The Express.
London, England, 1862-02-01 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.- JAR. 3L

Sittings in Banoo.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Brie, and
Justices Williams, Bylca, and Beating.)

CHANT AND ANOTHEZ V. LDVIION.-TEZ ZNAMELLER ON

LAMS" PACE.

Mr. Brandt said thartle deK;dant, who was known as
Madame Rachel, was an enameller of ladies' fame, and be
understood that ladies beton piag to fashionable balls
wars io the habit of being attended by defendant, who by a
promo koowo only to herself pve them new faces, bearing
a peculiar kind of bloom; andtheeharge for the operation was
five guineas. The plaintiffs, who dealt in hake' dreams,
had sold her a quantity of articles, and they now sued to
recover the amount of a promiseory note, given on account
of these things. Judgment was sieved sad the defendant
was put in prison, sod she applied to the Insolvent Court,
but the petition was dismiese4 on the ground that she was
a minor. The present application was that the judgment
should be set aside, and the defendant discharged from
prison upon the same ground of idiocy ; but it was sub-
milted .to the court that the adidavite retinae* to the
defirdsot's age by no means satiefacitourily established in-
famy; sod further, that the matter had been several Mines
disposed of at chambers.
Mr. Matthews supported the rale to diesharge the de-
fendant.
The lord Chief Judi,* waggesied tbat he should take the
coadioting affidavits haw, abstract them, and come to a

erairandt assured his kirdship that the affidavits ere
of such a nature that it was inapoinible that he could' Ito
this.

Mr. Justice Wilke —On the contrary, I hare done it my-
self, and, d I,rtiort, the Lord Chief Justice could do it.
(Laughter.)
After some further discusaion the defendant was die-
charged from custody, aced it was ordered that she should
be at liberty to plead infancy in answer to the action.
Rule absolute.
GAMILY V. OODIMIEN-11111 MOOLVLIeB CASL AGAIN.
Mr. Indarwiok moved ou behalf of the defendant for •
rule directing that be might be at liberty to give the plain-
tiff notice of trial for the next sittings in London. The
matter bad been before Mr. Justice Bytes at chambers,
who sent it to the court.
The court granted a rule absolute in the first instance,
but subject to be rescinded if the plaintiff should show suf-
ficient cause on Thursday next.

BRADSHAW V. BEARD.— mAurriacurcit OP A wrre.
The Lord Chief Justice said that this was an action to re-
cover 130/. for the maintenance of the defendant's wife
whilst living apart from him, and 81. her funeral expenses.
The court thought that there should be a rule to enter •
verdict fur the plaintiff for the 81. epos the qualities of law
whether a husband was liable to repay • parson who paid
for his wife's funeral without any communication to him
As to the verdict for the defendant in respect of the 13W.,
tb•judge was not dissatisfied with the verdict, but there
would be a rule as to that if counsel thought fit so to
i take it.
GUMMY V. ABRAHAMS.—THI PRZNCH LADY'S CARE.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the court was of
opinion that time should be DO rule toast aside the 'mu-
esli whisk bad bin 'stared in this as..

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JAZ. 31.
(More the Judge Ordinary.)
YAWS O. WARM AND POMP, THE QOM'S PROCTOR

rarravntrica.

After our report left yesterday,
Sr C. °resew.ll said he thoeght the adultery had
leen fully established against the reagmodente ; but
no one that bad heard the evidence could feel
sarprias that the Atterney.otheral should have
instructed the Queen's Proctor to intervene ; for he
could hardly imagine evidence moth approximating to
wool of connivance, without actually proving it, than had
been given at various parts of the case. The husband seemed
throughout to have been all but criminally weak ; but it
wrested to the wart that the letter of the 10tbduly to which
Do much reference had been made did not amount to proof
of a willing consent that the respondent should leave him.
He (Sir 0. Cromwell) coustrued the respondent's note to
Burke to mean—" My husband says I must either give up
you or him ;if you claim me I will leave him." A very
audacious letter, no doubt, and one that threw great light
upon this woman's relations with the petitioner. But he
could not say that the husband's note appended to it meant
more than, "Helm prefers you she may go for anything' care;
bat at all events don't keep me in this suspense." Undoubtedly
it was a case that called for the Queen's Proctor's inter-
foresee, bat the court could not hold that the alleged con.
alumna win proved. There must therefore be a decree nisi
with oside.

