The Express.
London, England, 1862-06-13 00:00:00

THE POOR REMOVAL BILL.

Oa the motion of Sir W. Downs, on behalf of the Lord
Advocate, lathe wu given to introduce a bill to amend the
law relating to the removal of poor persona fro:Zia/A to
&Wand, bed from ScotJand to England and
THE PLSHEEIRES (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. II'ALLBON moved that the select emismittee as the
Fishoriee (Woad) Bill do coroiet of 19 members, sad that
Lord Fay sad Xr. George be added to the committee.
Lard NAAS append the motion.
Sir G. GEM thought special grounds ought to be shows
for additicealaames.

Lord FKRINIOIt supported the motion.
Colonel DUNNB was of opinion that the committee
should not be increased.

After come dinciwitiTo. in which Mr. MUMMY. and other
Lon. members took part,

The house divided- : -
For
Apical
There no 6 being forty members present, the home
adjourned at e quarter to two o'clock, the motica in come-
queue° not being disposed of.

late Int:llltna.
COURT OF COMMON PLIATI—Jurns 12.

Sittings in Basso. —(Bolars Lard Ma Justice Eris, sad
Justices Williams, Willis, sad Byles.)

113XNZDY O. )aOO3 AND win.-1101 SM12171:11 CM &

This wen an action the details of which have been already
ed. The female defendant was formerly lbs. Swia-
rat:rhos* name has biome famous in Westminster-balk
in carequenos of litigation in reference to proceedings to
recover the Swinton estate, and2lrteeeCtiff, who was a
hardener, bad managed her legal for her. The
present action was to recover ,0001. upon an " aceona4
stated," and at the trial, before Lord Chief Justice
Oookbera, ties jury found for the plaintiff for that amount,
but anbesquantly a rule was granted' call* upon the plain-
tiff to show maim why a verdict should not be entered for
the defendants, principally upon the ground that what had
paned between the plaintiff and the female defendant did
not amount to an account stated, upon which the plaintiff
could recover ; and another branch of the role was for a
new trial upon the grounds that the verdict was against the
evidence, and that there had been misdirection. To-day
the matter came on upon caw being shown against this
rule being Nark absolute.
Mr. Kennedy appeared In person to show muse ; and Mr.
Macaulay and Mr. Field to support the rule.

Mr. kerawdy said that the whole object of Mr. Macanky
at the trial was to induce the jury to believe the defendant
and not the plaintiff, who he contended was not to be
credited. lie was so anxious to vituperate the plaintiff
that—

The Lord Chili Justice—Will you forgive me. I am
anxious to gee your view of the law of the matter.
Ms. Kennedy—The main question no doubt was whether
there was contract between the client and himself to re-
m unerate ehim, not by fees but in another way, and then
whether sal made a promise in pustulate thereof. He
should contend that, 114•1 if there was act a 134000111 of re-
animation in the first instance—eves if there was a mere
request to act as her counsel, followed by snob acting, and
a premise afterwards to remunerate, mentioning • specific
sum, that entitled him to the verdict. He should contend
a fortiori that he was entitled to it when there was a dis-
tinct promise to remunerate him, and the meant was saner-
tamed afterwards. He should ooateod that, irrespective of
service' performed as her counsel, he wsa induced by her to
make certain sacrifices sod sustain certain keen for her
benefit, in respect of which a valid contract might be en-
tered into and an account stated thereupon.
At this stage of the argument the farther hearing was
postponed until Saturday.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Jul= 12.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
NORM/3_9, NORRIS. —A WVZ MATCH.

Dr. Phil petitioner;
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Pritchard, for the respondent.
This was an application for a judicial separation, ea the
of cruelty. The petitioner, who was originally a
raussdPaitionr, was the only daughter of a gentleinan,
resident at Richmond, afterwards at Paktum, and
later still at Derby Lodge, Sunbury. The petitioner
had been aoquabited with the respondent for about three
years before the marriage; but, according to the statement
of the learned civilian who led her case, her parents were
extremely averse to her union with him. The marriage
took place on the 14th of July, 1860. She had a fortune
of 150 i. settled on her, and her husband was described as a
person of competent means. There had bees two children
of the marriage, the first born on the 15th of March, 1861 ;
and the woad 011 the 14th day of April last. A
had in the meantime taken place in the Septem"Cpt
rinse.

