The Express.
London, England, 1862-01-22 00:00:00

tab) inallistnce.

COURT OF COMMON PULLS. —J AN. 21.
Bittiap v Mai Prim iv Middlesex.—(Bator Mr. Justice
Bytes sad • Common Jag.)

GIB!BT s.

The plaintiff, Madame Colombo Gibertoarenchwoman,
sued the defendant, an auctiasseread boo agent, melding
in the neighbourhood of Porthailkild mover damson
upon the ground that certain tams wad upon iu re-
ference to the letting of a home were lot fulfilled, and
certain representations made were nob true ; sod soma
curiosity warn excited by it having hen nineared that the
plaiatiff win living under the probation eta while lord, who
is a peer of the realm, and win} It Wirma=l"might
probably be compelled to appear in the
Mr. Serjsant Parry and Mr. Grafitti apparel he ao
plaintiff, and Mr. Huddleaton and Mr. Prudisa kg the ille•
feedsat.

Ia opening the case it was stated that in uts Maims,
Gibed wanted to rent a house, and peeing the defendant's
office she saw &statement that the boa"
_llk Mortimer-
street, Oavendish.emare, was to let. Sim eeßeil on the de-
fondant, aooompauied by her friend Emilie Stiff, also a I
Frenchwoman, and they were told that the mot was 841.
a year, and the fixtures 501. Mr. Abrahams said, "If you
take it for a year certain, I will get it for yea for three years
mere if you wish, and the 501. can thee became a deposit to
be returned when you leave." He also said that there were
to rates or taxes due, but if any demand were made the
parties could be referred to him. She took possession on
the Ist September, and soon after an application was made
for three quarters' waterrate, which she paid under a
threat of cutting the water off. At Michaelmas the supe-
rior landlord, Mrs. Fain*, claimed 21/. for a quarter's rent,
which the plaintiff paid, with the expensesel levying
for it. She also paid about 51. more for rake and
taxes, and at Midsummer Hee. Pam e her,
and she had to pay 121. for law coats, •
an expense of 15/. in removing. Subsequently the
for the return of the 501., when the defendant he
should keep it for Captain Baker, the gentleman for whom
be had acted in letting the home. The learned counsel
said he might add that Madame Caen wee living under
the protection of some person here in England, and therefore
she was not a lady of high character, and he understood
that threats had been made to expose publicly the name of
the gentleman under whose protection she was living. In-
deed, he heard that the other side had actually subpoenaed
the gentleman as a witness, though be had nothing what-
ever to do with the case ; but considering by whom the
defendant was represented today, he had hopes that no
needling pain would be inflicted on the gentleman to whom
be had alluded. _

Medal; Gibert pve evidence in proof of what her
counsel had stated.

we'rtiei-exiMilsed by Mr. Buddleston—Madame Stiff is
a dressmaker, at North Busk, Bt. John's-Wood. We
mentioned Madero' LilWte to the defendant as our re-
fereoce, and she also is a dreumaker, residing in Titchfield-
street, Mortimer-street. I lived in lodgings in Beak-street,
Havant-street, before I went to Mortimer-street. I sow
live in Margareaotreet, Cavendish-square.
Mr. Huddleoton—(to the interpreter)—Ask her whether
she is on the town? _ . _

P77U;;ZI • understand the quertion. I was not
taken before the magistrute at Marlborough.street for
annoying gentlemen in the streets. (Polies-sortable Gordon
was called to confront the witness.)
Mr. Huddleaton— On the 21st November, 1837, were yon
not taken into custody by Gordon, whilst you were living
at 22, Mortimerotreet
Witness—Yee, I was.
Mr. Huddkoton—Wu not that for annoying gentlemen in
the streets . .

