The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-25 00:00:00

WBRNEEIDAY SVENING; FEBRUARY - 25, 1863.

At the time it we dhicretianazy power vested in the judges
it was hardly indicted in a single awe, in cioneequenos
the great 'Median Ida& jurors entertained to the elms
d pinkAment width their verdict of guilty was likely to
indloj upon prisoners. He was unwed that in isene=emagen
cl that Volwiectiotuendiag as
ninrany perm= cheep& with
that to their guilt there Ina na
=d•whittever. Thews were matters that should be fully
considered when the bill came Wore the home tor noted
rending.
Leave wee the. given to bring a the bill.
RIOIHNERATION TO ATHO Rd.

Mr. AYBtON moved for leave to bring is a bill under
which jurors would be entitled to remunerative in certain
cases. The claims upon the time of kerma lad of lahs
greatly increued, and be proposed that when they were
called on es • matter of mavenience to suitors to perform a
duty not out upon them in former times, name, to act
in antes sot originating ia the county in which they sent,
they should be entitled to receive a fee of 7s. etch.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL mid he would not oppose
the introduction of the bill, but wished to be understood se
not oommittaig himself to its principle.
Leave wu then given to bring in the bill.

tato IntoUttar,.
EQUITY COURTS.—Fna. 24.
(Before Vies•Chaziosike Or J. Blurt.)
In the worse of the du the Vire-Chummlior mid he had
beim eked to fix special days for the hearing of some oases,
in which witnesses were to be examined vie* woe, mft
court ; bat his honour 'imbed it to be im&ratoW that if
such aims were so set down for special bearing that mast
NAM an way interims with the des heariag al say caws
that might stand Wan them in Ilia list.

COURT OF QUKIN'S BENCH.—Fan. 24.
After Term sittings at Nisi Prins at GullelhalL-0/41fore
bard Odd Justice Cockburn and • Special Jury.)
ins v. ROLM --MMOULAR CAM.
This was an action of • very peculiar and eztraordinary
description. The action was blamed by Dr. G. N. Epps,
to recover of the defendant the ma of 1271. for
medical attendanoe on his We. The defendant pleaded
never indebted.

Kr. Berjeant Parry and Mr. Wd were coning fee the
plaintiff ; Mr. &leant liallantine and Mr. J. Browne were
eoltybal for the defendant.

—Mr. Synt Parry, in stating the eau I. the jury, said
she plain • wake medical man of some years' standing, end
the defendant was a wealthy member of *Meek
and the action wan brought to recover the ems efF4471.%
medical attendance on the defendant's wife, from Feturery,
1861, to February, 1862. The circumstances of the ease were
very painful, though he was afraid they were not peculiar.
The plaintiff it would appear had attended Mrs. Mont
in a very subtle uterine disease, combined with severe imi-
tation. He attended her first at Georgeetrest, Portman-
square, and afterwards at Battersea.
Mr. Sujeant 13affentine said be should not trouble the
plaintiff about theattendenees, or the charges, or that the
defendant was a man of considerable means. The question
was one purely of liability.
Mr. Serjeant Parry said he was afraid they would not be
able to avoid entering into the painful facts of the cau.
The question did not resolve itself into one of mere liability.
The husband was liable fee his wife unless he had been
legally relieved and excused from it.
The Lord Chief Justice—Are the parties living together?
Mr. Serjeant Parry—No. They are
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine said that the facts were not much
in dispute, and the sole question wu whether the lady was
the defendant's wife. lirshe was his client was responsible,
end the money would be immediately paid.
The Lord Chief Justice—Were the parties living together
at this time ?•

