The Express.
London, England, 1864-01-25 00:00:00

• tab) tuttiltrunk

._.

- •
lisriopourAx coincry come.
dittlas days sprokened fee ea present test.
Ilartheahene--Xm 25 dat Jan. ; Teneday,
11117;Wsdnisday, Jan. 17 ; Tbanday, Jaa.lB
81/3011113222, Portland:road—Wednesday, Jan. 21: Thursday,
Jam. IS: PMI7, Jam. a
lacarroli, Mitehases-grove. —Tumidity, Jan. 26: Weans,-
.—Priday, Jan. 29.
CidaLnewai.l., Dunean-terreca—Nonday, Jan. 25: Tuesday.
Jan. 15; Wednesday, Jan. 27: Aida:, Jan. S.
Illoannews. Old-street-road.—Thorsday, Jan. 111,
BOW, Bow-rasel.—Priday, Jan. 22.
WWIMICKAFIL, Great Prsnottatrest—Wedneaday, Jan. 27 :
Jan. 28 ; Friday, Jan. 29.
SOOTHWAIZ, BwanatoseL—llooday, Jan. 25, Tuesday, Jan.
5 ; Thawing, Jam 28: Friday, Jan.
LAMBETH, Ponberwell New-road.—Tuesday, Jan. 28
Wausinvona. Southatreet.—Tlmusday, Jan. 22.
CM or Lenox, thaldball-ballictiags.—lloaday, Jan. 25:
Jan.
COM OulldhalL—Yeaday, Jan. 25 ; Thursday,

- Low 1
Jag. 211.

EQUITY COURTS.—J . 23.
(adore the Lords Justices.)
WATKINS V. IAYLI.B-11 HOOPES.

This was a petition by Mr. Oben, a monitor, for pay-
ment of arena oasts out of the estates of Mr. Hooper, for-
merly of the firm of Hooper and Watkins. Mr. blooper and
his wife were married in the year Idol, and for the last tee
years appeared to have lived very unhappily together, she
complaining of his sooduct in nay reopens, and he
alleging that her jealousy of him arose from delusions.
la October, 1868,
in th
she left biro, and in December,
1858, procesanp e Divorce Court for a judicial
*immune were -commenced by Mr. Clarke, as solicitor far
Mrs. Bonn and brought to • Warns, whim counsel
Vto • separation sod asinine* as to what
Hooper was to allow Ma. Hooper for realationes.
That refermice was not successful, and Mrs. Hooper
that the separation suit might be again set down hi=
log, which, however, was refused theft, and subsequeetly
• second time by the fall court. Before further proceed-
ings were taken, Mr. Hooper died, and tbe nit of Baylis
v. Wenn was instituted to administer his estate. Mr.
Clarke had obtained under a taxation in the Divorce
Court 2871. as his on@ previous to the co • ; and
he an onion to he a creditor of Mr. Hoops • Beata for
641. extra costs ; and 1511. as the cone of the two mune-
cosehil applications. These vests the registrar of the Divorce
Civet bad relined to allow. The chief clerk of Vier
Olensellor Stuart disallowed the claim and the Vies-Chan-
man himself refused to vary the certificate ; whereupon
Mr. Clarke appealed, and the appeal having Ins beard,
their kedshipo mow gave *genet thereon.
Mr. Ones, Q.C., and Mr. Harps a~pppend for Mr.
Clarke; and Mr. Mans, Q. 0.. and Mr. Cnielmall for Mr.
Watkins, the plaintiff in the snit.
Lord Jinn Knight Brace—ln this case • Mr. Clarke. a
solicitor, who was employed by Mae. Hooper to institute
promedlep for her in the Divorce Court for • judicial saps-
mike from her husband oe the seemed of cruelly, claims
from the mine of the dean& husband • portico of the
cost, of the peooesdings. Mr. Clain wends that he had
• right, es sgalost the husband, to condor the wife as jai-
inch& the initiation of the snit, and that the costs in
question ought to be deemed to be " sensaries" supplied
to the Wife, sod to be discharged soondiagly by lb. hos-
head. The executors of the husband resist the demand. I
think it oeoessary for us to say that the aunty suia which
wee comptamwd in Mr. Hooper's lifetime, wee instituted
by his wife with probable grounds of neon The
pin for us to decide is en nee which, in my judg-
ment. sot • Tenni doubt can be eatertsined. The mar-
line was envious to the year 1840, and • sewn= by
t afterwards took nes eon Urns before the year
That separnon aided in April, 1857, no by epee-
OINK ;• sad fin son time is ApriL 1867. Mr. and Mn.
Wow lived together until December 27, 1858, when she
nun and tiredly quitted her honed. The salt in gum-
tree was cameastion very early in 1859. As to cruelty, if
soy wow the first separation or before the resieeilistioa
of 1115; 'bee the husband and wife came together, that
resenciliation canon be reserded as an intone{ matter ;
ohm, indeed, when they so sin together again she was ia
• state al inanity, which possibly she was. I consider it,
however, right to state my links upon the qnstion
whiner say nudity epee the hened's part previous to
the first sepustioe or to the reconciliation is proved. My
=supon that clearly is, that net say cruelty of any
either is France or elsewhere, is proved to have
takes pins on his part before the first separation or
the recoseiliatin Theo as to the
.timenbseqnsut to the

