The Express.
London, England, 1863-11-07 00:00:00

TEE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVFMBR 7, 1863.

iLatu inttllignice.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nun. 6.

Flitting in Basco.— (Before Lord lief Justice Erin and
Justices Williams, By* sad Keating.)
WHITZLZT V. ADAMIL-1.11111..

The plaintiff in this ease was clerk to one of the equity
judges, mid he sued the defendant, a clergyman, residing
at Stockcroas, in Oxfordshire, to recover damages for two
libels and at the trial at Guildhall the verdict was for the
plaintiff, damages 4001.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., now moved for a rule to enter a ver-
dict for the defendant upon the ground that the alleged
libels, &a, were privileged communications. The plaintiff
was connected with St. amoebae Church, and he took an
active part in church affairs. Mrs. Huny and her daugh-
ters were also members of the St Bargains congregation,
and they having gone to Stockcross for change of air, the
plaintiff visited them there, we. introduced to the
defendant, and became somewhat intimate with him. The
plaintiff stayed some time at the house of Fowler, one of
Mr. Adams congregation, but subsequently the plaintiff
sad Adams quarreled and went to law. Mr. Cleaver, one
of the clergymen at St. Barnabee, wrote to the defendant
imploring him to do what he could to atop the litigation,
and suggesting that he should act as arbitrator between the
parties. The defendant, io answer, wrote, saying tsar he
could not act as suggested, and elating hie reasons. In
doing so he made certain statements against the plaintiff,
and especially that whilst at Fowler's hie Labile had not
been sober, and that he attempted to seduce, or almost to
commit • rape upon Fowler's servant. Mrs. Hurry also
wrote to the defendant endeavouring to stop the scandal,
and stating her impression of the plaintiff's innocence ; and
the defendant, in answer, reiterated the charges. These
two letters of the defendant were the alleged-libels com-
plained of.
The court intimated that the question whether the two
letters of the defendant were privileged was worthy of con-
sideration.—Role granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 6.

Sittings In Banco.—(Before L.rd Mid Baron Pollock and
Barons Bramwell, Chaanell, and Pigott.)

HARRISON V. DUNCAN. -BREACH OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
This was an action for breech of promise of merrier.,
tried at the last amine at York before Mr. Justice Black-
burn, and in which a verdict was found for the plaintiff,
damages 11001.
Mr. Temple now moved on the part of the defendant to
reduce the damage., on the ground that they were excessive.
He said there could be oo doubt the premise of marriage
was clearly made out, and themes went to the jury entirely
on the questioa of damages. The only evidence as to the
circumstances of the defendant was that mime one had beard
him my that be expected to become a partner in the firm of
which hawses servant. It was true that he had an interest
under a will, but after making all the necessary deductions,
his whole worldly pousesiona did not amount to more than
7001. or 8001., and his salary was only 20e. a week. Under
them circumstances be submitted that the verdict for 6001.
was 're, and that the amount ought to be reduced.
He added, that if their lordships granted • rule the matter
would probably be arranged.
The Lord Chief Baron—Takes rule,

Rule nisi.
DICIER/JON V. NORTH turrEut RAILWAY OONIUNT.-I•ILWAT

Aocmiorr.—NOVlLL QUINTION.
This action waa brought under the act for commutating
the families of persons killed by &widen= the 9th and 10th
Viet., cap. 93, by the plaintiff, as edminierstrix of her
daughter, Hannah Dickens.=e who wee killed on the de.
feedante' railway, to recover compeusation in damages for the
lose she bad sustained by her death. She also sought to
roarer a en= for the benefit of the illegitimate child of the
deceased. At the trial, which took platy at the last =Mee
for Durham. before Mr. Justice Mellor the jury found •
sum for the plaintiff, but, under the direction of the learned
Jodie, did not give any damages in respect of the child of
the deceased, on the ground that it was illegitimate.
Mr. Pros, Q.C., now moved for • rule to show cause why
there should not be • new trial, on the ground of mis.
direetioe.

The Lord Chief Baron—ln what way is the child referred
to in the declaration
Mr. Price said in these terms—" William Dickenson, the
child of the deceased, an infant under seven years of ate,
who was entirely maintained and supported through the in-
dustry and exertions of the deceased." It was not stated
that the child was illegitimate. but there could be no doubt
it was, and that the mother entirely supported it, the
father being dead. The mooed section of the statute
enacted that the action should bo for the benefit of the
wife, husband, pared, and child of the person whose death
was caned, and the learned counsel contended that the
word "child" must be wand to include the deceased's
child, though it was ill He reminded the court
that the act was not mod ' tly to blood relations, as
the ioterpretatioa clause said that the word "child" should
Maude not only grandson and grandaughter, but also step-
son and stepdaughter.
The Lord Chief Baron—But the claims does not extend it
to • tastard

Mt. Pric• mid there were so words in the statute exatu-
diwnitimste child.
Chief Baron—The word " child" In an English
eat of parliament means a legitimate child, and nothing else.
boMr. Price laid he did not Bed that to be laid down in the
oks.
The Lord Chief Baron—There mut be no doubt about it.

Price, 11;;Iusgref;neaTo several aathoridss oo the
point, expressed a hope that the court would grant a rule, in
order that the matter might be further discussed.
The Lord Chief Baron—Certainly not. Wean all speed
that the word "child" in an act of parliament meow legiti-
mate issue, and I should be sorry to throw any doubt upon
it by granting a rula—Rule refused.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Nov. &
(Were the Judge Ordisery.)
CLINION r. CLINTON.

Dr. J. W. ftcnith;;;;cloabalt;ll;lthe petitioner, who
seeks a judicial separation from her husband, Lord Thomas
Mateo, that a 0519.Minal011 to take evidence io Fraooe might
issue.

Dr. Wambsy, for the respondeot, did not oppose the
application, but stated that Lord Thomas Clinton was at
preseot residing in Paris ; that his means were very air-
cumecribed, being only an allowance of about 4001. • year
from his brother, the Duke of Newcastle.
The Judge Ordinary raid the parties should agree upon
the name of a gentleman to whom the cominimaion might go,
and ordered accordlogly.
Dr. Smith proposed, and Dr. Wambsy sweated to the
appointment of Mr. Abel, of the common law bar, iLis corn-
missionsr for the purpose named.