The Express.
London, England, 1865-11-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGBIICA

EQUITY COURTS.—Nos. 14.
(Before Vico-Chasosilor Sir R. T. Modes+ley.)
CI RE WILSON'S Tat:ISM—TIM aeons LAW Of "avows.
The argument, In this case, which have occupied the
court several days, were Weight to a °mitigates to-day.
The matter came oa on petition and crass petition, which
have been filed for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of
the court as to who are the parties entitled to a fund of
about 2,61101., which has been paid in, under the Trustee
Relief Ace, by the trustees of Mr. John Wilson. The Cie-
cumatanoes were of a very singular character. and raised
some carious quietism ea to the Scotch law of divorce end
legitimacy. It appeared that in 1839 a person named George
Buxton eloped with Elizabeth Mary Hickaoo, a minor, and
married bar. On the day of the marriage, however, and be-
fore its nonsummatioe, the loving couple, who bad been
pursued, were caught, the lady was takes away
from the bridegroom, and he was afterwards prosecuted for
abducting an infant, found guilty. and sentenced to three
yews' imprisonment. The parties never came together
afterwards, and after his release Buxton lived in Derbyshire
with another women, by whom he bad several children.
the meanwhile the friends of the lady promoted a bill is
the Hones of Lords for the dissolution of the marriage ;
Drat
it was thrown out. In this state of things, and the lady
being desirous of wet:acting another • Balton iss
induced by her friends to go to Scotland and remain then
40 days, in order that be might be amenable to the joie.,
diction of the courts of that wintry. When the 40 days bad I
expired his wife presented a petition for divorce, end
Buxton offering no opposition, a decree of divorce I via.
culo was obtained, and subsequently the lady married a Mr.
Shaw, anEnglish barrister, but who WAS raiding in Bea,
land, and Eng
was also a member of the Scotch her, by whose
the bad three children. He died la 1853. Under the win
of Ur. John Wilmot; her noole, the lady took a life interest,
in 2,500 i., and by the terms of the will tbat sum was to
after her death to her children, but if there were no chll-go'
1
dean then to other parties. She died in 1863, and bee chiLl
drat clabnadthe fund ; but the parties entitled is revandexhi
and who presented the cross Petition, also claimed it as the
ground that the Scotch divorce wits illegal, the sabsaqueirti
marriage with Shaw conseqemistly isvand, and the childres
of the manlaihs therefore illegitimate, and as such did not
take. The principal point rabbi was
whether the oollaidon
of Buxton invalidated the divorce.
Mr. Ma
and Mr. Archibald Smith appeased in sup-
port of the first petition ; Sir Hugh Cairns and Mr. G. W.
Colt on the second; Mr. Cecil Ramon for the trustees ; Mr.
Jason and Mr. Melville for other partisan
His Honour marred his decision.

COURT OF COMMON FLEAS.—Now. 14.
gs Sittin in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie, and
Justices Wall*, BAN, and Keating.)
wannisots v. ()MDT.
The plaintiff in this Oal• was • medical man, and he sued
to recover for medical attendance and medicines for the
defendant's wife during the man 1862-3-4. At the trial
before Mr. Justin Bytes the jury found for the plaintiff
far 641. se. The question now was. whether a rule should
be mae absolute to enter a verdict for the defendant, or
for • new trial
Mr. Denman. Q.C., sad Mr. C. Pollock appeared to show
cause :sued Mr. Dishy Seymour, Q,.0., and Mr. Iturall to
=open the rule.
It was stated that the defendant and his wife bad lived
separately for several years, and for another period they
had lived in the same limns, bet in different apartments.,
and bad no communication. Nearly the whole of the plan-
ters bill was incurred during the latter period. The dm
feedant's wife had • separate estate of upwards of 1001. a
year, and the defendant had an several °endow repudiated
his liability to pay her medical bills. The plaintiff had
attended Mn. Grady for a long period of time, and be
was aware of the circumstances under which she and her
husband lived. In mower to Mr. Justice Bytes. the jury
found that the plaintiff. knowing all the circumstances, did
not look to the wife's funds alone for payment, and that
the wife bad not sufficient income to Nippon herself sal
pay the doctor. The priocipal point now submitted to the
court was, whether the wife bad in fact authority from her
bullhead to employ the plaintiff and to pledge her husband's
credit far the amount of the hill. For the defendant it was
contended that she clearly had no such authority, and that
the plaintiff was aware of this circumstance.
The Court were of opinion that the judge wee not booed
to pat the queetioa whether the wife had authority in fact
to pledge her husband's credit to the jury, for they thought
that the plaintiff's knowledge of the terms upon which the
defeedentand his wifelived, coupled with thestatenneet that
the plaintiff bad notice I. 1856 mid main in 1862 that the
defendant would not be liable for his bill for medical attend-
ee,* wee not sufficient to rebut the presumption of the
wife's authority, which was consequent upon her living is
the same house with ber husband. Lf the defendant were
not liable to pay the plaintiff's bill, the result would be
that nobody would be liable to do so. The vardiet for the
plaintiff must therefore stand.
discharged.

