The Express.
London, England, 1865-12-18 00:00:00

ENV INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

HT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Priva st Guildhull—Mefore the
Chief Jostles suid Special Juries.)

HILL r. YIIOIET.
oaring of this extraordinary ease errs re.

Q. INF
C., Dr. Tristram, and Mr. Mauls ware
plaintiff • Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., sad mr.
• for the defendant.
in oontineation of his evidence in chief,
left Moulage. I C• 11311 to Landon and ow-
who recommended me to ge to Mr. Finriey
He had been for some Tears the fungi
united him the following day and
• several interviews with him, i
• grievant,' with Mud to Br.
wife. I went back to Iso •by Mr,
to collect evidence. and I then that
left with Mr. Bannister, an attorney. who
Wood, and had gone with them
• reeidesce in Wales. I communkated
Finney, and he gave me a letter of
to Mr. Selby, an English attorney,
After a week I returned to laidoe,
'nosy what I had done. Before my wife
showed me a letter from Mr. Bannister
Mr. Wood bad celled on him, anti
• bettor join him in Engl.& The
, to a separation, but it did net
'ag about proceedings in the Divorce Court.
• tit a letter in answer to it, and then he
t time that proceedinr had been taken Isy
judicial separation. The potable was Wad
October, 1860. Mr. Finney advised me
good grounds foe charging my wife
, and counsel's opinion was taken, sad
suit for a divorce was instituted after
tition bad been filed. In February •
lamed, and evidence was taken at Bedew
• 1. I was present and gave Mr. Annoy in-
. the witnesses to be celled. I did not know
of all the letters that paned between
Mr. Finney. My snit in the Divorce
fink bemuse on Mr. Finney's advice I
to prevent being served with the citation in
; her chirps against me in her snit were not
• and Mr. Finney always said I should
prove them ; be also toU me that noise
would be entered into in the divorce
no saggeetioeia the divorce snit that I had
• • before marriage. I always denied it, red
bey so. Mr. Finney asked me if I was the
e child. I told him I was not, aeg
him by I
da
that I could not be
I was in England when the diverse
and I was in waiting in Wastminster.lall ea
e burin. I law Mr. Finney novena times
us was being heard. I told him many air.
which I was informed that were very
to Mr. Wood; they had reference to
dealings with women. Before the trial
told me he thought that some of
tamy,
_wife would be damaging to my
• lot I had written a lot of love letters, but I
what was in them. I assured hiheard m that I had
y wife before marriage. I during the
• letters bad been put in. and Mr. F
during the trial, to withdraw. I declined
y price, and insisted on the suit proceeding.
• trial the fury found that the adultery was
Before the 3adicial separation suit came on I
d bad an interview with the defendant
's other, in Tower-street. They sp.
have discussed the matter before I
▪ Fleur, who was my. uncle's cos•
. and is so still, said the night of the trial
• d try and defend me in the wife's suit. Whet
s office Mr. Finney showed me a draft letter
'ken to be addressed to Mr. Ceosaman Mr.
itor, which I was to sign. The letter math:Mead
t to compromise the judicial separation suit
"on had come from Mr. Crewman. When the
ed to me the defendant said that if I signed
•ld appear in court against my character. The
was brought by the defendant all ready pm.
'd to the defendant, " The charges that have
against me are already known ito a greet
•le ; a number of °Mars already know
ought really so defend them, because if they are
• t me I shall surely lose my commis ion."
ly advised me to sign the letter, and as.
that nothing should appear in court
character. He said my wife would get
• f the court without evidence on the production
I was very unwilling to sign it, and I at fist
aye assured my uncle the same, and upon his
searing me that nothing would appear spinet
, I was induced to sign the letter. I said I
y willing to go into the witness-box and deny
alleged in the petition, and I also repeated
of the surgeons I could produce in
my favour. When I had before mentioned
to him he had always thought it very
. If I had known that my wife was to give
and that the case was to have been heard as a
ver would have signed the letter. That evening
me officers of my acquaintance, and after son•
•ut the matter I decided on going to Mr. Finney,
next day or the day fallowing I called on Mr.
asked hint to give me Lick the letter • he said
of do it—it was too late, as he had already given
Creasman. I then told him that I thought he
badly advised me, because I had been told
wife would have to appear in court and give
• 'net me. He again assured me that nothing
against my character, but that if my wife
••• g he world defend me. Mr. Creasman had
•• that my_wife would not appear. On that I
if it would not be better to have the witnesses
Boulogne, and he replied that as my wife
ot appear it was not necessary to
i. I mentioned Dr. l'ergrauchiud's name;
of the French witnesses who was not 6:swiped
commission, Mr. Selby considering that enough
examined to sabetantiate my cue. Mr. Finney
if he had not had the letter he would have had
ore to do with the case , and at the sod of the
he told me to go to Boulogoe out of Mr. Cron-
y. as I was liable to him for Mr. Wood's and my
• 11l in the divorce suit. I went over to
and a few days after I read, to my astonishment
t, an account of my wife's evidence in the jai.
• suit. I immediately saw Mr. Selby, and he
Mr. Finney. I made several anolioetiour for •
bat without sumac. I changed my attorney,
defendant would have nothing more to do with

