The Express.
London, England, 1862-12-15 00:00:00

lOZNIG V. arrcutc.—LTßlL.

This was an action for libel sod slander. The defendant
pleaded not guilty, and a justification of the slander.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Watkins Williams, and Mr.
Edward Healey, were comael for the plaintiff ; Fir Fitzroy
Kelly, Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. flew, were counsel for
the defendant.

This action wee brought against the Scottish Equitable
Unman. Company, through the defendant. theirseoretary.
The case had not concluded when the court roes.
- SECOND COURT.
- - - - -

After Term Sittings at Nisi Privy at Guildhall-038ton,
Mr. Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.)

WILD, D.P., V. WILDS, JON.--THE DIORAMA AND 711 Z

This wee an action to reamer the sum of 651. for amino
dioramas, fittings, he, sold to the defendant. The ddeed
ant pleaded never indebted.
At a late envoi the proceedings the jury stopped theme,
and said they were entirely wmust the defendant.
Yr. Justice Crompton said no doubt there was a contract
to purchase these dioramas, although it was not in express
terms.

A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff—damages 651.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Dm 13.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
WITT V. WITT AND ICLINDWORTIL

After our report left on Saturday,
Mary Ann Slade, another servant, was called, and
she identified five letters which the respondent had written
to her. Previous to a journey which Mr. and Mrs. Witt
had made to Germany, the respondent sent her with a fish-
knife and fork, half-a-dozen dessert-spoons, half-a-dozen
sla.:goons, and other articles of plate to pawn. The re-
ent said that her husband did not know of it. She
pawned a ring for her, but that she took out again.
Left Mrs. Witt because witness did not like to tell the
tradespeople so many falsehoods as she had to do. Used to
visit the respondent after that, and she asked witness to re-
turn. She said that she had got all the things out of pawn,
and that all the bills were paid. That, however, was not
the case. Mr. and Mrs. Witt seemed very happy and com-
fortable with each other.

Cross-examined—Did not know what money Mrs. Witt
received from her husband for housekeeping. Could not
give any instance of extravagance on her part. Then were
musical parties every Bnoday, but the people who came to
them were Mr. Witt's friends. No one visited Mrs. Witt
but her sister.

The letters put in dunog the trial were then reed. In
some of them the respondent entreated the servants to con-
ceal various matters from her husband. Is others (written
from Ramsgate) she expressed herself in the most affec-
tionate and wifely terms towards the petitioner.
Mr. Kerslake addressed the jury with great ability, ridi-
culing the insufficiency of the testimony on which it had
been taught to convict his client of adultery. He said that
evidence would be given to prove that Mr. With not-
withstanding the affectionate terms on which he wished it
to be understood that he had lived with his wife, had in
reality been in the habit of keeping very low and depraved
company.
Tpe Queen's Advocate followed for the co-respondent.
Mr. Sopwith, a surgeon at Tunbridge-wells, and Mr.
Kloner, another in London, were examined with a view to
show that the respondent had ever since her confinement
been in such a delicate state of health as to render it impro-
bable that she would have committed the offence ascribed
to her.
The court then adjourned.