The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-13 00:00:00

SPORTING.

possession of certain deeds. The deeds had been handed to
solicitors of respectability for the purpose of preparing the
agreement nuntiosed above, and, on the plaintiff not only
repudiating the arrangement thereby proposed, but bringing
an action to recover possession of the deeds, an interpleader
summons was taken oat, and the trial of this issue eventually
ordered. The plaintiff is a widow, whose deceased husband
had planedher in a lunatic asylum in the simmer of 1846 ;
he died, and a commission to inquire intoher sanity, which
bad previously issued, was prosecuted by the defend-
ants, the husbands of her daughters. After evidence
had been taken fur some days an arrangement was entered
into between the plaintiff, who attended the communion in
the custody. of persons from a lunatic asylum, and the de-
fendants, with the assent of the counsel on both ride* and
the commissioner, that the commission should be stopped,
the plaintiff set at large, and her property put into
a settlement, by which the enjoyment of it should
be secured to her for life, and the remainder in a
certain portion assured to her daughters. The plaintiff
hay.ng obtained her liberty conceived that the agreement.
was one which she ought not to be compelled to perform, u
she had executed it when under restraint, and in the hope of
escaping from it. This view *as enforced on her behalf at
the trial. The counsel for the defendants contended on that
occasion that lawful restraint, under which the plaintiff was
when she entered into the agreement, did not vitiate
the eels of the person restrained ; and that an agreement
made with the advice and consent of the counsel on both
aides must be taken to be advantageous to the parties, and
one that could not be repudiated. learned judge left it
to the jury to say whether the plaintiff had made the agree-
meat of her own free will, and that if she had made it under
terror of farther restraint, and for the purpose of escaping
therefrom, she had not made it of her free will, and was
therefore entitled to the deeds, notwithstanding that she
had made it. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Subsequently a rule nisi for setting that verdict aside was
obtained, and at the argument thereon it was debated, in
addition to the topics above set forth, whether the terms of
the issue did not make it necessary for the plaintiff to show
her title to the deeds absolutely, which at the trial she had
not done. The court then postponed the judgment —Lord
Denman now said that as the sole object of the issue was to
ascertain the validity of the agreement, there could not have
been any intention that the plaintiff's title should be investi-
gated generally. Wish regard to the other point, a great
weight was undoubtedly due to the feet that the agreement
had been made under the advice of counsel, and the
propriety of upholding all agreements so made ; but
when one of the parties was expressly declared by
the other to be a lunatic, and was therefore threatened with
restraint, the parties did not meet on equal terms. For the
defendants to treat the plaintiff as a competent person was
somewhat strange, considering what their proceedings had
been ; but if she was not competent she was not deprived of
the right to the deeds by an agreement made pending her
incompetency, and if she was competent, then the jury had
found that she had made the agreement because of a direct
interference with her personal liberty, which interference the
court could not my was anything else than duress. With
rigard to the anent of counsel, the court thought that their
authority was entirely derived from the plaintiff, and had
not any inherent superiirity ; so that the question still was
that of the plaintiff's competency or incompetency. The
direction of the learned judge, therefore, was right. This de-
cision was nit at variance from the eases relied on in
the argument, but rather supported them. The court hoped
arra
ngement migh et be made favourable to the
interest of every member o the family, but the rule for
setting aide the verdict must be discharged.—Rule dis-
charged.

-•
Barrnro AT KANCll33BTElt—ranue.
WOLVERHAMPTON STIRPLII CHAIOL-5 tot eget Switcher
(t)L6 to 1 eget Chandler (t), 10 to I eve Bt. tiger (t).
LITARPOOL BTRAPLICHABII.-16 to 1 offered on the Held.
