The Express.
London, England, 1864-01-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ITEM DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vice-Chascollor Er W. P. Wood.)
LOW O. 1:14116-np:1,0111NT.

This suit was instituted for the purpose of restraining
the dateedante, who are merchants in the City of London,
from rebuilding on the site of No. 27,Mincing-lace, a new
house, without preserving therein the ancient lights and
windows belonging to the old message steadies there, and
also to restrain them from impeding a carriage way which
wider the old house into Bell-yard there and.
owed
from building any wall at the tack of their
premises otherwise than on the ancient back front
of No. 27, Mincing-lane. The plaintiff is the free-
holder of the premises above referred to, and
on the 11th of May last granted a re-building lease to
the defendants, for a term of 93 years, of the promises in
quietism. In this lease the defendant, covenanted te re-
build a sew hour and premises suitable for merchants' and
&aloof counting-houses and male-rooms to the value of
3,0001. sterling It was also declared in the lame that
ench of the windows sad lights in the new house, as occu-
pied the site of ancient lights, should have all the rights
of ancient lights ; and also that, in such rebuilding, the
right of tech entrance into the court and gateway known
se Bell-yard, and the right of carrier way 'through
Bell-yard, should be preserved. It appeared that the els-
(adults were rebuilding the premises in the rear on a dif-
forest line from the line of the ancient lack hoot, and also
in snob a way as to impede the wow down Bell-yard.
Mr. Holt, Sr Hugh Cairns, Mr. heed, acid Mr. Cotton
I were in the rase.
The Vice-Chancellor said that the first question which
had been made in the case was whether the interest of the
plaintiff was not too remote and of too little value to
entitle him to come to this court for an injonctioe. Upon
' this question be was decidedly in favour of the plaintiff. It
was perfectly possible that the lease granted to the defend-
ants might at any moment be determined, and thus the
plaintiff's interest transformed into an interest in porn-
.ion, and in the face of the enormous changes which were
now going on in this city it was impossible to say
what might be the value of the plaintiff's interest.
The east point rained was that there bad been ac-
quire:ea& on the part of the plaintiff, but this
the evidence failed to juttify. The question was therefore
reduced to the meaning of the covenants, and upon these
his Honour had no doubt that the defendants were bound to
build upon the same lines as the old building, and that the
way into Bell-pad must sot be impeded. The quad& as
to ancient rights was more difficult. Under all the drcum-
steno's the courtthought the following order would meet the
justice of the ease i—Restrein the defendants from building
the main bock wall of the premises otherwise than on the
same site sad the same limas formerly ; also from erecting
the same mimeo la soh meaner as sot to preserve the
back way into Bell-yard and the right of carriageway
thereto. The defendants must pay all costs up to the
hearing, and there most be liberty to the plaintiff to apply
in the event of the defeedants doing anything which should
limit or obstruct the ancient lights of the old premises.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Jades Ordinary.)
ZOWLIT V. ROWLIT.—JUDONINT.
far James Wilde gave sentence this morning on • question
as to the mode of trial ; and virtually dismissed the petition.
Mn. Rowley had so loeg ago as raly, 1844, left her hus-
band, who thereupon commenced proceeding for a ratite-
tics of his conjugal rights. She pleaded adultery and
cruelty in answer, and prayed for a divorce • mews et
thou ; but the husband ultimately succeeded in obtaininf.
• decree which was unarm& by her Majesty in mu
Mrs. Rowley returned to her husband to June, 1854, but in
the following November, she main left him ; end she had
Bedlam renewed the cohabitatioo. On the 25th of February
IWO alle filad bee petition in this court for • di/sciatica on the
ground of cruelty end adultery, Nome of the charges being
Kier to the dale of her previolui suit. The ORM came oe for trial
before Sir Creswell Cromwell sod • special jury in the year
1801, but air agreement wee come to between the parties.
and the suit wee withdrawn. Mrs. Rowley undertook that
die would sot institute any further proceedings in this
court. Mr. Rowley alleged, and Mrs. Rowley did not deny,
that he had faithfully executed his part of the agreement ;
but Mrs. Rowley had neverthelem Naked leave to have her
petition once more set down for trial. Sir Cresawell Cromwell
had refused to allow that to be done unless all these charges
of cruelty and adultery prior to the date of the agreement
were withdraw.. Yrs. Rowley again asked the court to
direct the mode of trial ; Lod to that the respondent bad
pleaded the agreement It had been ingeniously argued
that acts of adultery subsequent to the specimen%
would revive the cruelty. Now, though there
might be use.. in which as agreement to live apart
would not bar • person's right to institute a suit of media-
Moe, the court did not think that after a direct bargain
sot to avail herself of the remedy afforded by this court, the
petitioner could come forward and ask leave to proceed. The
present suit wee, in fact, a grow breach of good faith.
If cohabitation was to be no longer eoutianed, and choice
was to be made between • legal sad public remedy and the
voluntary ad private snsegeenent, who could doubt be-
tween them? F.:Fetus, exposure, uncertainty ; the ex-
hibitioa in open court of vows broken and duties riegle
to the great scandal of the public upon whom it was forced
aa well as the parties to whom it was the sole legal resort—
such was the price that must be paid for a remedy which
began by brining the marriage tie into disrepute and ended
by impairing or dissolving it. In contrast to this a
voluntary agreement to live apart almost ceased to
be an evil, and should find no lack of favour
from the court when it was designed to replace the greater
evil of a public judicial esperatioa. The result was that the
court &dined to farther Mrs. Itowley's aunt by giving any
directions for the mode of trial, and on proper application
would entertain the question whether the husband wee not
entitled to be disinter& from this suit.

