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

THURSDAY EVENING,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURTS.—Nov. 9.
(Moro the Master of the Rork
091:111qT e. erne.-91KOULAZ WAIL

The Rev. C. ;,aller,airiUnined yesterday in this ease,
said he was s cousin of Mr. Gedney's. He visited at his
hones two or three times is 1857, in Jesuitry and
February. Mrs. Gedney was then very ill Weed. I
had a conversation with her es to the child, the subject
of this suit. She said it was not bets. She bad been
confined, indeed, in London, but the child was still-
born, and then she procured this one. She was troubled, and
said she did not know what would be the proper course
towards the child as to divulging the truth. I advised her
not to throw the child on the world, and said her father
would be the proper person to consult. I intended to see
her again, but never did.
In answer to • geostiou by the Master of the Rolla, this
writhes" said he had sometimes prayed with Mrs. Gedney,
but sot on that occasion. Her mind was gaits sound.
Elizabeth Evans, Mrs. Geduey's maid and attendant, said
she was in her service ten months. She was there is May,
1853. The child then with her was 15 months old, or
better. She (the witness) generally dressed the baby. Mrs.
Gedney was not fond of it. I took the child on • visit, and
Mrs. Gedney asked ins to pay particular attention to what
was said as to whether the child was like her or Mr. Gad.
ney's (+wily. I told her I had been asked which it was
most like. Mrs. Gedne,y sighed, and said, "Ah, how can
she have any likeness. After dinner she came up to the
room I had. The child was put to bed. Mrs. Gedney ad-
dressed me, arid said her life was • burden to het ; my kind-
ness had won her affection, and she should treat me as a
fellow heir of an immortal kingdom. Me asked for my
confidence, and told me that Mr. Gedney's unkindosas made
her very unhappy, and that she had contrived a plan to
deceive. I asked how. "As to the child Lily," she maid, "the
is not my child." Btu had made arrangements with friends
in London, who she believed got the child from a& hospital.
She got a girl, as • boy would become her master. She
afterwards frequently referred to the subject, and she
wished nu not to disclose the secret to her father or his
housekeeper. She never took the child in her arms. She
would not have it dressed expensively on acoouot of its
mean birth. Referring to the state of her health she said
she warn afraid the secret would come out and the
child be ill-treated. She and her husband did not sleep
together.
Dr. Ogle, the honseaurgeoo in 1354 at the York-road
Lying-in Hospital, proved the birth of • female child there
on Feb. 4 of that year, as dirt the nurses and others.
The mother of the child so born was then examined, and
said she was delivered at the York Hospital of • child on
Saturday, Feb. 4, 1854, and that on the Monday following •
lady and gentleman came to the house, and proposed to take
the child. It was to be adopted by a lady who wanted a
female child. Its hair was light. Her mother was then
living, sod knew the child was to be taken for adoption.
The witness skid she was to hear of it again in three months,
but never did so. _

Mts. , the then Dane at the hospital, neared the
taking of the child by • man sod woman. She
bad now identified the roan, wbo wu Dr. Goss,
of 65. Sutherlandatmet, Pimlico. She bad not bee;
able to hod Mrs. Goss.

The nurse who attended Mrs. Gedoey, at Park•street,
was called and said sbe believed the child at that
place was older by some days then it wall there said to be.
This is a mere outline of the evidence. Other witnesses
were called, and most of those whose names are above
given were cross-examined* but their testimony was
unshaken._ _ _

Sir H. Cairns summed up at the conclusion of the des
fondant's case and said that for convenience he would divide
the time over which he would travel with them into four
periods—fint, the period that elapsed before Mrs. Gedney
went to town ; second, the period of her being
in town ; thir, the period after her return
to the country ; and, lastly, the period since her death.
Upon every scrap of evidence of importance comprised in
these dates Sir Hugh Cause very elaborately commented.
With Dr. lane's evidence be especially dealt with care, and
urged that it was fairly open to the observation that the
lady bad deceived him. In saying this, it was to be remem-
bered that the doctor did not attend her in her alleged
confinement, he CAMS in when everything was going smoothly,
and paid cursory visits which did not enact much closeness
of observation. If he bad bestowed that bow could it
have escaped him that she was suffering as this poor lady
then unquestionably was
At the conclusion of Sir Hugh Cairns' address the court
rose. . _ .