resentaation the evidonee perfectly trilogies in that them
woo ne inesbp on his port of any kind. When the JAY=
Imlay i. Demenber, 1858, she did so without jthlidratios
and without moms, if tam ; sod the mit, immeldered aa
mill ingd by • sane woman, the oamosible, and wane than
• fthelsee proceeding
_co her part. The deism* before
however, mateaded that all •this, whethor or ill
foendedi is ken is of little riir no memo's, is tapas his
demand aptimt the hustend's ands ; far the giantess
says, in
ceded as he did proteuissally for the wife, he sated
and proceeded in good faith, thialdng it reasonable—pos-
sibly not at all improbable—that she would or might
justly or fairly @noosed adversely is the suit if prorwted
to • comintioa. That proponitio• is denied by the
hushimes .canton. The writhe stetecosat laid by
the damsel before the lady's counsel, Mr. Mammas,
on het behalf ere the snit was begun has been produced hem,
end we base asse it—a date-sot certainly onetaisting some
very reenarkable amputations. Couplet with the rend of
the midtown I am thoroughly con virood that during the
iaterviews (more than lion I think, in number) which, is
October, 1868, took place between the claimant and Mrs.
Hooper upon the subject .1 her alleged grievances, her re-
prenatethos, Lagoa" and demeanour moat ham been
such as in reader the mercies of great cautioa and • cow
eldmehle degree of doubt as to the motorise* of those repro-
matalsisn • positive co his part, se betimes him
the lthkserall. I amp minded that I
to
they ought
ham bemed the daimon% to pause and mot to
mumenee • litigation without taking much more
pains to ismstiple the matter sad ascertain the truth
is themes, than he minus to hare dons. He did not, in
my opium, take the steps which it was incumbent upon a
profeetional mass, ooesolted as be was, and if dtainius of
doing hie dear, and intending to aid fairly, to take. For
every purpose in the premed dispute there must. I think,
be sobthatially iwuted to him the ptheasion of • know-
ledge width he aod ht to have acquired, sad
which, it he liad acquired, the • of the suit meet
or ought to have appeared to him a highly improper war
sure. 'Upon the grounds that I have stated, thee, my amen
dodos is that the claim is not in the least aided by the
eempremies of the litigation bet fails *Mindy. The
lillilollll4 has not shown !doornail to be, and most be taken
act M be, • creditor of the late Mr. Hooper, who
meta Is me to have hem • man most mishit*
people:ad, and Indeed *Miele& by his wife, whether
Ile was in or out of her seems. My impressioa hem the
the torldesiee, however, is, that daring • porgies at lent
if the lime that kw hem brought ender oar Mitediee
the we imam. I may add that what I have just mid
as to the oompromise is lauded, in part at least, oa the
esmideethoe, not only that it was important to the hot-
head's pesos sod comfort that the wife ahead to kept
separate foots him, but also that if desirous or willing to
live with him again, or imam, he wag eider • level
Wiled= to minutiae her either ie hit owe bones or
otherwise. I Shish that the denten% should pay to the
,:.e `ea heat some costa though possibly sot the
whole that is doesended as amedonel to them
Lord Justin Terser coornmed Is the above death= of
Lord Justin %eight Breen sad that lordships thee made
the following eider :--Coakte the thitherto of the thief
dark (which found that the clainuat was sot a creditor
of the tats Mr. Hooper), so oasts up to the dais of the
eider of their lordship of 10th Demobs,. 1062, the
appolleat to pay all the oasts from that time, but by con-
geal of the
paeloth ragendeate se melt to be paid auept these met