The petitioner, Mrs. Mary Norris, stated that after her
wedding tour she went with her husband to reside with her
parents, and the cohabitation, as long u it lasted, had
always been under their roof. The respondent's conduct to
her was alternately kind and abusive. His language was
such as she had never heard before. He several times
struck her and threw her dome. On am occasion be threw
her on the bed in his passion, and premed the edge of a
razor against her throat. He seemed alarmed lest her
mother should see the mark at breakfast, and he ruble& die
place with oil for about a quarter of an hour. Witness
was slightly alarmed, for he bad menaced her before. On,
another ocesaion he drunk her on the breast, and the blow
gave her pain for a week afterwards. At another
time he threatened to shoot her with a loaded pistoL Did
not scream, but she looked at him firmly. His eyes at
length fell, and he put the pistol down. Witham believed
firmly that she did not cohabit with him after that.
She bad an interview with him in the presence of his
&Mussy, Mr. Parker. She charged him before Mr. Parker
with having got her to make a will in his favour just before
the was confined ; and because she had not left proper
as he thought, for the signstores, he became very
abusive, and made her re-write the paper although she was
in great pain. After that interview the petitioner left
home with her mother, and did out return to her father's
house till be had left it, which he did in the coulee of a
fortnight or three weeks. After the separation she found
that he had infected her with • diminoeful disease; and
soother portion of the witness's evidence was unfit for
publication. She identified the following paper as in
her husband handwiitieg, and said that the had
found it in a box amongst her cotton reels
"Mary,—The misery I am now enduring for my past cruel
words to you, I am sure must be beyond the torments that
were inflicted upon Cain, when he was sent into the world
with • Wand on his forehead. You have forgiven me many
times as a husband—cannot you forgive me once as •
brother ; cad let us meet again on them terms at meals ?
Mary, I dread the night coming. lam truly wretched.
Threge might be so diflerent. Like the phomix that rims
again from its own ashes into new life, goyim might create
me a new man. Would to God you could only understand
what I feel. lam sure your heart would relent, and you
would mos more my ' Goodwin.'

The treasure I have had and lost,
Oh could I but regain,
Not for all the wealth the world might cost
I would not act the same.
My Mary to my arms once more
Oh could I have you nabs,
Then to my God I would implore
For the happiness to remain.
Oh, Mary is your heart so hard
That it can no more relent,
To the payer ci your penitent bard
Whoa he mys lie does repent
Oh Mary cannot you owe more
Let use from you win,
A word that I do so implore,
It is the word ' Goodwin. "'

The "Haas denied that she bad ever had any improper
into :operas with any one but her husband ; and she stated,
in feet, that sinos the separation she had never seen any are
of the respeederit's sex except le hie prologues.

Crossenaninal—Oeuld not swear whether she had or had
set slept with her husband after he lad threatened her
with his pistol& for she bad often separated from him and
forgiven him, and that had waked ler recollection of the
dates. The quarrel had arises about the cards in the card
Dulcet. l'he respondent wee looking them over, and he
charged her with being deceitful in aot hark* talked to
him shoot the persons to whom the Garb takings& Wh-
ams did sot know many of darn. At het be came to the
card of a gentleman wborn she did know. and she mid,
"When I married you 1 thought yon were hears, but that
gentleman was a brave man." he dew into a violent
=iand she left the room. Afterwatds she returned to
n article d dross, and he suddenly seised her, put
the pieta Soler and said with an oath, " ripaioo6
yen.' The next time she saw him again be sessad sorry,
and asked her to foyers his brutal coodool. dagani that
she would forgive him as a ChtistleiN
_but act as a
wet.. Had freqnsetly told him that. Ned tomer given
him aa word till lifter the birth at her
drat Irby. Thee else discovered what sect of a
man he was • sad doe certainly did &pap his& Bite bad
celled him a.britte when ha Wan* her. had nowt beat
her habit to /peak digangagly of him In amperien with