Serjeant Parry maid they were not.
Mr. flereant BsMuth.* maid they had not lived together
for man years.
Mr. t Parry said that in 1861 and 1862 this lady
was suffering from this disease, which required special at-
tendance, and involved very considerable expense. It
would appear that on the 2cid of July, 1846, the defendant
was married to this lady at Mary!shone Church. They
lived together till 1814, sad in May of that year a wart
tion took place, into the obnumataaass cif which he not-
intend to enter. On the 12th al May, 1864, Mr. Rush,did
the
defendant's solicitor, wrote Mrs. 'keels at the defendant's
request, stating that be would allow her 1,0001. a year, pay-
able monthly in advance, to prevent the neassoity of her
incurring any debts. He stated that he weld not be an-
swerable for any debts that she might incur, and that
she was distinctly to understand that she had no
authority to pledge his credit in any way.
The jury would see that that allowance was liberal, and if
it had been continued there would have been no need of
that action. The allowance, however, was reduced to 5001.
a year, and afterwards to 2501., which was the sum that
was now paid to the lady. He was not aware of any
conduct on the lady's part to dieentitle her to thy, full
amount of the first allowance. The learned counsel amid
that where a person warn held out to the world as the wife of
the person represend, though actually unmarried, the
man was liable for the debts so contracted. In this ease,
however, there were the additional facts of the parties having
been married, and of living together as man and wife.
The certificate of marriage was put in and read. It wee
dated god July, 1846, and was between William Morris
and Harriet Jones They were married at Marylebone
Church.

---Dr. Epps deposed to his attendance on Mrs. Morris.
Mary Jones, a midwife, was called to prove that the de-
fendant and Mrs. Morris lived together as man and wife.
She produced a thick memorandum book, covered with
brown paper, to refresh her memory.
Mr. Sequent Ballantine—ls that your ledger ? (Laughter.)
Witness—No. She attended on Mn. Morris when she
lived with her husband, and afterwards in Westboorne-
terrace, after the separation. She wee treated by the
defendant as the mixture of his house and his wife. She
did not attend her for • confinement.

This was the plaintiff's cue.
Mr. Serjeant ]fallantioe said the plaintiff's conned had
not informed them of the real circumstances noder which

the defendant had brought the ease into court. It was not
• cue for charges to be made on either side, nor was there
any neoemity for their inquiring into the occurrences that
had led to the separation. There was no doubt that the
pasties were married aa had been stated, mid lived together
for many years afterwards. Something, however, occurred
which rendered it obligatory on the part of the defendant to
separate from his wife. He first allowed her 1,0001. per
annum, which was afterwards reduced to 6001., and had
since been reduced to 2601., but for what reason those
sums had been diminished he did not propose to show.
The defence to the action was one of • purely
technical description, viz., that the lady was
• married woman at the time she married the defendant,
and that the first husband was now alive. If that were so,
there was an end of the asses as the defendant was not her
husband. The defendant had no desire to leave the lady
destitute, but circumstances had rendered it neoeseary that
he should defend this action.
Thomas Pearce deposed that in 1841 he was butler to
Mr. Wm. Clowns, of Parliament-street. He had a son named
Edward, who was married on the 11th September, 1841,
to Emily Harriett Geraldine Terry, at Kennington Church.
The lady was 17 years of age. Mr. Edward Clomps was
above age. In Jaamiry, 1855, he saw the lady before the
Hertford magistrates charged with forgery. He had not
seen theago. lady sines He maw Mr. Edward Claws about •
week
Mr. limb, defendant's solicitor, deposed that the lady
before the Hertford magistrates was the Derwin the de-
fendant married at Marylebone Church. He remembered
the circumstances of the separation, and made the necessary
arrangements for it.
Cross-examined—He always communicated with her as
Mrs. Morris. The charge of forgery wasffirderrid
Owen, manager to Messrs. Collins, Oxford.
street. She was committed fort the indictment
was not prosecuted. Mr. Moher with money
for her defence, but he was a witness against her. She was
paid every fortnight her allowance.
By Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—The charge had reference to
a 1,500 f. bill. The defendant was sued for it, and he denied
the signature as being his.
By Mr. Serjeant Parry—He had heard the defendant
say that he was aware of the first marriage when the
second took place. Ihe defendant was under the impres-
sion that he could marry, believing she had bean divorced
from her first husband. The question of the legality of
the marriage was raised rat Hertford, when the defendant
was admitted u • witness against her. There was no record
of a divorce in the Home of Lords, but there was fi mend
et thorn in the Arches Court. He requested her not to use
the name of Morris, but she persisted in doing so.
Some further evidence having been given for the dein.
dan
Mr.
Serjesnt Ballantine addrused the jury for the de-
fendant, contending that he was not liable.
Mr. Serjeant Parry said the question was, had the de-
fendant, notwithstanding the circumstances, held the lady
out to the world as his wife, and clothed her with his
credit ? The defendant had never repudiated bar to the
public, but had permitted her being addressed by the attor-
ney and the money sent to her in the name of Morris.
The Lord Chief Justice remarked that the separation was
in 1854, and the debt was not contracted till 1861.2. His
lordship having summed up,
The jury returned • verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCREQUER.—FIB. 24.
Bitting' at Nisi Prins at Guildhall.—(Before Lard Mat
Baron Pollock and a Special Jury.)
RTAVILN v. TIM COON-PROP OP WALD/MR/PM
(Concluded front yesterday's Express.)