OWLNE v. O'KANK AND PALMERSTON
(VISCOUNT). . . . .

Thk obis, vide bas given ries to so much private gossip
end so may mysterious hints la some of the newspapers.
wooed to the lki ter the first time this morning.
The knowing b a sops of the petition,:
"la Hat linisety's Court of Divorce sad Matrimonial

Is the malts d Timothy Joseph O'Faus, of No. 21,
favernme-rasd, Bayswater, in the county of Middlesex,
madman, dated the 19th day of October, is the year of our
Len& 188&
"OWN& 1. That year petitioner as the led el October,
1861, lawfully menial to Margret Matilda Augusta Morris,
of 'No. 2, Johaolnet, Sattemetreet, Conmeroial.read
East, in the mid sounty ref itiddlasex, spinster, at St.
George's.in.the.fient, in the mid musty of Middlesex.
"2. That atter his mid maniacs, your petitiouer lived
sad cohabited with his add wife at No. 2, Jobasdreet,
lietteasitrest,Oommerdalmsed Eastaformaid, at Gramma,
in the coauty if Kant, at Ding* Killarmy, sad Treks, all
fa the comity of Berry, in War& and at 26, Grove-place%
Brampton, la the county if Niddluser, and that time wm
isms to the mardsge, via., use ma sad four davit tan.
"3. That an about the Mk day of Jew, 1883, sad at
divers Misr days sad times, at Cambridge Hones. No. 9t, Pio-
sedilly, fa the mid meaty of Middlesex, sad at divas other
pima, the mid Kumasi Matilda August& O'Kasie coup
adtted adultery with me Hoary Jobs Temple Visa:mat
Pakassakm, K.G., First Lord of her Majesty's Treasury.
" Year mititioais therefore humbly prays that this ho.
aansabk mart will be pleased blames end declare the said
manias* et year petitioaer and the said Margaret Matilda
swift O'llane to be limbed. And that . your petitkmer
may have swab farther and other relief in the pregame ea
to this lamicauable mart may seam meet. Aid your
*Mow skim Sweaty theinsand monads damages spinet
the said Henry Jahn Temple, Viseceset ?absentia, &0.,
FIRM Lord of her Majesty's Treasury. •

. .
" And your potitiosor will soar pray. too.,
. TIMOTHY Joss,* (Main."

This petition was Sled es the 19th of October last, sod was
=yid epee the respoadent oa the 21st of October. The
Ireopeeiaire lobo:tor, Yr. Charts Horsley. of 2, Staples.
km, entneed se appearance for her on the 25th of October.
The regandiare mower was died os the 11th of December,
denying Sod the alleged marriage, and secondly the alleged
ednikey. Oa the 17th of November an order wee obtained
by the aside ocerapoodeet for the delivery of partieulan of
the thee and plasm of the alleged marriage and of the alleged
adultery. This enter had not been complied with.
Yr. D. Seymour, Q.C., now moved that the petitioser be
dlreseed be supply them particulars within a certain times
ar that the petition should be dismissed. la support se
this 'Wieldier the learned gentleman quoted the ems it
" Here v. Bare" sad " Steward v. Steward" (Las
vol. 8), and mateeded that the presset ems was stM Amager.
Mr. fleyesser la the Goan of his areemeet cited as affidavit
of Yr. Horsley aceiniang time welds :—" Lae*, I say I
verily Were that the petition was presented, sad tied, sad
eared fee mopes= ei adenine oily, and that the pe-
titioner has Be ere upea the snerite,"
Sir Jens Wilde—This Witt* like all the mune of the
country, to open to all suitors, but it is a very removable
priesiple that whoa a preen is bringing others into court be
I siondd premed with reasoesble espeditica, after be lam
bowed the matter to issue. If that Is true of other courts, It
Istasailly tree of the Ned of Divorce, wherein cheigen
are wade which involve the reputation of those who are
&sag into men, sad this eosin cannot tolerate
ler a memeet any great of reasonable expedition
whisk maybe looked for en the part of the petitioner. In
this ems the men we. asked to make sense order
In* mud partieelme, bet the nopeedent haZi=
meweved is set' solved to make sea ae
Sat eke hes a right to Wel en the petitiosier preeseding.
I will Swaim make se eider au the Finless, to show
came se the next rnotioe day (Tuesday) why he should not
proceed, or why the petition should not be dismissed.