DIRBY.-10 to 1 ar:urplioo, 12 to 1 apt Glendower,
18 to 1 Apt Springy Jack Were to take), 18 tot net Aateolt, 22 to 1
1812 etktger, 21 to I apt lae(t), 33 to I aptelereue, At to 1 eget
Bedtlater, 40 tot sopa Amin (t), 40 to 1 eget EWA Or-WINN.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
800 Prins—Before Bit F. Pollock, C. 8., and a London Common Jury.
COOPER. O. RICILM/04.—BILLS or EXCHANOIL—This was
an action brought by the Lewes branch of the London and
Countit a' Joint Stock Bank against Alexander Rickman, a
butcher, carrying on business is that neighbourhood, for the
recovery of 2301., the amount of two bills of exchange due,
respectively, on the 23rd of February and 17th April last.—
The defence set up was, first, that the defendant's name
upon both bills wu foiged by his brother Edwin, who is at
present in Lewes jail for a similar liberty alleged to have been
taken by him with the name of a Mr. Barton ; and secondly,
that the presentment for payment was not sufficient.
It appeared, however, that Edwin had previously
' used his brother's name oa bill, to the amount
of some thousands of pounds ; that they had been discounted
by the plaintiff; and that the defendant sometimes sanc-
tioned his brother's doing so. The question, therefore, was,
whether the defendant had given credit and currency to the
bills in question, the bank not having been apprised of the
forgery until after they had discounted them. It was also
relied on, to show that the bank treated the bills u forgeries
that they paid, under the compulsion of legal proceedings,
2001. balance of a deposit account to the defendant's credit,
after one of the bills bad become due.—The jury remained
in deliberation for upwards of an hour aid a halt, when one
of them announced that four were fur finding for the defend.
ant, and that there was not the least probability of their im-
mediate agreement It being then near 7 o'clock, they were
discharged, by consent, until this morning.—Mr. Martin,
Q C., and Mr. Ogle were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Chambers,Q.C., Mr. Fitaherbert, and Mr. Creasy, conducted
the defendant's case.

EAU illtitittatlltt.
EQUITY COURTS.
Beeto the XicioChaneenor of England.
PURSER O. BRAIN.—INIENCTION AS TO MANURE.—Mr.
Bethell and Mr. Bites moved, on behalf of the plaintiffs,
who are dealers in guano and other artificial manures, and
carrying on business ender the title of " The London Ma-
nure Company," for en injunction to restrain the defendants,
who are also dealers in manure, front using the trade name
of the plaintiffs. It was stated that the defendants had
iime4 a prospectus very nearly similar to that of the plain-
tiffs--tha only variation being that it was headed " The
London Patent Manure Company," instead of " The Lon-
don Manaus Company." It was also alleged that there was
no patent existing which would entitle the defendants to
the use of that word in the style of their company.—The
Vice-Chancellor thought the imitation of the plaintiff's
prospectus so decided that he would grant the injunction.
CARTER O. BARNARD —SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AN
AOREEMINT.—This was a bill for the specific performance
of sn agreement alleged to have been entered into by the
Allot 'an Colonial Life Annuity and General Insurance
Company for the rental of a portion of a house in Bishops-
gate-street, belonging to the plaintiff. At the conclusion of
thearguments the Vice-Chancellor said he should reserve
his t until he had carefully read over the evidence
which been entered into on both sides.

ARCHES CM:MT.—Dec. 8.
Before Sir H. J. Foot.
01111.11 C. GEll.ls.—Tbis case has already been frequently
before the court, the proceedings having been drawn out
to an extraordinary length. It is a suit the minute details
of which ae set forth en the of are unfit for publica-
tion. In other respects, the discussion of the quarrels of the
parties before the court, and among relatives, was only et
interest to those immediately concerned. It was a suit first
begun in the Consistory_ Court of Salisbury for a restitution
of conjugal rights, by Mr. J. E. Delis, against Frances his
wife. The marriage took place at Swallomfield, Berkshire,
on the Bth of October, 1838, and in September, 1845, the
lady withdrew from cohehitation. At the time of the mar-
risge(she was a minor. Four children were the bane of the
cohabitation. At the date of the marriage she was in pos-
session of real and personal property of the annual value of
3,2001. A settlement was made upon the husband out of this
amount of 1,2001. per annum, hisy as lieutenant
in the 4th Rept. of Light Dragoons, beinpag limited. Subse-
quently he succeeded to property much encumbered in the
county of Dumbarton. The residences of the parties were
then recited, and the complaints of Mrs. Gelds of the con-
I sent visits of the relations of the husband against her wishes.
