The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-14 00:00:00

COI7RT OF EXCHEQUER—Nov. 13.

littinp in Banco in Michaelmas Term.—(Before Lord Chief
Baron Pollock and Barons Bramwell and ChannelL)
BURROWS V WRIGLET.

This was an action for slander, tried before Mr. Baron
Wilde, at Westminster, when the plaintiff was nonsuited.
The plaintiff was • boy who bad been a pupil in a school
kept by the defendant, and had joined the rest of the
scholars at some festival given by the muter, at which buns,
cakes, and other refreshments were provided. In the course
of the entertainment it was found that the plaintiff had put
a bun in his pocket, and the defendant charged him with
dealing it, and dismissed him from the school. The
present action was therefore brought to clear
the boy's character from such an imputation. During
the present term Mr. M. Chambers obtained • rule to set
aside the noesuit and fora new trial ; but the court threw
out • suggestion that it would be better for the parties to
enter • stet processes, and the matter stood over.
Mr. M. Chambers now said he believed that his learned
friend on the other side, Mr. Collier, was prepared to dis-
avow any intention on the part of the defendant to impute
anything like felony or immoral cooduct to the boy.
The plaintiff, who was very young, was ready to accept
such disavowal, his only desire being to clear himself from •
suspicion that he was banished from school in consequence
of having committed a theft. On the contrary, the lad said
he did the act out of kindness, having put the bun in his
waist for • sick brother at home, who he thought would
like it. If the disavowal he mentioned were made, the
learned counsel said he was perfectly prepared to enter a
stet process.
Mr. Collier gave the disavowal: and said, though the
defendant thought the plaintiff had been guilty of • breach
of discipline in his school, he never intended to charge him
with felony.
The Lord Chief Baron said this was • very proper termi-
nation of the case. The plaintiff was in a far better situa-
tion thane boy who had joined in robbing an orchard, which
at one time was certainly no offence whatever, although it
had become so since he had been called to the bar. No
mortal man alive ever dreamt of imputing to • parcel of
boys who went to rob an orchard any serious deficiency in
those morals which, in afterlife, were so necessary to per-
fection in all occupations. It was manifest that this boy
imagined be was invited from pure kindness to • festival
where he could help himself, and no doubt he thought it
was an act of self-denial and kindness on his part to take
• bun home for hie sick brother. The transaction told far
more in his favour than against him, but still
he (the Lord Chief Baron) did not say that it
told in his favour at all. It would be considered • very im-
proper thing if • person invited to dine with the Lord
Mayor pocketed any part of the dinner. (Laughter.)
There was a ludicrous representation of certain law terms
in which the means process was depicted by the oarkature
of a man pocketing a fowl at a public banquet. That
would be an extremely improper thing to do, but it could
not be considered • felony ; at the outside it was but •
mistake arising out of the hospitality which the host
conferred on his guests. There were places, he believed,
in the City of London where at festivals things were
imposed upon you, and sometimes thrust in your bat. In
the present instance the boy was rather to be commended
for his kisdnees than censured in the way he was for his
breach of good manners, for what he did was scarcely more
than that. It was to be regretted that such a course was
not taken, and the litigation avoided, to say nothing of the
expense. He, however, believed that the master had no
desire to impute to the boy a felony, and he made these
remarks rather to further the object of the parties in ter-
minating the suit, and he hoped to hear nothing of this
matter, or anything like it in future.
A stet processus was then entered.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Nov. 13.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
STONER 0. STONER AND PRICL
•

Mr. G. Brown appeared for the petitioner; Dr. Spinke
for the oo.respondent.
The parties were married in July. 1854, and had had fear
children, three of whom were still living. They cohabited in
various places, and ultimately went to keep the Queen's
Had public-house at Biagio°, in Herefordshire, where the
petitioner also carried on the business of a dealer in crockery
and hardware. The principal witness against the respondents
wes—
Sarah Walters, who was nursemaid to the respondent,
and who said that on the 16th September, 1861, Mr. Stones
was from home. The co-respondent, who worked at •
foundry, came in between eight end nine at night.
Went to bed at 12o'clock, and left him at that time with
Mrs. Stones. Witness was sleeping in Mrs. Stones's bed.
About one, the respondent came up, and told witness Nutt
Price was going to sleep in the little white room adjoining.
I Asked her if she had fastened the door, and she said it did
not matter. Shortly after the respondent had got into bed,
Price came, and also got in on her side. She did not try to
hinder Lim. Witness rose, and went into the morale which
Price ought to have slept. After • little while,
Mrs. Stems came to witness, and Price followed her.
Whams tot up to return to the other bed. As she was
leaving the room, Price asked where she was going. When
she told him, he fastened the door, and would not let ha?
go. He said he would not meddle with her, but ultimately
be allowed her to leave. Afterwards heard Mrs. Stones
making 'dreadful noise. She was groaning. Went to the
door, and asked Price to let her in. After a few moments
be did se, and witness found Mn... Stones in bed. Price
relied her up in his arms. She was fainting. When she
came to witness took ber to the other bed. In about ten
minutes Price followed her again ; and witness left
the room once more. In the morning Mrs. Stones
came to witness, and asked her to get up,
for she thought that her husband would soon be coming
home. By thin time Price had left the house. The witness
deposed to other circumstances, tending to show a criminal
intimacy between the respondents.
o„.......juninsd—Was 17 years of ate. Left her bed
three times altogether that night. Had seen a young man
named Wm. Stokes, and another named Thomas Jones ; bat
knew nothing of either of them. Was at the rifle Mooting
on Bradoor-hill last October. Saw Mr. Stones there. Was
with her present master, who was very drunk, and witness,
and "two other young mea,"—(a laugh]—had to take ears
of him and being him home. Did not at my time that day
go off the bill with Mr. Stones. Nobody said to witness,
•' Hallo! Walters, what have you been doing T There
were other girls in Hinton named Walters.
Bewearaleed—Never had any guilty familiarity with Mr.
Jon a.