Ths CAI/0 will be proceeded with to-morrow (Thursday).

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. ft

Sittings in Baoco.—(Before Lord Chief Justioe Cockburn,
and Justices Crompton, Mellor, and Sheet.)

THE MIDLAI,D RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE OVERSEERS OF
THE PARISH OP BADGMOETH.

This was a special case stated for the opinion of the court
by the justiceaof Gloucester, on an appeal by the Midland
Railway Company against the poor-rates of the pariah of
Badgworth.
Dowdeswell appeared for the overseen; Mr. Hutton
for the Midland Railway Company.
It appeared from the arguments that the Midland and
the Great Western Railway Companies ran trains over the
lame set of rails, and a dispute had arisen between them as
to the payment of tolls ant rates. A lawsuit had taken
place between them, which was argued is the Court of
Queen's Bench, when judgment was given in favour of the
Midland Railway Company. That judgment was subse-
quently appealed against in the Court of Exchequer Cham-
ber, which court confirmed the judgment of the court below.
The Great Western Railway Company then took the case
to the House of Lords, and judgment was again given against
them. The question now wore the oourt was whether the
Great Western Railway Company or the Midland Com•
pany were liable for this rate. The piece of line in question
runs between Cheltenham and Gloucester. The case at
tint, from the complicated nature of the circumstance;
presented some difficulty, but alter hearing the arguments
of the learned counsel,
The Lord Chief Justice said the case turned out a very
simple one. The whole matter turned upon the question
whether, as regarded that part of the line in which the
fee-simple was admitted to be is the Great Western Com.
palsy, the Midland Company were occupiers of it. It was
admitted also that the hoe between Cheltenham and
Gloucester was divided between the two companies so far as
the property io the soil and rails was corsoerised ; and the
property in that part on which the present question arose
was admitted to be in the Great Western. Why, therefore,
should it be said that the Great Western were not the
occupiers'. The Midland Company exercised a right of run.
sing their carriages and waons over this particular part
of the line, using one of the Great Western Company's
rails as well as their own. But what was that more
than was to be found in the case of so many com-
panies who bad mooing powers over the lines
of other companies, except that in this instance it
was done by virtue of a parliamentary enactment
which did not in terms profess to grant mere running
powers'. The legislation was of a somewhat complicated
and intricate character. but when resolved into its true
elements it was bathing more practically than runniog
powers. He was of opinion that the order must be quashed.
The other learned judges concurred.
Cider quashed.
lii[ Orr-EN r. DARE.

In this case the Lord Chief Justice said the paper book
delivered to him was written so small and slovenly that he
could not read it, and intimated that if some improvement
did not take place in the writing (which was generally very
Led) sent to the judges Le should hold that no paper books
had been delivered, and the cased would have to stand over ;
but Mr. Justice Crompton. on the other hand, said his Louk
wan very well written. The practice is foe the attorney on
each side to deliver two paper books, containing the facts
and points to be argued, and it frequently happens that the
writing is all but illegible.
Mr. Lush, e.).C., and Mr. Murphy appeared in this case
for the parish (the respondents) ; Mr. Mellish, QC., and
Mr. l'bilbrick for the appellant.
The case came before the court on an appeal. The ap-
pellant is the owner of Cranbrook House, and severs
hundred acres of land, near Ilford, in Essex, and the ques-
tion for the opinion of the court was whether in estimatirg
the net value of the property, with a view to ita being rated
to the pow,deiluctions were to be made in respect of local and
district sewers t ates, rate* for the maintenance aid deansing
of the sewers, the avenge annual sums expendcd fur
sluices and tlonl gates, ►nd the average annual expenses of
building and Leeptog up the sea wall.
After beating the lengthened arguments of the learned
counsel on Loth side.,
The Lord t 'Lief Justice said that these local and district
rates were a tenant's rates, aid the ►ppelLut. who was both
the owner and occupier of the property, had a right to make
the deduction from the rent in ascertaining the net rate-
' able value of the estate.

The other learned judge. concurred.
Judgment for the appellant.
TO! LORD MAToR.

The Lord Mayor, accompanied by the Lecorder, the late
Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, Sc , came into court, Lod invited their
lonistipe to the civic bouquet.