She alleged that Mr. Ocils was in the habit of stopping out,
sometimes as much as three months ; that be had prostitutes
in the house ; that she was treated with harshness sod in-
dignity; that she bad ill health, arising from her husband
abusing her in the most opprobrious terms; and at length,
in the winter et 1834, that he kicked her in the middle
of the night and used horrible language, which induced her
to take refuge with her mother. Although the income of
Mr. Delia had been increased, his wife was called upon, out
of her separate income, to divide, on many occasions,
all expenses, Other acts of gross ill treatment were
pleaded. The husband was charged with the com-
mission of adultery with more then one of his maid
servants. That he admitted the fact, and subsequently
committed another similar offence with a dairymaid at his
house in Scotland. Other revolting charges are openly
pleaded. There are the principal reatoneou far as can with
decency or morality be made public.
The response of Mr. Gels is that the wife was of an ag-
gravating teniter ; that she called him a brute, a con-
temptible wretch, a tyrant, &c. ; that she pinched him,
kept him awake all night; that she was jealous of and
hated his relatives ' that she struck him In a possion in the
face with her fist ; that her affection for him had ceased ;
that she objected to live in Scotland, and endeavoured to ob-
tain a legal separation. The disgusting charges the husband
pleaded had been invented by her. He denied the foul
conduct imputed.
This responsive plea having been admitted, the wife ap-
peeled from the decision of the Dean of the Arches, but the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affirmed the sentence
of the court below, and the cause came back for hearing.
Dr. Addems, on behalf of the wife, submitted that there
was ample proof of the cruelty and adultery on the part of the
husband, and that the unnatural practices were established.
The court he would ask to pronounce a sentence of separa-
tion, upon the three points of cruelty charged by the wife.
Dr. Jenner, for the husband, contended that there was not
sufficient proof of either of the charges, and he should pray
the court to order Mrs. Oeils to return to cohabitation.
Dr. Addams, after referring to the pleas, the residences,
&c., stated that the separation took place as stated, and im-
mediately did Mr. Dells sue out letterset request. The lady,
he (Dr. Addams) showed, had three reasons why she could
not again cohabit with her husband. He would first pro-
ceed with the charges of cruelty. Had she not made, in the
first instance, • handsome settlement ? But will the bus-
' bend exacted more—the right of receipt and expendi-
tore of the Lady's separate estate. Was this the
conduct of a penurious woman, as the lady had
somewhere been called ? The examinations in Scotland of
Mrs. Neiman, the sister of Mr. Chile, and others there in the
cue of the husband, were a farce. In evidence it was takes
down that Mrs. Deihl was 'simple-minded before manias
that she could not spell well, nor write letters without mak
mistakes. A number of letters written by Mrs. Geils
been put before the court; and he (Dr. Addams) could de.
tect no errors in them. The mother of Mrs. Dells was as.
cased of giving information unusual for females. Every
attempt was made to blacken that lady's (Mrs. Dickenson's)
character and that of Mrs. Gels. How were thoseunfounded
charges met by Mrs. Dickenson ? She stated that her
daughter was ladylike and temperate. Mrs. Anderson cow
eidered Mrs. Oeils's character unimpeachable. The learned
advocate then addressed himself to the acts of cruelty and of
personal violence, and held that these, under the dicta of
Lord Stowell and Sir John Nichol, were sufficient to entitle
the lady to a sentence in her favour. The cases cited in sup.
port of the prayer of Mrs. Delis ware " Robinson r. Roble.
son" and " Saunders o. Saunders," in which spitting in the
wife's face, without any serious violence, was held sufficient
by the learned judge of the Consistory Court to found a sen-
tence upon, and other MOS.
At a former sitting the learned advocate referred to the
affidavits of Mr. Geils's sister, Mrs. Napean, who declared
that the wife was in the habit of speaking in very improper
and contemptuous terms of the family, saying that, if she
could have her own way, they should never dart= her
doors; but the evidence of Mr. Osils's mother disproved the
elliptic& The latter seated that on one crocaeion she had
galled her son " an wretch," and " a brute,"
bet dal toot pleas gMatikrannitige having occurrd
in ins Audio (Dr. ) contended that, under the
ate *Goa were Jostileble. There could
not be a gnaw bele than the evidence Wand
ouPPorl tbe stadia _ by Mr. Gab.
