The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-11 00:00:00

CONSISTORY COURT.—YesTuDAY.
B.roas De. Lv.eumme.
FlBlllla O. FISHER. _ _

This was &cause of separation on the ground of adultery,
promoted by the husband against his wife.
Dr. Jeoner appeared for Mr. Fisher, and there beicg no
opposition to the suit,
Dr. Luahingtou pronounced for the divorce.

STORY V. STORY.
This ease, in which Mr. S:ory, a tailor, in Fleet-street,
was proceeded against by his wife for the restitution of con-
jugal rights, 111,4 one that had come before the court innu-
merable timer, Mr. Story (who appeared in person) having
shown considerable dexterity in procrastinating the end of
the suit. Some time ago a decree bad been made to She
effect that he rhnuld take his wife home, and on the 20th
of November he alleged that he had done so, and prayed to
be distaiaard. 1.0 this Um Story objected, and the case
now came on fur argument.
Dr. Ltohineton (to Mr. Story)—Mr.
i Story, you have
been guilty of very improper con act id sending a private
paper to the judge of this court. You ought to be aware
that no judge of any court of justice in this country would
ever think of receiving such a document.
Dr. Jenher appeared for Mrs. Story. On her behalf it
was contended that Mr. Star/ had evaded the order of the
court, for, although she had resided in the apartments
he had provided fur her at Notting-hill from the 20th of
November to the present time, Mr. Story had never slept
er taken his meals there to her knowledge ; nor had be in-
deed ever come there o;•enly at all, except on three or four
occasions, on one of which he appeared to be taking an in-
ventory of the furniture. She also complained of the ac-
commodation provided for her, which, she said, was unsuit-
able for her station, as her husband was a respectable
tradesman, and p tid 001. a year for the education of her two
daughters. The furniture was inrufft:ient and mean in its
character, and the water came through the ceiling of her

Mr. Story, in his affidavits, denied this statement in toto.
Ilc said that ever since the 20th of November he hal slept,
breakfasted, acd supped at the bona., except on three or
four occa,ions ; that it was his custom to come to the city
during the daytime in order to follow his ordinary avoca-
tions, and that be dined at a tavern. The suit was an at-
tempt to do more than the court had often laid down as
the limit of its power, namely, to enforce matrimonial coha-
bitation, which he (Mr. Story) contended that ho had ren-
&red. The fact was, Mn. Story and her proctor were en
de :Touring to induce him to sign a deed of separation anal
tt allow her a sum of mosey ; and with this view they had
caused upwards of 20 actions to be brought against him for
bread and other necessaries. She had also twice proceeded
spina him under the Vagrancy Act ; hut she had not yet
succeeded in obtaining the decision of a single court in her
favour. Lastly, he contended that she had teen kept con-
, t ealed from him ever since the 30th of April, and he there-
fore prayed that he might be dismissed as from that date.
Dr. LusLington said it could net be too well known that
the wily answer toe Suit of restitution was that the party
promoting it had been guilty of adultery or of acts amount. ing to the legal definition of cruelty. No answer short of
that, whatever might be the misconduct of the party,
could have the slightest relevancy in such a suit. In this
rase it was clear that if Mrs. Story 'a statement were true
Mr. Story had not obeyed the orders of the court; but on
the other baud, if they were to believe Mr. Story, he was
fully entitled to be dismissed. Mr. Story was fully cor-
roborated by the occupier of the house in Notting-hill, and
his statement was on the whole such as to satisfy the court.
Of course it was utterly impossible for the court to regu-
late the degree—the manner end form in which a man's
household affairs were to be conducted; and therefore,
although he regretted that Mr. Story had not been more
mindful of his conjugal vow, ho was net prepared to say
that Mrs. Story had shown any cause why the court should
interfere any further, lie should therefore dismiss him on
payment of all the costs in this case.
Mr. Story—l protest of a grievance, and I give notice
that I shall appeal on the ground of tho costa.
Dr. Lushington directed the registrar to make a minute
of the protest, and assigned Mr. Story to prosecute his
appeal on the next court day.

