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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

JUDICIAL COMMITTER OP 11212 PRIVY COUNCIL
The Judicial Committee will commence Allan( for the despatch
of business on Saturday, June 13, at 11.-Booth v. A'Beckett-
Millen and another v. A'Beckett-Richerdson end another,
Executors of Oho lam Moortootah v. the Government represent-
ing the Estate of the Nabob of the Carnatic-Wilson clerk) v.
Pendell tclerk) -Williams (clerk, v. the Bishop of Salisbury,
Mama and Reviews, to be heard June 19-Collector of Madam
v. V eencamoo Ummal-Khajah Gour All Khan v. Aahruffoonissa
and others-KhaJsh Gone AU Khan V. Khajah Ahmed K hen-
tie Advocate. General of Bengal v. Ranee Surnomoyee-Rajah
Leesenund Sing,. the Government of lienaal and others-11 inch.
lags v. NUM and another-Leishman v. WthrllDO- Tatham and
another assignees of estate of C H. Ledward) v. Audrey and
another-DUI v. Murphy and anothirr-Papayanni and others v.
the Russian Steam Navigation and Trading Company-Wise v.
Rajendro K ashore Ached* Chowdry-Pearson v. Fairly and
others-Cleary v. MAndrew and others-Inman v. Stone and
others-Inman v. Slone and others-Buckwell and others,. Bibby
and others-Grindley v. Stevens and Atkinson--Grindlay v.
Stevens and Atkinson-Trask v. Dowie-Teak v. Maddox and
others-Dean and others v. Richards and others. Motions in
Patent Cases Jordan's Patent Prolongation (Improvements in
the construction of ships, dc., Nov. 2, 180), to Ili hearing-
Raffords' Patent Prolongation (Improvements in baths, de.,
Nov. SS, 1849), to fix hearing. Patents-To be heard July 1, at
101: Hrnit Prolongation mannfacture of gas -Prtdeaul a Pro-
longation Mast furnaces, dc.)-Ruthven's P4tlon (pro•
polling vessels;. July 2, M 19J-Taylor's Pro MAWR
machines;. Judgments : Abraham v. Abraham, Mader ;to be
delivered on June 13)-the Rev. Wis. L v. the Bishop of Cape
Town, Cape of Good Hops.

HOUBK OF LORDB.—Jums 9.
COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGE&

(Present the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lind
Cranworth, Lord Chelmsford. Lord Kings:town, Lord
Redmdale (in the chair), and other noble lords.)
THZ DEINDONLLD PZIRkOZ.

This, as is well known from its frequent appearances
before the house in the last two serious, is • petition of
Thomas Barnes Cochrane, claiming to vote at the election
of representative peers for Scotland, as Earl of Dundonald
in the peerage of Scotland. The question involved is the
legitimacy of the claimant, it being alleged that no legal
marriage of his parents bad taken place until alter his
birth. The facts and evidence have been fully re-
ported from time to time. At the last hear.
mg Captain Arthur Cochrane, the third brother
of the claimant, who was the fret son born after an unques-
tionably legally constituted and undisputed marriage had
been solemnized, and who bad petitioned the house to be
beard against the claim, withdrew from any further prose-
cution of his case. The cue now came on for further hear-
ing to-day at the sitting of the house.
Lord Roiesdale moved that the order for the sitting of
the committee for privilege. be discharged, and the case
no farther proceeded with, on the ground that, all opposi-
-1 tion having been withdrawn against the claim, tt was not
competent toe. Scotch peer exercising the rights and functions
of that rank to coma to the house of his own motion and
experts for the purpose of establishing his legitimate claim
to his title.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cranwortb,
and Lord Chelmsford were of opinion that, however valid
the objection might have been had the house not entered on
the inquiry at all, as the house had allowed the claim to be
brought forward, and tad directed that notice should be
given to the younger brother of the claimant, and admitted
• petition (rain him disputing the claim, the case could not
be now stopped, but must be continued to its result.
Lord Kinpdown, although Mahood to agree in the °bier.
tion taken by Lord Redesdale, expressed himself unwilling,
under the peculiar circumstances of the cans, to press his