03stare Viin-Clisseglar air J. &oast.)
.... MODES V. Ur/COILS&

Mr. Drew, Q. 0., and' Mr. De Oa appeared forts
of is this wit, the onset ef whii was to odors •
ranted by Min to the defoodent, of • base at Dai-
sies. The fraud as which the lean was swaght to be
snored was, that it was hicossisteet with the t
previeudy Wend late besiege the parties, that tie wee-
niest presided that so trade or Wins= should be awned
on upon the Resins, whereas the lease moody prohibited
" the earring co et say noxious, noisy, or offensive Whs."
The ishedsat wished to ems the beau or • pinwheel"
esil bed applied to the plentiff is Was the twig of the
agewesi se far es is wok onion Irides ps be areid
en at the bow Benis dimension Nee leek plate, is the pre
sweet • elect ef the *USW as togs Westing of the par-
ing to theeiressunt„ mod be hminet of Wien the& %heparin!'
did WI %teed to prohibit effusive nli beteg eseried es,
mot Wog instituted is dm.up the hose weediudy, del
ay with the ahem uentioned donee is M. He had, how-
ever, bum node • snow is Is ewe ; sad, or seek swore
that the awe in the lase bad begs inserted by him is-
Weiss* ; sad that it it permitted the house to be end
as • pelihriwese, area was aot, be timegibt, the real usia-
img et the pprrllrhmm who bed usented the Seas It appeared
tutu dsde.iatbi l, two pun al births law weegranted,
mails saw *iris@ of is pleader or begin not for the
bare, if geed me es heti ; eddied, that if it were r
used, the defesilsat might realise 4001. or EOM The dens-
desk however, wan mew sing the Wee as • pablishoune
aid the plaintiff Sled the bill In this suit to reform the tease
as Ahoy! Whig.

eiesilir:ll;liesi, Q.O. aid Mk. Willard appeared for the
st. _
__

The Viewartscellor said that woronling to the evidence
d Ow *Mira dark, be had bum laminated no to
to o.
Os lowa as to wait isoffe riv• trades be
was pressiene, ad he uppearod to have followed hie
isienceeniene. What the stark added as to tbe intestine of
es maims was merely as iS14110•011 of his owe. Bs* in
seder to relieve . deed. the Oared evictions of a =intake
es the tart el beilicr to it met be adduced. Here
each evadesse wee w maim and therefore the bill
suet be dineeinced ; but as the rindest hod BLOW that
be ielleaded the bases ter a pablinbesee, and hie mbar
seen* War nee sot quite 01111141111114 with that eistentest,
11. cOmbeal of Oa bill would be trident sows.

COURT OF COMMON PLIA.B.--.TAN. 23.
Mlle. ia Pissas.—(Boton Lord OW Joan 71ii*, sad
Jostles, Wilms. Willis, awl Eisiiss.)
001:12111ET f. WAGRA77.-11111 " MON TIMM"
Th. plastilll is trim sisi was swiped is
awake at Om Ms nom "slle saw of