iiIMEWILL V. HALIWILL.
In this ease, Mr. ilakewill having neglected to obey the
order of the court to take home his wile and treat her with
conjugal kindness, was pronounced in contempt.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—TESTERDAT.
Banes Ma. COKISWITONIII EVANS.
IN MI J. K. VOTB.
This was the last examination meeting. The bankrupt
was of Albion-square, DAlston, bsilder. His accounts, pre-
pared by Mr. Boyd, extend from November, 1831, to De-
cember, 1852, and show these results.—To unsecured cre-
ditors, 3,716[.; secured, 6,8791.; capital, 3021.; profits,
1,5571.; liabilities, 700/. By property given up, 294!.;
property held as security, 9,3091. ; expenses, 1,8221.
Mr. Lawrence supported the bankrupt, whose books were
not now forthcoming, they being on board a vessel which
had tiben its dep.irture fur abroad. The accounts, how-
ever, were stated to be true, and the beat that could be ren-
pored.
Mr. Lloyd, for a creditor, applied for an adjournment for
six months, in order that something more might be known
respecting the books.
Mr. Lawrence observed that Mr. Lloyd's client had not
proved his debt.
His Honour thought that the better course would ho to
adjourn the examination sine die, and granting protection
from month to month.
IN Ma JOSEPB WARRIN.
There was a last examination meeting in the case of this
bankrupt, described as of Hight-street, Ramsgate, stationer
and musical instrument maker. The accounts extend over
a period of two years, and show debts amounting to 1,5491.,
the usets are about 230/. The profit had been 6091.; trade
and personal expense*, 8311. ; losses, 7301.
Mr. li. Linklatcr supported the bankrupt.
There was no opposition, and the bankrupt was declared
to have passed his last examination.

IN RI W. H. PERCIVAL.—OCTLAWRY.
The bankrupt, of Blownsbury square, bookseller, failing
to surrender to pass his last examination, was proclaimed
in the usual form.

Ituroaz Ma. Common°mmo=l.loE/K.
IN ILI RANNAII.
_ _

The bankrupt, of the filsrma Parade, Brighton, wine
me•chsnt, csuic up on the question of certificate. The
items of the accounts, prepared by Messrs. Harding ani
Punkin have hsfore appeared in cur journal. The bank-
rupt's debts amount to about 6,0001. assets returned at
about 1,6001. _

Mr. B.igLiy, for the assignees, appeared to oppose ; Mr.
Linklater supported the bankrupt.
Ilia Honour deferred giving judgment.
Judgment deferred accordingly.

COURT OF PASSAGE.-LIVERPOOL, FEB. O.
II ALLOY V. DOWLING -SEDUCTION.
- _

The plaintiff in this ease was Mrs. Haltom, of Clareoee-
street, Everson, and the defendant • clerk in a soap-boil-
ing establishment in Liverpool. The plaintiff sought to re-
cover damages from the defendant for the loss of the ser-
vices of her daughter, who, it was alleged, hail been se-
duced by the defendant.
From the evidence of the mother and daughter, it ap-
peared that they lived neat door to the defendant, and
Mi,s Haltom and he were on visiting terms, but it aq-
peered that the young lady's visits were the moat frequent.
On these occasions both parties were in the habit of sitting
oa a sofa and taking a game of cards together. Matters
proceeded in this manner until October, 1851, when • cri-
minal intercourse took place between them in the drawing-
room. This was the first and only time. Nothing was
said upon the subject until the Klintary following, when
the deLndaut tulil the young lady ho would make it all
right with hi r. The mother at the time was totally one-
ware of what had marred, nor did she know of it until
her daughter was delivered of a child on the 24th of July,
when the defendant, when spoken to upon the subject,
said he should make it all right with the plaintiff:
For the defence, it was alleged that Miss Haltom was on
terias of improper intimacy with Mr. Morris (of the firm of
Clarke and Morris, haberdashers), in whose establishment
plaintiff's daughter was employed.
the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff—damages, 701.