It wa• imirri.tre .died lusgated drien
his heedbor Masa was no mid ed it
The noinpredraalin egos= toes ALL has eadaskelk
to this are. He (Dr. Addann) could not ergestat kr the
way in which W eduanse bed gam the enewen of the
viitniaes adduced by Mr. Gala ea the biegropteries
by Mrs. Gain uM Ini boa ism fa the pt aeigY et

~.y

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 13 1847.

giving them scone enough, then he had no objection to it.
He was glad, however, that the evidence had been taken;
and would not en any account part with a word et it, In
respect to money matters, the learned edentate asserted that
when Mrs. Geils arrived at majority, the very day on which
her confinement was anticipated, she executed a will, by
which she made her husband' to use the phrase of a witness,
her heir. A more cold-hearted letter then that written by
Mr. Gaits to his wife's mother, announcing the birth sf this
child, could not be conceit ed. Considering that stialmijust ,
executed a will in his favour, some expression of Madsen=
might have crept out.
After some further dissection of the allegation' by Dr.
Addams the bearing was postponed until Saturday,
when Dr. Addams resumed his argument. lie com-
menced by reading a part of the eorspondence be-
tween Mrs. Gels and her mother, from which he con-
tended that there never was such sweetness of temper
as that evinced by Mrs. Gels. It showed the utmost anxiety
for the welfare of her husband's family, particularly for hie
brother Pitt, and yet that was the lady charged with hating
them. In one of the letters she expressed her regret that
anything unpleaaant had arisen between her mother and her
huaband, and added that for her own part she always found
him in the right. —Anna Webb, who had known Mrs.
Dickinson and Mrs. Gads from her infancy, and who had
lived five years in the service of the former, deposed that she
had often heard Mr. and Mrs. Geila quarrelling, and that
he called her various bad names; that he used to do that
when he wee in a passion, but also when he was only sulky
and surly. On interrogatories, the witness stated that Mrs.
Geils always appeared very fond of her husband; her conduct
was always amiable and conciliating. The witness did not
know what was the beginning of the quarrels, but she stated
that they were generally of his making—that no women
could show more fondness for her husband than she did.—
Walker, a senora at Dumbuck, deposed that she went
into the room several times and found Mrs. Gel, in
team, and that on one occasion she mid, " What
am I doing, Johnny ?" The 4th article related to the con-
fessions alleged to have In en made by Mrs. Geils in May
and September, 1841, namely, that she teased and aggra-
vated her husband. From the answer of Mrs. Gels, it
appeared that her husband had quitted her en bad terms,
that she was bordering on distraction, and that she did
humiliate herself by supplicating the good offices of her
sister-ittlaw, Mrs. Napean, and that lady's husband, to in-
duce Mr. Geils to return.—Mrs. Napean and Mrs. Geils, the
mother of the husband, both deposed to Mrs. Geils, the
wife, lamenting to them the infirmity of her temper, and
confessing that her conduct was very aggravating. What
was the fact? Mr. Gels was away on a shooting excur-
sion • he left his wife on ill terms ; be wrote a letter threat-
mini never to return • and here was this poor lady in a
wretched state of health, induced to demean herself
by soliciting the interference of Mrs. Neiman and
her husband, and, in order to accomplish her object,
made these confessions. Mrs. Napean deposed that Mrs.
Gels was always justifying and excusing her husband, and
yet Mr. Geils could plead that in 1846 the affection of his
wife for him, if she ever hod any, was conaids rably im-
paired. Mrs. Geils deposed that the utmost she had ever
seen her son do, was, to go out of the room to prevent his
wife putting him out of temper; that she never saw him
thwart her. Wu there every anything so moostrous ?
It was pleaded that in September, 1842, a pertain saw Mr.
Gells push his wife violently while enceinte, and accordion
to the decision of Dr. Lushington in " &wader' e. Saunders,"
a push was nearly the same as a blow. Mr. Gels, in hie
answer, said that he disbelieved and denied the fact.