wino 1

• ineek,!list-thopudseties al—lbay some to an
end is March leak the maatamessamed WU
heem-
ployed ; and now the wand
that be had hies engaged fee the mien end had been dis-
charged beano he eWif that peel* The trial took place
Wore Mr. Merlon Ormewell it the lest Croydon Assizes,
when the questioa was rased whether the defendant had
incurred any liability. The plaintiff's case was
that the defendant had been a partner of Mr.
Holt, who acted as ostensible proprietor of the
paper; and evidence was gives that the defendant
was frequently at the offlos, that he bad Interfered in the
management of the paper, that his opinion was said as to
what was to be does, and that era one 00011110 W be had
threatened to demise the manager. On the other band Mr.
Holt deposed that the defendant was not a partner of his ;
and there was put in en agreement which dated that:rßfl
being about to brio( out the paps; the defendant had
to lend him LOU., to be applied for the purpose the
paper, for which Holt was to assign the type, plant, and
copyright of the paper as security. The ban was to be
repaid, with interest, out of the profits of the paper, at the
rate of 2001. a year, bat Holt was to incur no permed re-
sponsibility in respect of it. As en additioeal security, the
defendant, so long as say money remained unpaid, was to
have giblets power of removal of all clerks keeping the
books ; and also the power, at any time within • twelve-
month, of requiring an absolute assignment to him
of three-fourth shams in the paper instead of
baring the loan repaid. Another question was, whe-
ther the plaintiff's etigegement was session or only
weekly. The jury found the defendant had not been
held out as a partner before or at the time of the plain:ire
engagement, but that he was so held out after the engage-
meat. They also found that the engagement was weekly
and sot seasonal Upon these !iodises the verdict was su-
tured far the defendant, but leave wee given to the plain-
tiff to move to eater a verdict for 151. 15a. the amount of
three weeks' salary due at the time of his discharge ; sect last
term a rule was obtained, pursuant to sub leave, and also
fee • new trial, upon the ground of misdirection. Today
wee was shown nerve this rule being made absolute.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C. (with him Mr. Hennes), said that as
to entering the verdict, the whole question was whether
there was an engagement which was resemble from weak
to week, but this he submitted was ant the meaning of the
jury. They meant that there was only nos sogagemeat,
terminable at any week ; and if this were so, there was no
engagement after the defendant had been held out as a
partner, and therefor* be was not liable. le additios, it
was submitted that Misjudge had properly directed the jury.
Mr. Detrissa, Q.C. (with him Mr. Prentice), said that the
misdireetioo was this, that the judge had told the jury that
if the agreement were a genuine document then Were wee
no partnership, instead of Baying that the agreement consti-
tuted a partnership. If he should not have done this, then
it was ocultioded that the judge should at all events have
asked the jury to consider whether upon the whole Lots of
the owe they thought that there was a partnership, instead
of plods( the question wholly upon the agreement. The
learned counsel cited a number of cases, and argued from
them that the agreement created it partosiehip Newest the
defendant and Holt, and in condoms be submitted that the
least el the jury at least entitled the plaintiff to a verdict
for 151. Its. In reference to this latter point it resoled that
the learned baron, who was annoyed at • greet many trum-
pery ceases being set dews far trial at the assizes, refmied to
I certify for the plaintiff's caste, nadir the County Courts
Act, though he gave the defendant a eartifirshe that it
was a proper case for trial by • special jury. It was now
urged apes the court that it was clear that there ware
serious questions of law involved in the one, end that this
being so, it would be proper for the court to exercise ite
power id certify for bets if they should think that the
verdict should be entered for the plaintiff for the three
weeks' salary.
The Lord Chief Justice said that be was of opinion that
the rule should be absolute to enter a verdict for the
plaintiff for UM. 15s. The rearms why he thought that
there should be no Dow trial was, that the gaieties
had bees properly left to the jury, adthe
jury had in due folic Maned their answers.
The pecuniary question left to the jury was
whether the engagement was weekly or seencinal, and
Wei had found that it was weakly. This being so the
plaintiff would not be entitled to any more than the three
weeks' salary, even if the deed showed that the defendant
was a partner, or that he was the principal and Holt was his
agent ; sod, therefore, the tree construction of the deed
was not oliesmary to be asiertaieed for the purpose of this
judgment. This being so he gave no opinion upon the con-
struction of the deed. In reference to a certificate for costa,
he was boned to add that the question whether the deed
male the defendant a partner or the principal, with Holt
for his agent, was one which required greet learning to
argue ; sad wording to the best ',dyable he could form
—though he did not so decide—the deed made the defend-
ant sole proprietor of all the profits of the concern, not merely
a creditor of Holt, until the 1,0001. and interest were
paid. This being so, the case was cue It for
trial in the superior court ; sad, therefore, there
would be a certificate to give the plaintiff his costs. He
should, however, heftily have some to the sublusiot that
the learned judge had exercised his discretion as to the cer-
tificate wrongly, if the fees at the trial were the same as
they were here ; but at the trial it was takes that under
the deed it was clear that there was no partnership, but
now it seemed that this was not so clear, and that it was
important to the plaintiff to ascertain what was the position
of the defendant under that deed. This being so, the cum
was a et one for the superior court, and the plaintiff would
therefore have a certificate for aorta.

Rule abeobate to enter a vordiet for the plaintiff for
Ibl. 15a, with mote.
In the mum of " Reed v. Wagstaff " the same decision
was given without further argument, the circametaaoee
beteg precisely similar.

COURT OF EXCREQUER.—Tar. 23.

Sittings is Btoco.—(Before Lori Mid Bono Pollock, sod
Barons Martin sod Pigott.)
Gonna r. CODIIIBBIO/138 OF INLAND =MITI.

. .
This was an appeal from the Ocenniesamiere of hired
Beveaus, and involved • question as to the stain
payable on • deed of mottlemeet made on the tat
Yoe Alisger with M. Paolo Emilliani Goldin. In the
Brazilian, New Brunswick, Maxima, and serious other
foreign stooks and bawds were, Amon other property,
settled. Then wen, for the most part, for • nominal muse
of 100 k each, but some were of much less vales, or of no
value at all. The qaestiou now was whether, under the
terms of the statute, the deed was chargeable with sa ad
solecism duty in respect of such stocks and bonds, but the
court reserved its judgment.
Sir G. Hawyman appeared for the appellants; and the
Attoroey-General, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Bevan for
the aomreimatoome.

TR. ULVIESTON AND LANCABI7I 11311. WAT COMPANY V.