The Express.
London, England, 1862-08-14 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME 011tCUIT.--017ILDIMED, Ammar 13.
(Before Carole Bramwell end a Common Jury.)
PROCTRI V. 131C07T.
. .

The plaMtiff in thisaction----nraTiLy Anne Procter, and
she sued the defendant, Geroge John Scott, who was her
brother-in.law, to recover a sum of 281. odd for board and
Wring and money lent. The defendant pleaded a variety
of pleas, and among them one that the plaintiff was a mar-
ried woman and that her husband was alive, and conse-
quently she had no right to bring the present action. The
ease was one of a eery extraordinary nature.
Mr. Denman, Q.C., and Mr. Edward Bosley appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were
counsel for the defendant.
Mary Anne Procter, the plaintiff. wu examined, and she
deposed to the circumstances under which she claimed
the debt from the defendant.
Mr. Hawkins then proceeded to croamexamine her upon
eerrtaio matters having reference to the claim, but the
horned judge interposed, and observed that if there wu
anything in the plea of coverture, if the fact of the plaintiff
being a married woman and that her husband was alive
could be proved, there was an end of her case.
The plaintiff was sccordiugly croon-examined upon this
point, and in answer to the questions put to her by Mr.
Hawkins, she said—More than twenty years ago 1 was
married to a man named Richard Rolling, at King, Lynn,
Norfolk. I never saw him again after the marriage, and 1
ahoukl not know him again if I were to see him.
Mr. Hawkins— What sort of a man was he

Witness—At that time be was a young man, but I don't
recollect whether be was short or tall, or stout or thin, nor
bow he was dressed, but I think he had • blue coat 00. (A
/saga.)
Hu Hawkins—Well, I don't know whether or not it will
be agreeable to you, but you shall have an opportunity
of seeing your husband again before this case is over.
(Laughter.)
The plaintiff then went on to state that she left her hits-
bud directly after the marriage, or at all events on the same
evening. She and her husband went to his father's house,
and as altercation took place between them, and she left him
and went tack to her own father's, and she never saw him
M 2.
r. Hawkins—What was he?
Witness—He was a fisherneui, and kept smacks. I only
'married him to please my friends.
Baron Bramwell—How old were you when this marriage
Seek place
Wanes-061y fifteen.
Br. Hawkina—How many more times have you been
married?

Witness—l decline to answer such a question as that.
Kr. Denman observed that if her alleged husband &filing
we. alive she could not have contracted a marriage.
Baron Bramwell said he was not sure that the witness
was bound to answer the question, because if she really was
married Milano, and married another man afterwards, she
might be indicted for bigamy.
r. Hawkins said she had nothing to fear on that score,
fir she had been already tried sod convicted of that offence.
The learned counsel then put some further questions to
the witness in cross-eminination, and in answer to them she
mid that twelve years ago she was tried for bigamy and
isoimicted in consequence of her having contracted a second
marriage with a man named Johnson. She added that she
bad only been married twice—once to this person and once
to Rolling.
Baron Bramwell to the witness—Do you really mean to
my that you know nothing about your first husband Rol-
ling, or whether be is alive or dead?
Witnees—l do, my lord. I never inquired after him, and
I don't know what became of him. (A laugh.)
Kr. Hawkins mid they had got him there, and the plain-
tiff should see him before the case was over. She would
lave an opportunity, if she liked, of going back with hits to
King's Lynn, where, as the story book said, they might
lave children, and live happy ever afterwards. (Laughter.)
Baron Bramwell said, if the first husband was there, they
lad better oil him at once, and there would be an end of
the Plaintiffs ease.
&Obeid Rolling was then called, and a middle-aged man,
having the appearance of a fisherman, quickly made his ap-
pearance in the witness-boa, amid a roar of laughter from
the persons in the court.
Mr. Hawkins then put in a certificate, by which it sp.
that Mary Anne Procter, spinster, was married to
geared
Richard Rolling at the parish church of St. Margaret,
King's Lyon, Norfolk, on the 17th December, 11135.
Mr. Hawkins then addressed the witness—l believe your
name is Richard Rolling, and that you were warned in the
year 1835, at King's Lynn, to a person named Mary Anne
Procter!

Witnias—Yea.
Mr. Hawkins—ln a blue coat? (Laughter.)
Witnem—Ys.

