The Express.
London, England, 1864-06-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. •
After Term Nisi Prins Sittiop at Westminater.7(Botora
Lord Chid Justice Ckekborn and Special Janes)

°LOY'S P. PIZSIONT.-7112 " MOWING CHNOII7CIi."
This was an action brought by Mr. Serjeant Glom' late
proprietor of the Morning Chronic again Count de Per-
signy, under the following • of de May 9,
1857, October 73, Mg. or work, labour, and materiels
provided, and money paid for the defendants, and at their
request, in and about printing, and publishing, and con-
ducting a certain newspaper published in London, celled the
Morning Chronicle, and in sad about tb• printing, publish_
New."tainnt theo "Locii7ntghe.rfounrerar aPnedrsin andedsbout
the writing and translating from the French language, and
printing and publishing certain articles in the Morning
Chronicle and the said two other newspapers for and on be-
half of the defendant and at their request, and in and about
the writing, translating from the French language, printing
and publishing certain other articles in the asid Morning
Chronacle and in the said other newspapers for and on behalf
of the defendant for the purpose of being translated into the
French language and subscribed and published in certain
French newspapers called the Moniteur, Conatilutiotnel,
Pars, and certain other French newipapers, at the rate of
KN. per month, 14,0001. The plaintiff will also seek to
recover the said amount oo a count in the declaration out
accounts stated. lie will also seek to recover damages for
the loss sustained in the depreciated value of the above-
mentioned London newspapers in fulfilling the contract
entered into between himself and the defendant.
As soon as the cam was called on, but before the jury
were 11W0f11,

Mr. Serpent Glover, who appeared in person, said, be-
fore the jury was sworn he moved on affidavit to postpone
the trial until after the return had been made to the cam.
mission sent out to Manilla to examine a Mr. Charles Stokes.
The commission was issued and despatched from Eng-
land in February last, bat no return had been
made to it. Mr. Stokes was an Englishman,
and late a banker at Paris, but now a
resident sugar planter at Meallla, and the interrogatcries
that had been sent out were of a very important character,
bearing nu the real facts of the case, via., the contract or
written agreement that was adopted by the plaintiff and
defendant, end lodged by the authority and consent of all
the parties concerned, in the custody of Mr. Stokes, who
was at the time the French government backer for
various matters connected with the press in Paris.
That commission required that a return of some
kind should be made to it, but which had
not yet been done. Manilla, as his lordship was aware,
was several thousand miles distant from England, aed
there was only a monthly communication between this
country and Manilla.
The Lord Chief Justice—Why is this course put down for
trial? It is your record.

Mr. Berjeaut Glover—Yes. it is ' • but I was compelled by
Mr. Justice Cromptou's order to enter it for trial hum.-
diately after the commission was greeted; and if that
learned judge were here he would ray that where a com-
mission was granted to examine • material witness there
should be a return to it.
_ _

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—This has been before me
before to-day, and I gave you till to-day.
Mr. Serjeant Glover—l caked in my afflitavit for the post-
ponement of the trial till the return of the commission.
The Lord Chief Justine—And that I refused. I would
only give you till to-day. The commission was granted on
the terms that the plaintiff should try his case by a given
day.
Mr. Serjeant Glover—Yes. After stating the usual form,
it goes on to say that the case shall be tried at these
sittusp.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf you were iliarttisfied with
that order, you should have appealed to the court ispiost it.
The order now stands.

Mr.rierjeant Glover—refortueatelv,when I made the ap-
plication to your lordship I had only then just returned
from Paris.

The Lord Chief Justice—l did not consider that you
came to me u appealing against Mr. Justice Crompton's
order. That should have been due in the full court.
Mr. Serjeant Glover—l contemplated the return would
bare been made by the day named—the day before the
commencement of these sittings. There, however, has not
been sufficieot time from the issue of the commission for
the examination of Mr. Stokes to have been taken, and
the return mule to the order for the tuning of the CM.
mission. Mr. Justice Crompton imposed the condition
that I should ask for no further postponement of the trial.
The Lord Chief Justice—Yon took the order on these
terms, and you have no right now to complain.
Mr. Serjeant Glover—l did not approve of it when it
was made.

The Load Chief Justice—Then you should hare come to
the court and had it remodelled.
Mr. Serjeant Glover—l had an order that was made in
this caw set aside in Michaelmas Term, 1862
The Lord Chief Justios—We hare nothing to do with
that.

