The Express.
London, England, 1864-03-11 00:00:00

PAGE V. PAGE ♦ND REYNOLDS.

Mr. D. Brown and Mr. Searle for the petitioner.
The petitioner, a whiteseutb at Lynn, Norfolk, married
the respondent in 11,44t4. There were no children. The co-
habit►tson lasted till Jame, 1842, when the petitioner disco-
vered that his wife tad several titre spent the night with
his neighbour, the landlord of the Recraitiog Sergeant, at
the Royal Exchange, Wahoken, where they pared as Mr.
and Mrs. Harris, of Deckles. Hs therefore claimed a
divorce sad 290/. damages... . . .

The jury found • verdict for the husband. with 1001.
clunges.—Decree alai with costa.

circa r. PITCH AND WICKERB.-ADVIRTI3MG ►OR ♦ WWI.

Dr. Spioksand Mr. Searle were conneelfor the petitioner ;
and Mr. G. H. Cooper appeared to resist a claim for
damages, which, however, was abandoned before the own-
mews:sent of the case.

The petitioner, Robert Owen Fitch, married Elizabeth
M. Beet, a widow on the 3rd of Deoember, 1859. Mr.
Fitch, who had oleo been married before, had known the
respoodent a very short time previous to the wedding, and
it wu stated that be had made her acquaintance through
the medium of aa advertisement. The 00116016011 did not

turn out well. Mrs. Filch proved to be grossly addicted
to drookesness, and she was so violent is her cups that her
humband'a business materially suffered from her midooduct.
In March, If6o, a deed of separation was executed, and the
petitioner agreed to give her 261. a year in addition to an
inanity of 401., which she ►lready possessed. Latterly she
bad been found living with the corespondent, who had
agreed to marry her, but who had been induced at the lad
moment to dispense with the ceremony on ber suggesting
that she would lose her annuity if the wedding took plane.
Indeed, therefore, of going to church they went out of
town, and on their return they represented that they had
been mimed.
Verdict for the petitioner, decree nisi with rate.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCIIIT.—OInays peso, MARCH 10.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron had s Special Jury.)
PRENTICE V. R•VMOND.

Mr. M. Chanibesciie, Mr. Wooßatt, and Mr. Phil-
brick, were for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Leah, 4.c., and Mr.
Harmon for the defendant
This was • case similar to the one tried • shoes time back
at Hertford, and which was known as the oslabrated
" rabbit case." The plaintiff is • farmer soar Saffron
Walden. and h. brought the action against the defendant,
a clergyman of the church of England, who was his land-
lord, and who reserved the right of shooting over his farm,
to recover damages for having put down an excemive quasi-
tity of game upon the farm, whereby his crap were injured.
Mr. M. Chambers had only partially the ain-
life came when the Chia Baron interpons vaned
&amid kit was
clear that it could not sod there ; and be suggested that
the matter should be referred to some mratleman at the
bar, who should have the power to settle all matters in dif-
fences between the parties.
Both sides agreed to this being don., mad • nominal
verdict wise consequently returoed for the plaintiff, sub-
ject to a refers:ova
Another special jury case, " Stoughton v. Marion," which
was an action to recover damages for injuries sustained
through the negligenos of the defendant's servant which was
settled b the defendant agreeing to pay 2001. ; and this
co the busies= of these II•SiZ411,