Mr. Hawkins said this wax all he proposed to prove with
1%1 to the t marriage.
tint
submitted that it was not sufficient, and
that the identity of the parties was not established. It was
• most shabby defence, and he felt it his duty to defeat it
if it was possible.
Baron Bramwell said he Agreed with the learned counsel
that the defence au a shabby one, but at the same time he
thought there could not be any doubt that the plaintiff was
married iu It to the man who had that day made his

appearance.
Rolling was then croes-examined by Mr. Denman. He
said that the person to whom he was warned did not go
away from him on the day of the ceremony, but lived with
bias four or five days. He also said that Rolling and Procter
were both common names at King's Lynn, and there were •
good many of them still living there. His wife went away
bom him very shortly after the marriage, and he never
made env immiry after her, or endeavoured to ascertain
what had become of her. (A laugh.)
Baron Bramwell—Well, you have seen the person who
has been examined to day—is she your wife to whom you
were married io 1835?

Witnem-1 caught a glimpse of her, and I am pretty sure
Ate is my wife. (Laughter.)

Mr. Denman-Willou swear positively that she is the
woman to whom you were married?
Witness—No, I will not ; but I believe she is. (Renewed
laughter.)

lir. Diemen then addressed the jury for the 'plaintiff,
and said that notwithstanding the evidence that bad been
given to make out this shabby defence, be should ask them
to say that the marriage in 1835 had not been proved, or
that at all event. it was not established beyond the possi-
bility of doubt that the man Rolling and the plaintiff were
the ?emote who were so married. It was proved that there
were a number of other persons of the same name at King's
Lyme, and with regard to one portion of the evidence given
by Rolling, that the person to whom he was married lived
with him several days after the marriage, whereas the
plaintiff swore that she left her husband the same night, it
was an important contradiction, and be submitted that
seder all the circumstances the jury would be justified in
coining to the conclusion that it hail not been established
that the plaintiff was married to Rolling in the year 1835. He
thee observed that this man was sprung upon them at the
last moment, and they bad not bad the least opportunity
of making any inquiries about him, and he urged that a per-
see who could put forward a shabby defence such as this
was very likely to procure the certificate of marriage of
other persons in ardor to support it.
Berth Bramwell in summing up said that Mr. Denman
bad done quite right in pressing his view of the ease upon
the jury, but after all the only question for them to con-
sider wa. whether the plaintiff was married in the year
1835 to the mall who had that day come forward and
claimed her for his wife. The defence was undoubtedly a
shabby cue, but alebliy as it was, that was no ground, and
it would bo a very lamentable thing if it were allowed to be
ao. to justify them in returning a verdict contrary to the
evidence sod to the dictates of their own consciences.

The jury, after deliberating for a short time, maid they
were of opinion that the marriage had beer proved, and
they then returned a verdict for the defendant upon the
idea of coverture.

VERNON V. BHT&

&dean! &Ranting and iir.l:axTOnwere for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. G. Travels and Mr. Hugh Williams for the defen-
dant.

The plaintiff in this action sought to recover from the de-
feadaot, Captain Dorton Rh); the manager or lessee of
Sadller's Wells Theatre, damages for the breach of an en-
gagement that he bad entered into with him fur his profes-
sional services at that theatre during the present season. It
apper.reii that in the month of April the plaintiff had en in-
terview with Miss Catherine Lucette, the directress of the
theatre, at the oleos of Mr. Dudley, who acted as the agent
of Captain Rhys, in Agar-street., and that an engagement
was entered into with him for six months as " first walking
gentleman," and Ile was to receive a salary of 21, per week,
the agreement stating that the engagement was to be subject
to the rules and regulations of the theatre. The plaintiff,
it appeared, WAS never called upon to perform, but at the
end of a fortnight be received a fortnight's notice, that his
services would not be required at the expiration of that
period, and the present action was brought to recover the
residue of the engagement.
For the defendant it was contended that according to
" the rules and regulations" of the theatre it was customary,
although an engagement might be made for the perMd of
six months, to terminate it by giving a fortnight's notice,
bat there was no evidence that any such rule had ever been
brought to the notice of the plaintiff, or indeed that
such a rule was in existence at the time the engagement was
entered into with the defendant.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 481.

This was another action of a similar character against the
lame defendant, who not only pleaded as in the first case
SIM he was justified in discharging the plaintiff according
to the rules and regulation of the theatre, but that he was
also justified on the ground that the plaintiff was incompe-
tent to l erfonn the duties for which he was engaged.
Baron Bramwell having summed up, the jury almost im-
mediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff. damages 501.
Traven applied that execution should be stayed in both
unions until term. With regard to the case that bad just
bees disposed of, be reminded his lordship that a good
deal of evidence had been given in support of their plea,
sad they wished to have time to consider whether it was
advisable to apply for a new trial.
Berjeant Ballantine opposed the application, and said that
iaee the verdict had been delivered a notice had been
given to the defendant to oome to the theatre that night
sad perform. (A laugh.) This was a pretty good answer
he their own plea that he was incompetent
After some discumton his lordship directed that execution
Heald inane in the first action to four days, but that in
the giber it should be stayed until seat term.