Mr. Serjeest Glover—M. Billeult was reedy to settle with
me and pay my demand a few weeks before his death, and
it would be imposing strict terms on me to go to trial with.
out the written document to which I refer. The document
being, as I believe, io existence, I am prevented from giving
parole evidence of its contests; and me it motel=
evidence of a very important character I feel I cannot go to
trial without it, or that I have 'widows of its being lost. I
contend that I ought Dot to be driven to trial, and then
when I propose to give evidence of the col:dente of this
document to be immediately stopped by the teamed counsel
no the other side, and be met with quirks and quibbles.
I only, therefore, ask for justice. Wises the MO 01111110
before the court in 1862 an affidavit of M. Billault's
was read denying the existence of any such agreement, or
any knowledge whatever of the transactions, and your lord-
ship asked the learned counsel why he mentioned that fact
four times. Was it. your lordship asked, because it cannot
be doubted that a minister of France can tell a falsehood,
sod you were kind enough to rejoin that, perhaps, too, a
advent-at-law was incapable of telling a falsehood. . Now,
what are the facts! My affidavit states that this ac-
tion was originally brought against three individuals,
Count de nosegay, Y. Began% and M. Louis Collet
Meygret, director.general of the pram of Frame. I was
only able to serve the two first-same d eadividuals after some
delay, and then issue was joint t in the action between myself
and' theft two defendants. Last year, when in Paris, I
happened le fledby mere widest M. Lelia Collet Meygret,
and he was served with the process of this court. He was
much surprised that an action should havebeen commenced
in a master between what be called the French (ovine.
meet sod the plaintiff. M. Louis Collet Meygret imme-
diately west to M. Billaalt, and refreshed his memory re-
specting the various circumstances connected with the mat-
ter, mid nertiatioes west on for settling it which resulted
in M. &Sault agreeing to pay the whole sum demaaded.
S'rjeeat 1:lover proceeded further to describe his affidavit.
Mr. Bovill, with whom appeared Mr. Lush, Q.C., Sir G.
Honeyman, and Mr. Hodpou on tohaff of the Doke de Per-
signy, then addressed bislordship. He said Mediae denied
in express terms that be ever had any dealings with the
Morning Chronicle, nor had he authorised any penes to
come to any compromise.
The Mial was postponed till the after-term Middlesex
sittings.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
. LOUIS V. LOUIS.

This was • petition -liyiarly. Louis for jadicial separation
from her husband, Sir John Louis, on the ground of his
alultery. Mr. Temple. Q.C., and Mr. Thesiger were coun-
sel for the petitumer ; Mr. Keane and Mr Karakke for the
respondent.
Miss Fanny Ann Bland was ?married to Sir John Louis
on the 15th of February, 1851, sod afterwards lived with him
," various places. They lived a portion of the time in
London, and he was then as now a lieutenant in the Indian
army. They afterwards went to live in India, and remained
there acme time. In 18,62, Lady Louis beiagfal, returned
to Europe. She had two daughters, one of whom died
and the other is still living. Her husband joined her io
May of that year, and stayed with her some time at
Boulogne. In September of: 1863, he having sooceeded
in the title by the death of his father, the respondent
went to London, saying he had bedtime there, and there he
remained some time. She received no communication from
bim, bat on making inquiries she ascertained that he had
goo' to Doncaster rams, and had slept two nights before
and after the St. Leger day with • female at the Railway
Hotel in Peterborough. He was afterwards found to be
living with the same female at Ostend.
John Hatherley, solicitor, deposed that he saw Sir John
Louis I and • female at a window in • lodging-house at
Ostend. He ascertained that they resided there as man
and wife.

Josephine Vaadevelde, a chambermaid at the lodging.
house in (stend. stated that a lady sad a gentleman slept
together there se Sir John sod Lady Louis. She ascertained
from the passport that the lady's name was Eliza Metcalfe.
Mrs. Elinbeth Robinson. of the Railway Hotel, Peter-
h)rough, deposed that Sir J. Lewis, sad a lady whom he
represented to be Lady Louis, slept there oa the nights in
question. . . . .

• Evidence bawler been given of the maniere, the witness'.
meld that Lady L,uie, who wee is wart, was not the person
whom they saw with Sir John Louis on the eocasions In
questions.
Decree for judicial separation granted. The court ordered
that Lady Louis should have the custody of the child not 4
further orders.