet, • Frenchman, pleaded guilty to an indict-
ment charging him with stealing a gold watch and chain
and • considerable sum of money.
Mr. Pater, who appeared for the prosecution, informed
the court that the prisoner took up his abode at au hotel in
Golden-square, and the prosecutor was also a guest at the
same hotel. During the night the prisoner got into his
room and stole everything he could lay his hand on, actually
removing the railway rug of the prosecutor, which he had
placed under his pillow to raise it higher.
The prisoner was sentenced to eighteen months' hard
labour.