The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURTS.
(Before the lister of the Rail
tADLIZT r. SMITH.

The hearing of this case wee resumed.

in Edward James having addressed the jury in reply,
tits Honour proceeded to sum up, and said he should not
detain the jury long as they had attended so closely through-
The issue for them WAS whether the plaintiff was or
not the child of Irs. Gedney. It would be necessary to
• whether shelves confined ornot, and, if confined,
I.,lLer it was of a still-born child, as that could
,t be the plaintiff. The plaintiff obviously was
: e.,tal up to the time of her mother's death
,s the child of Mr. and Mrs. Godlier, but quite otherwise
that period, in consequence of certain declarations
r ,de on has- death-bed by Mrs. Gedney to Mr. Smith, her
ai,er. If these declarations were false some mc,-
v was assignable. This must be seriously considered.
1,.. Honour, after reading Dr. Ferro's evidence,
..od fifteen visits had been paid by him, and the
.eetioo was whether, after such evidence, it could
I, held she had not been confined at all. Mr. Ged-
•. evidence already published was then read. As to state-
madelby Mrs.Gedoey in her last hours, his Honour said
the, would be admissible if the persons to whom they
a:e made were produced ; but if made, as was the
here, to a person who was now deed. • mere statement
them by the last-mentioned person would not be
It would be mere hearsay. It would be otherwise
, a letter written by Mrs. Gedsey. The statement in
I •adaet's evidence that his wife went up to town for • spit-
: n; of blood, his Honour said, was quite unoonfinnixl. The
.i.seace of Dr. and Mrs. Goss was to be regretted, as his evi-
•ieuce would he valuable, whether be were • witness of truth
not. The court, however, had no power to call them
Itis Honour then read and commented upon nearly all the
evidence for the defendant, and, as to the observation which
had been made--that it did not disclose • case of cruel treat-
ment by Mr. I ;ahoy, he gave, with emotion, a succinct ac-
count of the condition of Mrs. Gedney down to her death in
a ahockine state, and which was owing entirely to her being
the wire of Mr. liedney. The evidence of the servants was
that of women who were all watching Mrs. Gidney's con-
dition, and the jury should c"nsider whether under
those circumstances Mrs. Cube,' could conceal
certain indications of her condition. After read-
in; the mother's evidence, his Honour said,
was the child taken from the hospital the child found in
l'ark.street': The mother of the former was dark
both as to ere, and hair. Her child, she said,
Lad but little hair ; the woman who called
at the hospital wanted a child with light hair.
Then there was a hiatus as to time. The child was taken
from the hospital on Tuesday, but Mrs. Gedney 's
alleged child does not appear for some days. As to
the evidence of Mr. Weller, the clergyman, who said
be had advised Mrs. Gedney when she told
him that the child was not hers to seek counsel
cf her father, nothing (said his Honour) could be more
proper and becoming. As to the discrepancy between Mrs.
.eacey's statements, as given in our notes, of the evidence
t , Mr. Walter and Miss Evans as to whether she had
L.nd a stillborn child, his Honour ,aid the jury
a-.,1,1 observe there was no evidence as to what had
tK ome of such a child. As to the identity of Dr. Goes,
it was a matter of great importance, and in considering the
v .!,:ace of Mrs. Roberta, who now professed to recognise
after ten years, they must inquire whether she
leer.: to his house with • predisposition to recognise
If they were satiated that he was the
man, the case was at an end. His Honour
said, in conclusion, on one side there yea the evi.
deuce of Dr. Ferro and the evidence of the ab-
sence of certain indications on Mrs. Gidney's linen.
tin the other side there was the fact of the child being
taken from the hospital and being taken to Park-
etreet. It was • strange store.' The theory of the defendants
was that in effect she took 2.000/. which belonged to her
father and brother, and gave it to this child in order to gaia
the affections of her husband. The other theory was that to
avenge herself for the wrongs she bad suffered in an un-
happy marriage, Me by reason of which she was
hastening to a diehonoured grave, she was
:talons to take from her husband the child
up to that time he had thought hieown. His Honour
c.:-...luded a very careful •ad clear summing up by express-
ing L a confidence in the jury, whose decision would, he
fti.d. fC far as he WY Coooerned, be final.
The Jury were considering their verdict when we went
to press.]