But the witness swore positively to the fact. At first, the
witness said, he thought it was play, but he fund it
was not, for Mr. Geils. immediately afterwards swore
at her. He (Dr. Addams) was now about to state a fact
that ought to atop the we. This person had justified the
cruelty of which he admitted he had been guilty by daring to
set up and put in plea t..at from an early period after the
marriage Mrs. Gels hated 1 is relations, and refused to re-
side with him in Scotland. But what was the truth ? After
living three years with Mr. Gels in Dumbuck without com-
plaint the persuaded her trustees to sell Queen's Charlton,
*erns' estate, and with the produce purchase an estate
in the Highlands, which she had never seen, betide it
would please Johnny. Such was her infatuated devotion to
him. Queen's Charlton was twice put up to sale, and twice
bought in, because the bidding was not high enough. Would
not a jury at once stop this ease? It was charged against
Mr. Gods that he objected to his wife going to visit
her mother, at Farley-hits; and Mr. Geils, in his
reply, admitted Chet he had a great and well founded objec-
tion to her going there; that he believed her sole mason for
so doing was her aversion to reside with him in Scotland;
he denied that he ever quarrelled with her without just'
cause ; that in consequence of kicking her she left his
bcd and went to her mother's at the time she 1•11.1 staying at
Dumbuck, or that his wife could consistently with truth
complain of ill-conduct on his part. Mrs. Dickinson hod
been examined on that part of the case, and stated that at
that time the conduct of Mr. Geils was getting worse and
worse; that on tome occasions he would abuse her, holding
her up to ridicule in the most offensive way. Mrs. Dickinson
also deposed that on one occasion while she was at Dumbuck
her daughter came and took refuge with her, that she was
crying, seemed quits terrified at him, and complained to her
of the ill-usage she had experienced from Mr. Geih. She
never saw her alarmed and agitated on account of it to the
extent that she was that night. Her daughter, however,
always deprecated her interference lest her husband should
take offence, and carry off her and her children. Mrs. Geils
always said that the bore the ill-usage on account of her
children. In the interrogatories there was • suggestion that
Mrs. Gene was in the constant habit of leaving her
husband's bed and going to her mother's, and her
husband had sworn it ; but the mother denied
that it ever took place except upon the occasion referred to,
and in one instance at Farley-hill, which led to the final
separation. Mrs. Geils lived with her husband from October,
1838, to September, 1846, during which he took 1,2001. per
annum of her property, and she ought to have received
2,0001. per annum, but she only received one half year's pay-
ment. Her husband would not allow her to go and see her
mother unless she would pay all the expenses out of her pro-
pertion, including his game certificate. The 1,2001. Mr.
Gels said was expended to pay off the incumbrance of Dum-
buck. The learned counsel then referred to the alleged
adultery between Mr. Gels and a woman named M'ltee,
which he contended was admitted in the cause, but which
was condoned, after which Mr. and Mrs. Gels went to
Queen's Charlton, from whence Mrs. Gels wrote a letter to
her mother, which not only showed her affection and
satiability, but her prudence. In that letter Mrs. Geils
expressed a hope that nothing would happen to recall the
late painful circumstances to John—referring to the crime
which had been condoned. But how was she treated on her
return to Scotland ? The circumstance just referred to took
place in June, but in September, according to Mr. Far-
rington, who was in Scotland at that time, the behaviour
of Mr. Gaits to his wife was very unkind ; he several times
put himself in a passion, and abused his wife before him ;
always without sufficient and sometimes without any proves
cation on her pat. On one occasion her husband abused
her shamefully for a long time, merely because he had been
up in the nursery, and had found ono of the children eating
a herring for breakfast. Mrs. Gels did what she could to
pacify him, telling him that it should not happen again, but
he went en with his abuse swearing at her. That WS a ape-
cimen of the cohabitation which had taken place. On
another occasion Mrs. Chile having put her smelling-bottle to
the nose of one of the children, from which the child started
back, Mr. Gels flew into a passion, snatched the smelling-
bottle from his wife, and broke it to pieces. Mr. Gels ad-
mitted that he once made his wife go down upon her knees,
and retract what she had said abort his relations; but he
denied that he sprang at her as was charged, or thatshe was
terrified by his conduct. He however charged her with calling
him a contemptible wretch. abrute,and with declaring thatshe
despised him from the bottom of her heart. The truth of
the latter statement was denied by Mrs. Dickinson. Mr. Geila
baying been absent from his wife, who was at her mother's,
from May to September, 1844 she spoke of a separation,
and he then swore that he would take the children, and they
should never darken the grandmother's doors again. From
November, 1844, to March, 1845, Mrs. Gene went to reside
at Dumbuck, and subsequently took up her abode with her
mother, where she remained until the explosion took place
which led to this ease. The letters of Mrs. Gel, to her
mother the close of 1844 were greatly changed. She
them in:strong terms of the cruelty she was rards
ex-
from her husband, and stated that she had never
wonetreated than at that time. She told her mother
that in one instance he had threatened to grind her bones to
powder, but even then she expressed her solicitude for his
welfare. Mr.:Gleils admitted that after their return to Farley-
hill, the residence of her mother, he had put her out of the
room 'and that while at Dumbuck, when she had provoked
him, lie had threatened to " scrsg" her, to twist off
bar neck, and knock off her little head ; but he excused it by
saying that these were expressions used without meaning.
