The Express.
London, England, 1862-02-15 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 15, 1862.

b.. 3 Tested, not in the Lord Chamberlain, but in
the :sicretary of Mahe (or the Home Department;
auil if he imbed for testimouy on that subject he would
,u; witness the Lord (lambi:rim° himself, who had
guar to the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
and endeavoured to obtain hie ouocurrence in the step he
has taken. The fact of vesting theatrical armagernents in
tI Lord Chamberlain belonged to a state of things which
dol entirely pawed away. Is former days the theatres in
waristiou wen appeodages to Royal households, soil stall
the performers styled themselves " her Majesty's servants."
Rut thief system had become obslete, and the continued
jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain was a great sommily.
(Hear, beer.) The system having passed away, the juria-
&dim of the Lord Chamberlain should pass away also.
He thought it very desirable that at noise future
time the lordships should appoint • committee
to ascertain the state of the law ou the subject, and he was
sure that the result of such investigation would be to
simplify the ea'uusg system, and to place the regulation of
the theatres in the hando of the Secretary of State for the
Home Departeteet.

tab) intelligence.

COURT OF OOMMON PLEAS.—Fie. FL

Oitalap at Niai Prius is Loudon. —(Befors Lonl Chid
Justice Me sad • Special Jury.)

TOED P. Tait LUSDON AND SOUTH-MATZEN RAILWAY

OOXPAJT.

This oats, which was partly heard yesterday,waa resumed
this morning, and as far al it appears at present it seems
probable that the matter will last fur a considerable time
Wager.

SECOND COURT.
Bitting at Nisi Prim in London.—(Before Mr. Justice
Bytes and a Common Jury.)

COUGIHIN V. A7TRIDOZ-SLANDIR AND AMAULT.

________ ________ _
The plaintiff was employed in selling starch upon com-
mission, end he lived at Croydon. The defendant was the
son of a publican at Beddington ; and on the evening of
Sunday, the 6th October last, the plaintiff and some friends
went into the Running Horse, at Croydon. The defendant
was there, and io the proem* of twenty or thirty of the
plaintiff's neighbours he used very abusive language to the
plaintiff, said that he had taken a ring from his (the de-
fondant's) handkerchief, and:he was a thief. He also shook
his fist in the plaintiff's face, but he did not touch him,
nor did the plaintiff say in his evidence that he was in
fear of being struck. tinder thew circumstances the plain-
tiff claimed damages for slander and also fur an assault, and
the defeodast at lint pleaded that the alleged slander was
tree, bat subsequently he withdrew that plea and relied
upon "Not guilty."
His lordship ruled that there was evidence to sustain the
court for slander, and also that there was evidence of an
assault, although there was clearly no battery.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages W.

DAMELS V. HMITR-A TAMILS QUARREL.

Tho plaintiff, Mrs. Daniels, ens the sister of the defen-
dant, and ahe claimed damages for insult, for false impri-
sonment, and for troves%
. . . .

Mr. Liston appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Serjeaat
Petersdorff and Mr. Sleigh for the defendant.
The plaintiff's counsel stated that in the middle of 1861
James Smith, another brother of the plaintiff, returned!
from America, and they took a baker's business as partoen '
in Salisburyatreet, Bermondsey, the plaintiff furnishing
461. for that purpose. Shortly afterwards James shot him-
self and was taken to Guy's Hospital, where the defendant
maw him, and having obtained his signature to a document,
he went back claiming to have the right to dispose of the
business. A scuffle took place, in the course of which the
defendant knocked the plaintiff down with • stick, and
again struck her, so that she was Lid up for
ten days. For this assault the defendant was taken before
a magistrate and fined 15!. Thereupon he gave the plain-
tiff in change for stealing four bank notes, the property of
James, but the police refused to entertain the charge.
Another matter was that the plaintiff was married in 1838
to • person named Daniels, who deserted her and went
away with a servant. In 1850 the plaintiff married• man
named Kirkaldy, who also deserted her, and afterwards
she married a Mr. Payne. Subsequently she wu tried for
bigamy, and waa sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment.
liis Lordship, atter hearing the plaintiff's case, held that
there was oo evidence upon the count for false imprison-
ment, but that there was evidence aa to the counts for
assault and trover.

The defence was that the defendant had only interfered
at the request of James to protect his property ; and that
when going upstairs to get two boxes, which the plaintiff
did rot claim to have any lutenist in, she dew at him in •
frenzy, and tore his coat, struck, and scratched him. The
defendant raised his stick to keep her off by a sort of panes
routines ; but he truck her, or attempted to strike
her, though her head might accidentally have come in col-
lision with his stick. It was true he had been arid for the
assault, but this arose from the hurried manner in which
such charges were beard at police courts, aid from the
plaintiff not being able himself to give evidence there, and
also from his counsel, upon whom he relied, being absent
Another circumstance was, that the plaintiff had been re-
putedly offered back her 45/., which she herself said she
bed lent toJsmes, but that she refused to receive it, saying
that she would have 1001., for she intended to make a profit
by the transaction.
His lordship ruled that the conviction at the police court
disposed of the count for assault, so that the only remain-
ing question was the Mover.
The jury found • verdict for the plaintiff—damages 40s.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—FEn. 14.