opinion.
It was then decided by a majority of the noble lords
present that the case should go on.
Lady Danclooald, the mother of the claimant and widow
of the late earl, who had been previously examined, was
recalled for the purpose of being examined in answer to the
evidence of a witnessnamed Jacloon,who had been secretary
to Lord Dundonald, and who had stated in substance that
lady Dundonald had acknowledged to him that she was
not married to the late earl in the first instance nor until
that marriage took place which is undisputed. Isdy
Dundonald emphatically denied the truth of Jackson's
assertions in this respect, and in others of a very
damaging character. Her ladyship repudiated in theetrongest
teems haring ever had say association with or made any com-
munication of any kind to Jackson. In reference to the evi-
dence of a witness named Mrs. Dean, a governess in her
family, Lady Dundonald denied that she had ever made, or
caused to be written, a statement that her younger son,
Captain Cochrane, ought to be celled Lord Cochrane, and
not her eldest son. It may be remembered that the first
alleged marriage was a Scotch one, which it was stated
took place in 1812 ' • the second. and undisputed
marriage, took place in Eoglaed in 1818 ; and it appeared
that a second Scotch marriage took place in Edinburgh in
.1825, the alleged object being to legitimatise the eldest son,
the claimant, according to the Scotch law. In reference
to this lady Dundonald was examined, and stated that she
never had any reason given to her why this particular mar-
riage should be solemnised ; she was only told by het hus-
band that it was to take place.
A question was then raised as to the admissibility
in evidence of an entry is a book of one of the partners in •
firm of attorneys of London, of an interview having taken
place between the late Lord Dundonald, then Lord Coch-
rane, and himself, in London, on the day after the alleged
first marriage, which it was stated took place at Annan, in
Scotland. . .

The Lord Chancellor, on the pert of the other noble and
learned lords, stated that they were of opinion that the
entry was admissible in evidence.
Lord Redasdale suggested that it wu necessary to
have farther evidence, and especially in reference to the
second Scotch marriage, in order to enable the house to
come to a satisfactory ci.oclucion.
On this it was put to counsel for the claimant whether
he wished a postponement of the case for the production of
further evidence.
Sir F. Kelly (with whom wu Mr. Fleming) for the
claimant, stated that be bad no further evidence to pro-
duce, and be proceeded to address the house in support of
the claim, and had not concluded when the house adjourned.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—JUNE 9.
Bittinp in Banco. —(Before Lord Chief Justios Cockburn,
and Justices Wigbtman, Crompton, and Blackburn.)
EARL CARDIGAN V. LIEU.-COLONEL CALTRORPIL—THE
LIGHT CAVALRY CHARGE AT BALAHLAVA.

After our report left yeetarday,
Serjeant Shee said he had brought the whole
matter before them, and he preyed their lordships'
particular attention to the state of feeling which existed
between those two gentlemen from 1867 to 1863, and they
would see that at all events in 1861 Lieutenant-Colonel
Calthorpe had shown the utmost desire to conciliate Lord
Cardigan, and to do what he could to prevent the con-
tinuance of the painful impression which remained on his
mind. Lord Cardigan, from the statement of oneof hisfrieods,
had for the last two years remained satisfied with the course
Lieutenant-Colonel Calthorpe had taken—a worse that
showed no bitterness or resentment in the mind of Liente.
nant-Colonel Calthorpe for Earl Cardigan's endeavour to
ruin him. Under the circumstances he contended that
Lord Cardigan was not in a position to come there and uk
for the interference of the court.

--Mr. Coleridge contended that, consistently with the legal
principles upon which the court acted, it was impossible to
make the rule absolute. He urged that Lieutenant-Colonel
Caltborpe's explanation was a sufficient apology.
The Lord Chief Justice said that if Lieutenant-Colonel
Calthorpe had stated before that he never intended to say
that the Earl of Cardigan did not charge in or out of the
battery, the court would never bare beard of the applica-
tion, and so far from the explanation withdrawing any im-
putation on the Earl of Cardigan's personal courage, he was
rather inclined to think it cast one.

Mr. Coleridge raid no such charge could be withdrawn,
for none was meant.

The Lord Chief Justice said be thought it imputed one
with a bitter sucasen—a bitter sneer—putting it indol.
gently, by saying the horse swerved.
Mr. Coleridge said that no doubt it was so put, but he
made no imputation.
The Lord Chief Justice said that what had been put was
that wherese others charged into the battery, Earl Car-
did not.
Mr. Coleridge said that this was not so, and it bad never
been so imputed to Earl Cardigan. What Lient..Colonel
Calthorpe believed was another matter, but it certainly wee
never imputed.
Mr. Judie. Crompton said it would appear that Lord
Cardigan had goo* into the battery, wu entangled amongst
the Itnenene, and he was met by the advancing troops re-
turning.
Mr. Coleridge—Yes. And it was believed at the time
that he hail not gone into the battery, but that Lieutenant-
Colonel Calthorpe as a man of honour could not logger con-
tinue to say so.
Mr. IX Brown followed our the same side, and urged that
Earl Cardigan when he felt himself aggrieved should have
followed Lord Panmure's advice, and atones have appealed
to the civil tribune* and riot have allowed.six years to pa
by before doing so. He abstained from doing so, sod now
Lieutenant-Colonel Celthorps was thought to be made the
scapegoat to deter Mr. %Mesh' from publishing any re-
marks oe Berl Canlipn.
Nt. Boeill, in support of the role, said the learned ser-
*nes speseh had been made with a view of diatractiog
their lordships' atimition from the teal point to a variety of
oreninidarmwe that hod no illation to the real point Minna