COURT OF RXCHEQUER.—Non. 14.
Bitting' in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollak
and Barris Channel' and Pigott.)
BTAPLIT (ADNIWNITRATRIX) V. THI LONDON AID
MORTON CONPANT.
This action was brought by the widow and administra-
trix of • Mr. Stepley, who was killed by an espial train
as he was passing over a level crossing for foot passengers
on the defendants' line at a place called Portelade, between
Brighton and Worthing, to recover, under Lord Campbell's
Act, oompenation in damages for his death.
The trial took place at the last sittings at Guildhall be-
fore the Lord Chief Bares, when the jury found • verdict
for the plaintiff.
Mr. Manisty, QC., Mr. Garth, and Mr. Marshall Griffith
now showed cause against a role which had been obtained oni
behalf of the railway company for a new trial on the ground
that the verdict was against the evidence, end also on the
ground of misdireetioei by the learned judge, who, the de-
fendants said, should have noneuited the plaintiff.
The facts appeared to be that the decreed, who was as
elderly gentleman, of with deafness, and in the habit
of walking with his head bent downwards, was desirous, on
the day is question, of taking the train at Portelade Station
for Worthing. He pared through a wicket gate, leading
to the footpath across the line, walked slowly over the rails
(according to the evidence for the defendasta, without look.
tog right or left), and just as he had got a foot on the plat-
form on the opposite side, he was aught by the buffer of
the aging ot the expremArsia from Brighton, and killed
on the spot. The train was lye minutes over due, and the
wicket eta on each side of the level crossing were sot
attended by any one to warn people not to peas until dear
the train bad strived ; but a whams far the company de-
clared that whoa he saw the deceased on the line he called
out to warn him of h's danger, sod in ample time to have I
enabled him to get across, but he paid no attention
to what be rid, and appeared not to hear it, I
Under these circumstance' the question wan whether there
was any negligence on the part of the company so as to
Tender them liable. The counsel for the plaintiff contended
that this question was entirely one for the jury, sod that
the absence of a gateman at the ceasing, sod te omission
of the slights driver to use the whistle as the teals ap-
preached the Portalade station, at which it did not stop,
eionstitutel 'efficient negligence to sutra the verdict
against the company. On the other • e, the contention
was that the deceased by crewing the line in the leisurely
manner he did, especially as be was deaf, contributed by his
negligence to the accident ; that there was DO liability on
levelart of the defendant' to keep porters or ptemeu at
crossing, for foot passengers ; and that the rails them.
selvee were an indication to the public that danger was to
be apprehended, and that they ought therefore to use
more than ordinary caution io passing over the railway.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Denman, Q.C., Mr. Hance°, and
Mr. A. L. Smith were heard on behalf of the company, in
support of the rule.
The Lord Chief Baron, in the course of the argument,
said it ought to be known as publicly as possible that
where • railway company had erected a bridge for foot
pareopre, and the latter for their own convenience walked
upon the line itself instead of going over the bridge, they
(the (wit passengers) must in 99 oases out of 100 take the
risk upon themselves. Aod be thought it would be a
matter of economy on the pat of railway companies if they
substituted bridges for these level crossings.
it the conclusion of the argumsuts,
The Lord Chief Baron observed that as Mr. Baron Brom-
well,owbo was a shareholder in the London and Brighton
Railway Company, had not appeared upon the bench during
the arguments, and' that as the other members of the
court were very desirous of having the matter fully argued,
they would postpone their judgment until the ors of
Stubley v. the London and North Western Beltway," which
involved similar points, bad been heard.
Judgment deferred.