—Witness -No,
I was speaking to a lady friend of mine in
the street. I was taken before the magistrate, but Ido not
know what for. I did not give my name at the station. and
say I was • woman of the town. M. Albert interpreted the
charge to me before the magistrate.
Mr. Buddleston—ls that the only time you have been
taken into custody?
Wittier appealed to bin lordship to know whether she
was bound to answer the question?
His Lordship said she was.
Wittier—l was taken into custody one other time, bat it
was oat of bad feeling and falsehood. I was then living in
Goldeaeqnsre.
Mr. Boddleaton—Whom were you living with there
Witness again appealed to the bench.
His Lordship put it to the learned counsel whether he
felt bound to insist upon that question
Mr. Huddlestou—l will not insist upon it. (To the
witsess)—For the purposes of to-day we will call the gentle-
ness N. Quelqu'un. (Laughter.)
Witness—ho complaints were made of the manner in
width I conducted the house, 22, Mortimeretreet, because
I ems living there by myself. Nobody but my mother
' Bad with me. I received the visits of one gentleman only
at Mortimer.street. The defendant brought me an agree-
ment for letting the house to sign. M. Quelqu'un looked
Mit for me. I knew M. Quelrio'un before I went to
Moetimer-street. Mr. Abrahams did not ask me if I was
living under the protection of a gentleman, and I did not
say I was living with M. Quelqu un. Mr. Abrahams did
set rilithis=tsse Baker was only a yearly tenant of
Huldheese—Was the 501. for the goodwill?
Ni. Jentioe Bylea—What goodwill could there be to •
hew el this kind? (Laughter.)
Mr. Heddleetee —lt was a boardlng.hotise.
Witness—lt was not for goodwill. M. Quelqu'un mid
I aboaki not sign the agreement because it was a robbery.
N. Qeelqu'en did nut propose that I ahould be paid 100 L,
and have my carpets taken at a valuation, to go out.
It+ examined—l have been living under the protection of
the same gentleman since September, 1857, and I live in
Xargaretetreet, and have done so for three years. Daring
that period I have not been in the habit of walking the
streets. On the first occasion when I was taken into
custody, the officer had not seen me tells to any gentlemen
at all. The nett time I was charged wish etealusg a move-
reign from a gentleman, but nothing was found on se, and
be did not appear in the morning, and I was discharged.
To the Judge—l did not bring this action sooner bemuse
I was told I could get nothing by it. I consulted three
attorneys besides my present OD&
Mr. Iluddleake —Are you living with the wife of your
present attorney?
Witness—No, she lives with me.
Emilie Stiff gave corroborative evidence as to what took
place at the interview with Mr. Abrahams.
The further hearing of the ease was adjourned until to
morrow.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JAN. 21.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
ONTRIN C. GETHIN (BART.) AND THE OURF.N'IS PROCTOR
(INTIRVKNING).—BULB FOR NEW TRIAL REFUSED.
In this case Lady Gethin, had proved charges of cruelty
and adultery against her husband, an Irish baronet, named
Sir Richard Gethin, and the Queen's proctor having inter-
vened on the ground of collusion between the parties, and of
adultery said to have been committed by Lady Gethin with
• Mr. Ellis, both of those charges had been negatived by a
sPecial jury.
The Attorney• General, with whom was Bir F. Slade, for
the Queen's Proctor, now moved for a rule nisi
for • new trial, on the ground that the ver-
dict had been against the weight of evidence.
The learned attorney went over the leadiug facts of
the case, and enitended that the decision to which the jury
might reasombly have been expected to come was to hold
the charges proved. Ho also tendered the affidavits of the
Miss Dennys, with whom Mr. Ellis had lodged. These
ladies stated that they bad from motives of delicacy kept
back certain information which they might have given
the Queen's Proctor ; but that being present while Ceptain
Porley (Lady Gethin 's brother) end Mr. Ellis were under
'Lamination, they had been so astonished and disgusted at
the hardihood of those gentlemen, that they were now
ready to state all they knew. The circumstances which they
were now ready to depose to, and which had been also
sworn to by a servant, were mentioned by the reamed
attorney, and bad, be said, been stated by the witnesses to
the Queen's Proctor's clerk during the triaL
Sir C. Creswell observed that if the Queen's Proctor had
I known et these thiegs daring the trial and bed not thought
proper to oak the court for permission to suable the wit-
ewes to make an additional statement, how could lie DOW
ask for leave to submit them to soother jury?
The Attorney-General—L'ut the verdict was not then
known.

The Judge—Exactly so. Bat if the Queen's Proctor did
not feel inclined to take the chance of that jury's decision,
what right had he now to ask to have the decision al
another?

The Attorney-General was aware of the difficulties of the
case, but submitted that it would be for the interests of
justice that a new trial should be granted.
Sir C. Cromwell felt bound to reject the application. It
was not suggeated that the case had been improperly, sub. ,
matted to the jury ; or that the jury had wilfully rejected
mistimes which they ought to have examiderod, or believed
witnesses whose testimony they ought to have rejected. Ile
was not bound to say that he should himself have given the
same verdict, for the reelponsibility had not been throws
upon him of weighing the evidence; but it was obvious that
different persons might take very different views of the 1
same facts. Some might think that a lady who had led i
in the familiarities which Lady Gethin admitted to baseball
with Mr. Ellis would not hesitate to commit adultery;
es the contrary, would think that great familiarities=
twist between two persons who might nevertheless stop shoe
of the offence, sod would therefore feel tlismailves besadM
give them the benefit of the doubt ; or the jury might ham
adopted the argument of Mr. Macaulay, namely, time ff
the NM Denny., with all their listening at doors and peep
ha through keyholes, had not discovered more than they
had stated, there had been no more to discover. And that
aegament was not an unreasonable one. As to the affidavits,
he did not think the witnesses came before the court in any
very favourable light. They admitted that they had wil-
fuffy abstained from giving all the evidence they could, and
had thus deceived the Queen's Proctor and the court. Would
any subsequent jui be inclined alter that to receive their
statements I Awn, it was admitted that they had
desired Ur. Ellis to leave, because the neighbours
led begun to talk about his fainilimitv with
Lay firth's. But if they had really known that the act
of adultery wee being constantly committed and had allowed
Mr. Elie to retain Bair apartments till the neighbours
erased it, it wee probable that another special jury woad,
taelibiestely, but somewhat petamansly reject the mi-
a mak witissesen Am to the servant girl. she Ima