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
('n:tins in Banoo.—Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
and J intim Crompton, Mellor, and Shoe.)
ROBERTS V. EVANS.
Mr. Mellish, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Robins) said this
was a case which had lately been before the court u a
mot,ou by Mr. Bovill. Q.C., to set aside a rule made on the
:2%th April last, for the purpose of making an arbitrator's
award.L4.. a rule of court. Upon the face of the order
if reference there appeared two enlargements. in the hand-
writirg of the arbitrator, each of which was made in due
t.n.e. A motion was then made by Mr. Bevill to set aside
tn, motion upon affidavits which merely stated that
the parties making them believed that the
in!argemeote were Lot made in due time, and that
tear were not attested. The arbitrator was en attorney,
at Liverpool, and refused to make an affidavit stating
wh•Aher the enlargemeots were made in due time, alleging
as hi. reason that the Liverpool Law Society had told him
trA.r.. was no reason for his doing so. During the argu-
ments on that orcision Mr. Justice Blackburn ad-
v:..l that the rule should be enlarged until this term,
and that the attorney should be told in the meantime that
h- would not be acting contrary to practice in making an
a.. lavit, and also that he should be directed to make one.
The attorney was informed of his lordship's desire, but he
r,fu.e.l to comidr with it.
The Lord Chief .lustice—lie has refused, has he!
Mr. 11,.-.l.sh —Yes, my lord.
Le Lord Chief Justice—Would not the ease then come
the Common Law procedure Act, by which a
l'- r. .0 may he browdat up who refuses to make an affidavit Mr. Nle:itah—l'es, my lord. That was what I was

Tie Lord Chief Justice— fto Mr. &will. Q.C., who
t.t -bred be the other side)—Have you any cause to show
ibis gentleman should not be compelled to state how
e%!argeinen to were mode one way or the other sf
I:.:vill—Not i the least, my lord.
.ire Cnief Justice—You contend that they were
e., le after line time, and that there is no attestation that
r were rile in time. You both wish that point to be
think the arbitrator ought to state, which way
If be has any stupid idea of dignity in his
:: d• ou..:ht to compel him to comply with our orders.
Sir, I; —Just en, my lord.
Id CLief Justice—Coder the :Pith section of the
Law Procedure Act we have power toorder
, ::f :hie gentleman to he given, so u to settle
we can order him to maks an affidavit,
:.! t:...t be better than his being brought before the
..• .•

should prefer his being examined before

• t e Crompton—And thee, as soon as you get his
eT • • can settle the matter between yourselves.
I (. hie( Juittice—l will enlarge the rule till next
...r: or the arbitrator in the meantime to be brought
I.Jrcose of giving his evidence before the Master.
'• -t.ce ('ranipton—lte careful bow you draw up the
' • • iwiy he necessary to take further steps.
•I`ll—T7.«re Id a little difficulty now, my lord, u
our the expense of bnaging him up. Toe as-
It.-
4 time was that the other side should obtain
I. 'hie!

Justice—l think Mr. Mellish must bear

r,l'- wad then enlarged until next term. the court
the• the attorney should be brought up to give
• •.• .lence before the Master.

rOCRT OF COMMON PLEAS.
• ::•.;• Ittneo.— (Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and
Justices Elsie* cod Keatiag.)
‘1.10:It r. RAI,LoFF.-I.IBEL.
• • • loon niered for a nth) calling upon the de-
' •• alie the venue in the action should Dot
from Unefilivi•hir. to Middlemen ; sad stated the
••••r•-iainstanees. The plaintiff was the vicar of
• ~ I.,tic.,lnahire, and the defendant was the pro-
' ..4n 1 ...Ivor of the 10r4.•,',3 0,1:•11,. A dispute bad
1 ' -t weer tl r, MAlthy, who was form.Av churchwarden
11y- nut.tf, in reference to the peagession
• • e
-1 Mr. 31.Itliv wrote to the L•o•
• '• a :••• in .-I,:ch AOlllO hard wads were are
• ' • and h. was charred with haring
!•-.i Sir. the church. This waa ("armed
I. t.er. *Lie). te.ie un PAM.. and in which it wan
"t 1.!..1 under the inlluenee of drink
' • • i Lr otitt's attornes, wrote to the
• • - • • • • hlr.ii; and (qr.
Ineftei of doing
• : •• it the ilefendsot itehare.l
• • • . ouninpo • easiest the
••
• . all events a SUIIiMODS
• ••-'"
••
tre,.:,•trnten. after heariog
• ' 1• • . • I ti '. The von/A
• - " nint,n was mute was that i 0
tWootlF4 there lIA.I hMu
Go:.", .4ainst the Lldotiff ;
' and also the convicti.... Lv
raised such a hrej•sdiee stainer the
•
the candy that he fasesid that he