The Express.
London, England, 1864-12-21 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Dec. 20.

Sittings at Nisi Prius iu Looden.—(Before Lord Chief
Justice Erie and a Speeiul Jury.)

The whole of the day was occupied in trying cams arising
out of commerrial transactions, but the points involved were
of no general importance.
SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wills, and a Special Jury.)

MORN TilE LONDON GENERAL OVNIBCS COMPANT

(LIMITED).-Al

This was an action to recover damages for injuries sus.
tained by the plaintiff through falling from an omnibus
whilst alighting.
Mr. Kersl►ke, Q C.. and Mr. H. James appeared for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr.Gilfard for
tte defendants.

On the lull January last the plaintiff, who was a man
sixty years of age, and had been a coachman and omnibus
driver himself, got into a three-horse omnibus opposite the
Mataion.house. Has wife got into the vehicle with
him ; but the plaintiff soon afterwards left the
inside and seated himself upon the top of the
omnibus. They proceeded along unborn and Oxford-street,
and the omnibus pulled up at t►e corner of North Audley-
street to allow the plaintiff to get down. According to the
plaiutiff's case, he had got as far as the last step but one,
when the omnibus was driven on, and he was thrown into
the road. A Hansom cab was following, and the driver
being unable to pull up io time, the plaintiff was injured by
the cab. His bead was a good deal hurt, and the tips of
two of the left band hogers had to be taken off. The
plaintiff was taken to the hospital, where he remained for a
month, and when be came out he was in such a state that
he could not cross a road without assistance. The injury to
the bead had not yet entirely passed sway, for there still
remained a sense of heaviness and weariness, sod be could
n.,t remain in a stooping position for any length of time.
There was still a swelling upon the head, and so late as last
month there was a discharge from wounds there.
The case for the defendants was that there was no negli-
gence on the part of their servants. It was not true that
the omnibus moved on while the plaintiff was getting down,
but the accident happened in ttis way—when the plaintiff
got upon the last step but one, he paused, and said to his wife,
who was going on further, " You pay for both," and then
thinking he was nearer to the ground than he really wag he
stepped back and fell. The conductor went to his assistance,
and was shout lifting him up when the cab "whisked" by
and caused the accident.
The jury founds verdict for the defendant..

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
DEC. 20.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
conancGrox C. CODRINGTON AND ANDERSON.

Mr. Bovill. Q.C., on the part of Admiral Codriegton,
moved that the co-respondent he condemned in the coats
(tempt iu so far as they related to Lieutenant Mildmay.
Mr. Price, Q.C., on behalf of Colonel Anderson, resisted
the motion ou the ground that the conduct of the peti-
timer had diseutitled him to his costa. The learned gentle-
man contended that the intimacy which had existed between
the respondent had entirely grown out of the mode of life
which the petitioner himself had sanctioned. The admiral
had not exercised due vi„;ihnice over his wife, especially con-
sidering the peculiar terms on which they were living ; and
in that manner it might he said that he had in a certain
sense conduced to her misconduct. Moreover it was in evi-
dence that when she was desirous of renewing matrimonial
cohabitation he had repelled her advances, arid a husband
where married history bad been such was not one that had
a right to come before the court and ask for the condemna-
tion of the co-respondent in the cost.
Sivahey appeared on the same aide.
Mr. Bovill. iu reply, urged that the full court, in the
case of " Evens y. Evans and Robinson." had laid down the
general proposition that condemnation in the costs should
follow the proof of adultery ; and he submitted that there
was nothing in the present case to take it out of the rule.
The matters to which his learned friend referred had
been raised is the course of the trial, and his pleas had been
negatived by the jury. The fact was that it was Mrs. Cod-
rington who had declined to adopt the course of life which
her husband bad marked out for her. He was obliged by his
official duties to keep early hours, whereas when they went
into society she refused to come home with him. Besides,
there was the strongest possible evidence in the letter of the
respondent's own father that it was she alone who was re-
sponsible for the estrangement that had sprung up between
the parties.
. _

Dr. Spinks also addressed the court on behalf of Admiral
Codringion.
Sri J. P. Wilde said the Court felt entitled to remorse to
itself the amplest discretion in this question of costs. It
by to means followed that because a man was guilty of
adultery he must pay the buttoner.; expenses. The matter
must turn upon the conduct of the petitioner, of the no-re-
spondent, and of his wife. Ile proposed in this case care-
fully to examine that conduct ; and be would state on
another ixamion what his decision would be.
It was then arranged that the motions of the respondent
and the co-respondent for a new trial should be taken on
the second Thursday of next term.