The Express.
London, England, 1862-01-27 00:00:00

daiif

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-JAN. 25.

Sittings in Baneo.—(Befor• lard Chief Jodie* Erie and
Artier Williams, Willem, and Keating.)
MAMA, 41.11111.LA1M V. OUT, IMONDINT.-1111 LAW OF

Laincosn LID =Num.

This was ea appeal from • decision of a county-court
Pollock appeared for the appellant ; and Mr. Prentice
for the respondent.
The foots were these :—The appellant, a widow lady, had
rented a house of the respondent as yearly tenant; and she
gave notice to quit on Saturday, the 6th of April, on which
day the tenancy expired. She left previone to the 6th of
Aprli, hut did not deliver up the key until the morning of
Monday, the Bth, and on that day the capon.
dent refund to receive the key, contending that
the appellant by retaining it until the Manley
had ireadeured besialf liable for another quarter's rent,
wad he afterwards summoned her for the amount, 361. old.
The couetyarart judge held that the appellant was liable
to pay the uartela rent, and the question now was whether
this decision was right.
The Court thought that the tenancy having been termi-
nated by a proper notice to quit, and the 6th April felling
on Saturday, the appellant bad fulfilled the legal obligation
upon her by sending the key on Monday morning.
Appeal allowed.
CLAM; T. NOWT" RISPONDIDIT...-00/IVICTRD

101i1VOING • HOUBE:BILL.

The appellant had been employed by • Mr. Hyatt, a
former partner of a Mr. Marcy, to deliver IMO ppm at
the boon of the latter ; and the appellant west there at
lOo'cleek at night, and opus Mr. Marcyjefusies to rewire
the doeuraeste at that hour be oontinuseempag the 10114
to the peat as of the family. For this las wee given
late custody and en before the sitting magistrate* as Wet-
=is &lop, and Hoed. This decision was now appealed
sad it was submitted that as the reepobratee hod
not found that the act was " wanton and wilful,' the men
ought to be mat hack to be amended.
M. Smith appeared for the appellant, sad Mr.
Markby for the respondent.
The mart held that the de.ision of the magistrate* was
right.
Appeal &mimed.

CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL—JAN. 25.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Erle, Justices Wightman,
aid Mellor, and Mr. Baron Wilde.)
TUC QUSIX V. SARAH BREPPARD.
The primer was tried at the last Exam Assizes before
Mr. Justice Williams, on an indictment charging bar with
the wilful murder of her daughter, Ann Ashton, • young
woman about 18 years of age. On the trial it appeared that
the prisoner had been twice married, and that the deesassd
was • daughter by her drat husband. The daughter was in
the family way, at which the mother was railway very
kidigaant, and had expressed Myself a strong terms to her
neighbours relative to her daVoillell
_ariesondast. At the
time of her coefinement the demand ova Being with hes
mother and stepdaughter. os Om teal against the
prisoner was that she hid to promo •
midwife or proper person bervermulZtrfrhim she was
taken ill in labour, whereby she died is childbirth. The
learned counsel teethe primmer °emended that there wee
no legs' obligation ea her part to procure or cause to pro-
cure • midwife mother asaistaase for her daughter, and that
consequently she wu oat criminally responsible for neglect-
ing so to do. The learned judge lilt three questions to the
jury—first, was the death el the deceased attributable to
the prisoner's enact, in not procuring the emistaace
secoodly, that if they were of that opinion did they believe
that by sash neglect she intended to bring about Madinah of
her daughter, and if so to find her guilty of murder ; third,
if se to convict her of murder, but if they were of • imertaury
opinion, to return • verdict of manslaughter. The jury
found the prisoner !guilty of manslaughter, and
meat was minted, in order to take the opinion
court upon the objection raised.
Mr. H. T. Cole, who defended the prisoner at the trial,
mid that it having been intimated to him that the primmer
was too poor to be able to instruct counsel, he had thought
it his duty to make himself acquainted with authorities that
ought to be laid before the court, if the court would permit
him.
The Lord Chief Justice said the court would be happy to
bear Mr. Cole, and would be much obliged by his directing
their attention to any authorities bearing on the gelation.
Mr. Cole then proceeded to urge that the demand, being
emancipated, there was no legal obligation or duty out
upon the mother to procure assistance. If any one was liable
it was the step.father, who was the master of the house.
The teemed coonael quoted a number of authorities in sup-
port of his proposition.
Mr. Carter, with whom was Mr. M. Bere, doubted if the
authorities bore upon the case. Criminal neglect had been
found by the jury, and if they had found her guilty of mar.
der the verdict would have been unimpeachable. As that
had not been the case, it was now contended that she bad
not been guilt of soy offence. ft was the duty of a mother
to take care other infant, and he wea riot aware that that
duty ceased at any time. If the prisoner bad sot the means
of procuring the necessary assistance, she should have gone
to the parish officer. The deceased was helpless, and de.
pendent on those around her.
The Court held that uthe deceased wasemanalpatied at Use
time of her death, there was no legal liability on the mother
to procure assistance. Many women were confined without
• midwife, and the necessity of one did not arise in this ease
till after the birth. The primmer might not have been able
to procure assistance without roaming means, and those
she was deficient of. The conviction must be quashed.
Conviction quashed.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Jae. 2s.
(Before the Jodie Ordinary.)
MILLER V. MILLER J.l.2fD RICRS.

The petitioner is a leather seller in Bermondsey. He
brought a suit for a divoros against his wife, for her alleged
adultery with the co-reepoudent Hicks and a workman of
her husband's, named Button. The evidence was of a very
disgusting character, but was not believed by the jury, and
the responilent was acquitted. A rule nisi for a new trial
was then obtained ; sad
Mr. Serjeant Pigott and Dr. Wambey now showed cause
against the rule.
Mr. Hilton, on behalf of the co-respondent, followed on
the same side.

IJr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks appeared to support
the ttde ; but
The court took time to consider its judgment.
IiIt:GLIM V. BIGGINS.

In this case, which was patt heard some time ago, Dr.
lipinks called additional evidence, and
The Court made a demo nisi.
BAILT V. JUJU! AND DELLA ROCCA.

Dr. Elpink;.Cu;beitalfortirimitticioeritiai. also part-
heard awe, put in an affidavit in proof oi the identity of the
parties married.
The Court reserved its Judgment.

Dalawn', Dears.—On Saturday afternoon,
Mr. Brent held an inquest on 11Hah Darning, aged 36,
• German glazier. Deceased was employed to put in •
Ere of glass in one of the upper windows of one of the
houses in Bernen•street (No. 11). While doing so he
on the railing spikes below, which passed through the
hapless man's thigh and abdomen, impaling him in • shock-
ing nianner. He was conveyed to Middlesex Hospital,
where he shortly slier died in great agony. Verdict—AM-
&alai death by inerseateaset.
We find Du a delicious health-restoring
nensients Ambles Peed Wait remedy for habitual oomitG
=o4lllllllolloiWa=i, eaeffembeicei. Oen*" debility.
mew dielenku,sidlite= eseifia, wide.
Nem. beesebills.
sad tine
debralwr. Ma'
WErtraililWieleeTTVVellt W of
inn. De;. 11 r • y": Drjbawh:
. led Winne It eaves fifty dime lie
out in ether. distelif MIL Od. el
earnest), Ildw—De NAM awl No. 77, Heim law.
doe : air !Mom aed Mama. sad at el.
and pees= sed ebelickihw—(Adveetbeetaent.l