The Express.
London, England, 1848-04-04 00:00:00

tato Entelligtnce.

ROUSE OF LORDS.
Treesed, the Lard Chancellor, Lord Campbell, and ether peers
LAPALET AND OTHERS V. GAMMON ANN
MARRIAO2.--LEGITINIACT.—This was an appeal against an 1
interlocutor of the Court of Session, and was opened last I
Tuesday, and further heard on Thursday. The question,
which involves the legitimacy of the appellants, we raised
in this way : William Lapsley, formerly merchant in Olas-
gow, died in the year 1798, having by trust-disposition I
(ill), dated Dec., 1792, disposed of all his heritable pro-
perty to trustees for his children, William, Robert, James,
and John Lapsley and the survivors of them for life,
and to their children in fee, equally among them. Two of
these, James and John, died before 1812, without leaving
children ; and William also died. leaving two children,
Sarah and William Lapsley, to whom the survivors of the
trustees of their grandfather's will sasigned the trust pro-
perty, and they being duly served as nearest lawful heirs d
to
their grandfather under the said trust-disposition, sold an
conveyed the property therein comprised to Philip Grier-
son, father of the respondent, in 1827, for 1,400/ , and he
was duly infeft therein. In Inn the appellant and his minter,
mother of the other appellants, since deceased, claimed to be
entitled to the mob ty of the property comprised in then d
trust-disposition, as the lawful children of John Lay,
ono of the said lour sons of the author of the trust-disposi-
tion. Actions were raised in their names to establish their
eighths one half of the property; and in those actions the
ultimate and principal question was whether their parents,
John Lapsley, who died in 1810, and Janet M`Kinley, were
married persons. The history of Janet M'Kenley was that
she was first married to one James Kidd, and after his.cleath
in 1796 she married William Paul, who went to America,
and was not heard of after the year 1804. From the year
1807 she lived with John Dinghy up to his death in 1810,
and was reported by the neighbours to be his wife, but there
was no direct proof of marriage. The first appellant
and his sister, mother of the other appellants, were un-
questionably their children. The Lord Ordinary, open •
Lull view of the evidence, held them to he legitimate,
but the court, upon appeal from his judgment,
reversed it, sad the present appeal is against the latter
judgment.—Mr. Stuart Wortley and Mr. Anderson have
been heard at great length for the appellants; Mr. Turner
and Mr. Rolf are for the respondents, but have not yet con-
, eluded their arguments.—The main point in the arguments
was this : although the cohabitation of a man and woman in
Scotland may, without ceremony, or even formal ac-
knowledgment of marriage, be a valid marriage by habit
and repute, and would legitimate the offspring, they must at
the commencement of their cohabitation be capacitated to
marry, but the woman in this case was not so capacitated,
, for she was then, for aught she knew, the wife of another
man, and there was no proof of his death nor any grounds
, to presume it, neither at the commencement nor at any
, time during the continuance of her cohabitation with Lap-
city. Among the num rose decisions in Scotland en ques-
tions of legitimacy, no case has been found to govern this
question.
•