Sittings et Nisi Prim at —(Before the Lord Chief
Bozos sad Swint Juries.)

BRAME T. THE LONDON AND NOWIII-WLITEIIM SAILWAT

001IPA17.

This wee an action brought by the pleiutiff to recover
for the negligence of the defendants, to which the
dam for
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Joyce were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Mr. C. Pollock, and Mr. Shaw
Ldevre represented the defendants.
It appeared that the plaintiff, a sorter io the employ of
the 'General Post-office, was travelling from Rugby on the
defendants' line when the engine exploded, killing the fire-
man, and throwing the plaintiff, by reason of the concussion,
from one end of the Post-ethos van to the other, causing him
severe injuries. The plaintiff was obliged to leave his
situation, and to seek the advice of medical men, who re-
commended him to go to the sea side.
The defence was that the company had been guilty of no
negligence, as the engine which exploded had been exa-
mined before SS well as after each journey.
His Lordship having summed up, the jury found for the
plaintiff, with damages of 1274 Ts.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
P. 14.
(Hdan' the Judge Ordinary.)

HODGES V. H0D068.-ANOTHER

MATCH._

Mr. Searle appeared for the petitioner, who sought a dis-
solution of her marriage on the ground of adultery and de-
sertion. In the year 1847 she was married privately to the
respondent, au ironmonger, at Bristol. They cohabited till
1849, when the respondent, having become addicted to drink,
and having neglected his business, fell into difficulties.
After that he obtained a situation, and was put into prison
for robbing his employers. Next he enlisted, and deserted.
Then he disappeared till 1851, when be came back to
Bristol, and took a coffee-bouse, where he had lived with •
woman named Nation. Finally be left again, and was sup-
posed now to be in America with his paramour. After the
separation Mrs. Hodges returned home, and bail resided with
her parents ever since.
The Court made a decree nisi, with costs.

bIACKINLIE V.

The petitioner, the wife of Mr. Robert Shelton Mackenzie,
sought • dissolution of her marriage on the grouud of
bigamy. The respondent we., in 1851, registrar of the
Court of Bankruptcy in Maneheater, and was in the receipt
of 2,0001. a year. He married in that rear the petitioner,
who was the daughter of a respectable solicitor in that city
but in the following year Its was dismissed from his office
by the Lord Chancellor. to August, 1852, be left Man-
chester to corn, to town, but in fact he went to New York,
where he became the editor of • newspaper. In 1854 he
invited his wife to join him, which she did ; and after • time
he proposed to her that she should travel about the Union
as an actress. She declined to do so, and be thee refused
to maintain her. She afterwards retuned to England, and
had since been living with her father. There was one child
of the marriage. It had lately been ascertained that the
respondent had gone to Philadelphia, where he was editing
the Press daily paper ; and that he had married in 1858 •
Miss Harriet &rimier, of Baltimore, by whom he bad bad
two children. The respondent waa a D.C.L, and bad been
connected with the English preen.
Mr. Serjeant Pigott and Mr. Davison appeared for the
petitioner.
The Court made a decree nisi, with cats.
GALL V. GALIL—BIGANT RITIAORDINARS.

The respondent, Gloucester Gale, wee a commercial tan-
yeller, and it appeared that in the cause at two or three
years be had amused himself by marrying no fewer than
thirteen wives. At List he was arrested ; he pleaded
guilty, and had been sentenced to five years' penal servi-
tude. The petitioner had been a ?dies Elise Cecilia Gee,
and she was married to him in January, 1849. The bigamy
proved in this court had been committed with Sarah Ann
Drouet, with whom be had gone through a form of mar-
riage under the name of George Geer, at St. George's,
Hanover-square, on the 3rd of May, 1858. He deserted her
after gee days' cohabitation.
Dr. Wambey appeared for the petitioner.
The Court made a decree nisi, with ooeta.

secutor heard no more of him, and finding that lie had been
defrauded, when he met the prisoner, he gave him into
custody.
In reply to an inquiry from the magistrate, prosecutor
said he had sicerwiaed that the letter was forged, sod
added, in answer to the prisoner, that Wickwicles name was
in it.

--
Prisonor solicited an adjournment for the attendance of
his solicitor.

Joseph Andrews, 69 B, mid he took charge of prisoner,
who east Clarke owed him 20/., and if he had had some of
his money, he had plenty in hand to pay him with.
Mr. Arnold observed that the prisoner ought not to have
been taken into custody by the police upon this charge_; it
was only • misdemeanour. and application ought to have
been made by the prosecutor to • magistrate for a summons
or • warrant.

The accused was held to tail on his own recognisamoss to
appear on Thursday.