Mr. Bevan, the plaintiff, erese-examined I resided
in Paris. I owed moss than 50,0001, all of which is
now satisfied. I was outlawed, but the outlawry
was removed. I received a cheque for the 1,1611.
from Mr. Lathes, and banded the money to Eari
Waldegrave in bank notes, either on his way to the House of
Lords or in the house itself, for the purpose of paying the
Edinburgh bills. I sometimes disbursed money for him,
bat on most occasions I did not. I have no memorandum
of the payment, or any entry of it in any books. I changed
the cheque at Mr. Labee's banker's. I cannot charge my
memory now of the exact Art. when I gave him the
money. The earl declined to give the names of any one elm
concerned in the assault. He would rather suffer any pri.
ration than do so, though he was the least guilty of any.
After some other evidence bad been adduced, the learned
counsel on each side addressed the jury, and
The Lord Chief Berms having summed up the evidence,
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
- -
COURT OF BANKRIJPTCY.—Fie. 24.
(Before Mr. Oommiuioner Fans.)
IN IS W. WESTGARTII.
(Continued from ye.terday's Express.)

. .
Mr. Sarpod read extracts from the bankrupt's own let.
tars, which showed that as early as December, 1860, he
knew of his insolvent position. In Septembsr, 1861, he
spoke of the hopeless task of " pouring water into a sieve,"
sod still went on for three months longer buying .goods on
credit. The house of Hannamey and Co. (whims re.
presentative, Mr. Browning, was the sasignes), who
were creditors for 6,000/., had no feeling whatever
against the bankrupt, but had acted in the discharge of an
imperative duty to the creditors at large. Some of the
letters were exceedingly curious in a mercantile point of
view. In one, written in August, the bankrupt thus naively
described his financial operations I am awry I ma%
vesture to ship same id the smaller articles you Wdade in
your edam—blue, stink, Wino% to. They are either
sash ai god credit itialists and at yrreomit I eon only ship
ay
what aids Waco. I lave the moms at

credit sdThvb'dwourit bills of Len& uying foe mor short
oon lead res out of mby depth. Toa diow this
clearly let us take my preeent mode of buying at an average
say of four moat& credit One math s loot its bills of
lading are aped aced the money got. The advance thus
got is three-fourtbs of invoke, wideh is reduced by ex-
change on the draft to rather km than two-thirda. Now,
suppose I raise by this mesas 1,0004 To do so I
must have above 1,5004 of goads shipped and bills of lading
signed to be drawn gpiart. If lam left without aid from
you had go on buyiag and drawing I shall at the end of owe
year have had to buy 7,5931. of goods, and at the end of two
years 38,4391., and so on. do insidious and rapid is the
proms that Ima readily imagine Dianne and Co., of
Glasgow sad mon ram* IL A. Lloyd here, got over-
wWmed almost unewares."
Mr. lishistra observed that that latter was worthy al
being printed in letters of gold, framed, sad
warning to
the quadnagle of the Royal Esehanga, es • to all
trader' aploot purng reek evil nn
After a shoot examiaaties of thewe bealsept the further
homing wee adjourned is semmeense of Mr. Begley, the
beakrma's wieswel, Wooing nadir a moven homeyness.