r. rctormet.L.
Ir. 'Metre was evened for the petitioner, and the
respondent appeared in person. It was • suit fora judicial
separation on the ground of desertion. The respondent
was ties eon of a builder, and during the repairs of the house
is which the petitioner lived, he wrote to her requesting an
interview. Sbe granted It, and ultimately, on the 26th of
Febrenry, 1846, she wee married to him. After min
a sheet wedding visit to Brighton the young couple re-
Cursed to town ; but as they were going from the Brick-
layers' Arms station to the house they had taken in Paragon-
place, New Kent-road, the respondent asked the petitioner
for all the money she had with her, stating that he wished
to increase the balance at his banker's. She gave him 201,
and he left the cab with his carpet beg, telling her to p
bane and order dinner. She did so, but he never came near
her agate Ile wrote her, however, several letters, which
were couched In florid and affectionate terms ; but he acid
that be "hated poor people," and that " love in a cottage
was all gammon—•t least in London." (Laughter.) Bis
father implied him to motors the 201., and the petitioner
afterwards met him erred times, but he never gave her
• shilling or offered her a home.
On cromexandeation the itioner stated that her
father.in-law had said to her, 'W hatever you do don't let
the vagabond know where you are, or he wal harm your
life out." (laughter.) lie offered the petitioner • Dom
in his family, but she declined it.
The Court made • deems.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

NZW COURT.

- - -
(Before Thome. Chas- ben, Esq., Q.O. Common Serjeant.)
William Britton, who wan acquitted on Thursday epee the
bodietmeote against him far larceny, and sloe for obtaining
mossy by false preteseas, was yin indicted far forgary.
Previously to the bengjery aweee, it was Wafted that the
chief witness, Brown, who was on Thursday, had
been seised with alt in Fleet-etre* whatnot' his we that
moral* to the Donn. He bad been taken into the shop of
Mr. Brooks, 168, Flesautrei, surgeon, who said that he
was not in a fit state to attend the coon.
After some remarks from Mr. °Ward sad Mr. Sleigh for
the prosecution, and Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Orridge for the
prisoner, Sparkman, the officer, produced a certificate from
Ilr. Brooks. The case was postponed until next revive,
bail Wog tam, th• prisoner in 1001., sad two sure*. in
501. seek.
The court this adjourned until Monday, March 3.

Till alums, REITMAN BANK FORGERIEI
The five Polish Sews, Chlomm Reichberg,
Abraham Ramberg, Wolff Hoirwits, Kauffman Weber,
and Abraham Jceepheon, who are charged with being cos-
eased is as extensively organised conspiracy to obtain ea-
paved plates capable of forging rouble notes of all deno-
minations of the Imperial Bank of Rana, with a view to
their being circulated to an enormous extent throughout the
whole of t e Russian empire, were yesterday brought before
the Lord Mayor, at the Mansion-house, to undergo further
examination upon that charge. The justice-room was
crowded, and among the auditory were a number of well-
dressed foreigners, who appeared to take very gnat inte-
rest in the promediap.
Mr. Sleigh, the barrister, instructed by Messrs. Oliverson
and Co., man appeared to abduct the_ prosecution on
lab& of the Reel= government. Mr. M•Donnell. the
barrister, appeared for Morella and Reichberg ; Mr. Lewis
appeared for &within ; Mr. Hope for Josephson ; and Mr.
Daniels, from the office of Mr. Hubert Wood. for Weber.
The piano., Horwitz, &debar'. and Josephson were
first placed at the bar.
Mr. Sleigh, addressing the Lord Mayor, aid that since
the adjournment further inquiries had been made in this
mat important inquiry, the result of which tended to show
that it bad ssenmed such gigantic proportions, that in his
opiaim it would be the better course, and one which would be
calculated to eve the public time, if he proceeded in the
first instance toooraplete the case against the three prisoners
at the bar, who were apprehended in London, and deter
for the present giving any evidence against the other two
prisoners, Weber and Rosenberg.
The legal Mynas at these prisoners having speed to
the course suggested, the ware formally remanded, and the
am wee then proceeded with avast the other three
gasmen, namely Jambes, Reichberg, and Horwita
After hunting atheism the primers were again re-
manded.