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
MIDLAND cincurr.—
Coc W
aAßwicx, Arno. 1.
Caner% ,
Tan QUIGLN r. M•IFIRLD.—INDICTMENT rose INCIT-
ING 70 PIOIIT • DUEL —ldr. Macaulay for the prosecu-
tion ; and Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Hayes for the prisoner.—
The prisoner in this ease is • commercial traveller, arid the
prosecutor, • person of the name of Thacker, is in partner-
ship as a brass-founder with a Mrs. Sirdefield, the widow
et his former partner. The prisoner had made overtures of
marriage to Mrs. Sirdetteid, which it seemed met with the
disapprobation of Thacker, who took every opportunity of
abusing the prisoner. It was gated that he had a wife
living. In July lag the parties met at Mrs. Sirdefield's
and a quarrel ensuing, Thacker struck the prisoner with a
poker. The prisoner left the house and wrote a letter, in
which he designated the proaecutor'as a " liar, coward, and
blackguard; and intimated that-he was staying at an inn,
which he named." This was the eubjeet of the indictment.
It appeared that there were indictments pending against
the prosecutor by the prisoner for assault, and after the case
had been part heard it was agreed that the proceedings on
both sides should be abandoned, and the prisoner enter
into recognixances to keep the peace for 12 monthe.
Teta QUIRK v. FoWLEß.—PintleßT.—The prisoner in
'this case had been a builder at Leamington, and become
bankrupt. He was now indicted for wilful and corrupt per-
jury in his examination before a commissioner of bank-
ruptcy at Birmingham in October 1844. It appeared that
I shortly before his bankruptcy the prisoner had borrowed a
large sum of money ; and suspicion being entertained that be
was about to leave the country he was arrested. He sip.
posed that a workman in his employ had informed his cre-
ditors of his intentions, and upon this he got a warrant for
felony against the man, and charged him with having
stolen goods and money from him to a large amount, but he
failed in substantiating the charge, and the case was die-
, missed by the magistrates before whom it was heard. In
his examination in Oztuber, 1844, he distinctly swore that
the statement he had then made was true, but in several
subeequent examinations he admitted that he had then
worn filsely. It was proved distinctly that no such rob-
bery had ever been committed. He had been committed to
prison by the commissioner, and had remained there up to
the present time.--The jury returned a verdict of Guilty,
but recommended him to mercy on account of his lung im-
prisonment. —The sentence of the court was, that be should
pay a line of one shilling, and be transported for seven
years.
Niel Pates.
fIIGOINB a HOPRINA.—RAILWAT LIABILITIES.—Mr.
Huntfrey and Mr. Mellor fur the plaintiff ; Mr. Whitehupt
for the defendant. —This was an action brought by the plain-
tiff, an engineer and surveyor, to recover the sum of 2,5841.
for surveying a line of railway called the Loudon
and Birmingham Extension, et which company the
defend .nt WBB • provisional and managing 41:rec-
ter. The scheme feeled, among others, in 181 G It
appeared that the plaintiff had been duly appointed
by the committee, the work had been done, and evidence
was given that the amount claimed was a fair remuneration.
The only question wee. whether the defendant had pledged
his personal credit. The ruling of the learned judge inti-
mating that he had not, the jury found a verdict for the
defendant.

WARWICK, APRIL 3.
Before chief Justice Wilde and a Special Jury.
THE QUEEN EPoN THE PIHISECI:TION OF THE Bishop
OF At ANCREnT ER O. GUTTERIDGII.—ME. Whitehurst, Q C.,
Mr. Humphrey, and Mr. Waddington appeared as couusel
for the prosecution.
Mr. Waddington, in oJening the pleadings, said the pre-
sent was a criminal information tiled by the Lord B:rhop of
Manchester against Thoineitiuttendge, for a misdemeanour.
The information, in subetance, charged the defendant with
having published libel.. imputing to the prosecutor drunken-
ness, lying, and malignity. The defendant pleaded first that
he did not publish the libels, and specially with regard to
three of the charges that they were true.
Upon the application of the defendant, the witnesses on
both sides were directed to 1 ave the court.
Mr. Whitehurst said he bad the honour to appear as
counsel for the Bishop of Manchester. The right rev. prelate
was no doubt known to many of the jury, as long a resident
in the neighbourin2 town of Rugby, • high and distin-
guished scholar, and who merited the good opinion of all
who knew him. The cue had created the greatest excite-
ment in the country, and be (the learned counsel) was not
surprised at such an effect, when he considered the dignity of
the party accused, and the nature of the libels of which he
had to complain. Dr. Lee had not been desirous of entering
into legal proceedings, nut per'ecutioa in his case was carried
beyond all endurance, and i. wu necessary for the vindica-
tion of his character, and with a view to the future efficiency
of his spiritual office in the diocese to which he lad been
appointed, that the present proceedings should be
enopted. Doctor Lee was irmerly a master in Rugby
school, and in 1838 he received the appointment' of
the Birmingham Free Ciirivnmar School. On taking up his
abode in that town he immediately connected himself with
many of its important institutions; and in 1842 he was
elected a member of the committee of the Blue-coat School.
He there found the education of the c.,ildren much
neglected, and many abuses of long standing existing. He,
with others, set about reforming the evils under which the
school was suffering, and thus interfered with the habits
and practices of the masters, as well as the prejudices of
some of the member' of the committee of that institution.
But Dr. Lee was a gentleman of firm mind, and
not to be deterred by the opposition of those
interested in the then system of management. lie
afterwards became connected, as • governor, with the
General Hospital; and it Ivos in consequence of his conduct
in reference to the election of surgeons to that hospital, and
the course he pursued in defence of Mr. Hodgson, an emi-
nent surgeon, and Dr. 131akisten, ens of the physicians to
the institution, against certain charges of negligent and
unskilful treatment, brought forward by Mr. Gutteridge
and a Mr. Ledsam, that the Bishop of Manchester had been
since subjected to the infamous libels of which he now com-
plained. Mr. Hodgson was charged with unskilfully ope-