itness was ander examination when our report left.]

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
SECOND COURT.
at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before Mr. Jaste
Smith and a Common Jury.)
KIRBY r. bAft,.ENT.
an action to re:over damages for slander.
saley appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Healey for
t.
ise to the snit were tradesmen living at Stmt.
w Town, and the litigation arose out of a betting
Just before the last Darby-day the plaintiff dr!
u Carol in a shilling sweepstakes, and sold bin
to the defendant for 3. 6d. The horse name in
and thus entitled the defendant to receive 12e. 6d.,
and to {Ave the impression that he ought to have
is misunderstanding led to words, and the plaintiffs
the defeedant called him "a swindling thief."
efence was twofold ; that the defendant had not
he plaintiff a thief, and that whatever words Were
sy were mere terms of abuse.
hip said that to entitle the plaintiff to recorr
show that the defendant intended to charge him
indictable offence, and not merely to abuse him.
urr found for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
at Nisi Prins at Guildhall.—(Before Lord Chief
Baron Pollock and a Special Jury.)
HUNT r'. ROUTII 'ASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
was another action under Lord Campbell's Act, to
compensation for personal injuries sustained hi
plehurat accident.
defendants admitted their liability and the only
n wu the amount of damage..
Solicitor• General and Mr. Byron, for plaintiff, and
rjeantUmatilla and Mr. Underwood for the coin•

plaintiff, Mr. Hunt, in 52 years of age, and is the
er for Moors. Jonas Brook and Co., cotton menthe.
,of Milton Mills, Huddersfield. He was in • fir e.
arriage at the time of the accident, and on beteg
0 out fell up to his middle in water in the river over
the railway passed at Stapleburst. His left armless
I, his face cut, and his body very much bruised. 111,
mfined to his boas. for six weeks, and had not yet
ly recovered from the injurie% be sustained.
evidence was adduced for the defence, but Mr. Sets
Ballsntioe addressed the jury io mitisatiou of damages•
jury gave • verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 5501.

:NTRAL CRIMINAL COURT•

(THIS DAY.)

December sessions of the Central Criminal Court
eared this monsieur before the Right Hoe. the Lord
(Mr. Alderman Phillio), Mr. Alderman Finn* Mr.
an W. Lswrence, hf.P., Mr. Alderman Loeb, M.P.I
order, the Common Serjetnt, Mr. Alderman sad
ff Gibbons, Mr. Sheriff Pigging, Mr. Under-Shoyie
11, Mr. tinder-Sheriff Kaoline, and • the usual mrio
' natio.
first edition of the calendar contains the nem., of 96
era, of whom 36 are from London. 41 from Middle-
from Essex, 1 from Ken., and 11 from Surrey. The
jury (of whom John Stirling Taylor, FAci., wlll

lifoiMnan) having been sworn,- -
e Recorder, in chargioa them, taid be WAS glad to be
to inform them that their lahlore would not be beet,:
0.1411 were sot numerous, nor were any of War a