Could it be argued for a moment that these were not acts of
legal cruelty ? Mr. Gels also admitted that he had often
insisted on his wife leaving his bedroom, and that he had
locked the doss to prevent her return, but stated that it
WON from her provocation. Ia April, 1845, while staying
at Farley-hill, Mr. Gels insisted on his wife kw** the
library, which shc refused to do, and he then, to Ida 0,114'
phew, put her out, but in so doing an act of
violence took place. Mrs. Gels took hold Oa Is
prevent her expulsion, but he forced her away not bower,
until the shelf was broken, a nail in which ran into her hand.
He.(Dr. Addama), after being a practitioner in ,those courts
for 30 years, considered it a downright insult for any counsel
to contend hat that was not cruelty The learned counsel
then cited the cases of " Durante v.urante," " Pl3pkin v.
Popkin,"." D'Aqvilar v. D'Aquilar," " Hoidens,. Holden,"
" Bramwell v. Bramwell," and " Dysart v. Dysart," and
argued that, according to the principles laid down in those
cases Mrs. Gals was entitled to a decision in her favour at
the hands of the court. Dr. Addams was about to proceed
to the alleged sets of adultery, when
The court adjourned the further hearing of the case until
11 o'clock on Wednesday next.

MARYLEBONN COUNTY COURT.
Y LlllB O. BIM.— A Were DITORCID THOM NIS Rms.
SAND CANNOT 11/5 BIIND.—This was all .coon to Teemer the
am of 141. lea, ed. for apholreery supplied. The defendant
pludod that shoves a married mew, sad, therefore, was
net Bible. Deisdant's attorney MI not slsoy the sup Ply of
this sod oiled his sliest to paschal she had a lassa-
GelhoM proved bee carnage to a esesir,
Ramp lowasolerk of Dower. Is her erow-scas tiaa else
Mei that she hod bees threelk the Insolvent Debtors'
when raft hrelerfoisitso actress, ander the 0ar5.5.25 preseito Weed. PM she mid, that shoat 11 Fuss
ago is wee &mad hoslw lismissil, sail bad issalMag
my from Mem Ins. llr, Cant satmlitadl, thae the
ileiMent weals Ws "whim at a ale& issoss, draw
lop Noble to be ormi. aimaarr4sammia the
owl the judge, eater ecostabfai the various auther=
elisa that the datesdrat woe net liable. There are forty or
lay sramem whore the it thistlant all of which
ete welleled ea the ow grime as Ihs 'boys:

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. cal
BMWs% in Sawa, but
BUSINESS or TEE COVET.—The special pa will not in
b• taken daring sent term. On the days t devoted to MN
the disposal of males in the special paper the court will pro- 101
mead with tho now trial paper. is
Crum o. Incn.—A Cowniarr INTIEID rwro HE It
AN ALLE•IH LUNATIC POE THE 'travois OP CLOSING ♦ hi.
Coutes= raw PENDING Top. lEGidY - IFTS• Hle Th
BANITT IS VOlD.—Thia was an isms directed by to I
a judge for the purpose of determining whether, WI
notwithstanding • attain agreement Walla in the wit
month at September, 1846, the plaintiff was *titled to the Pa
-• . _