The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-19 00:00:00

ARCHES COURT.

Before&r H.
Oatu O. GeiLS.—Dr. Harding resumed his argu-
ment on behalf of Mr. Odle. The learned gentle-
man entered into an elaborate investigation of Mr.
Hume's interview with Mr. Gills, when he comenuni•
cated to him the charge which Mrs. Geils intended to
bring against him. He submitted that Mr. Hume,
basing taken wine with Mr. Geils, hosing entered into
general conversation with him on the improvement he had
made in his grounds, and having shaken hands with him at
parting—that all these wore acts so utterly irreconcilable
with having received a previous admission of the detestable
crime charged against him, that the court could place no re-
liance whatever on the alleged admission. It was, however,
distinctly proved by Mr. Hums that before the interview
'Awed Mr. Odle resolutely denied the truth of the charge,
and Mr. Ilume's acts were consistent with his belief in the
truth of that denial. The learned gentleman then examined
the specific acts of cruelty said to be inflicted, and urged that
they were of too insignifiernt a character to entitle Mts.
Grills to a divorce. It was, however, abundantly clear that
they had all been condoned ; and unless the court believed Mr.
Geils to be guilty of the crime just adverted to, they had not
been revived, and therefore could have uo effect on the deci-
sion of the case. The adultery with Me. Phee had been con-
doned; the parties who had deposed to adultery with
Mc. Kichan were so much at variance with themselves, and so
entirely unworthy of credit, that no reliance could be placed
on their testimony. The only remaining charge was that of
adultery with a woman named Campbell, whose evidence, as
a particepe criminis, had not received that degree of confirm-
ation which was essential to entitle it to the credence of
the court, or if the court did believe it, considering that the
transaction occurred three years ago, and that Webb, son.,
had been subsequently
all des
informat ion patched to Scotland
be could re.
erecting the conduct of Mr. Galls, the court must
necessarily come to the conclusion that Mrs. Gels was
aware of the circumstance long prior to the termination of
cohabitation, and therefore had eonOoned it. He (Dr,
Harding) admitted that Mr. Geilshad need language towards
his wife which was moat ungentlemanly, and he would not
attempt to justify it, but hard words would not break bones.
In concluding his argument he entreated the learned judge
not to be led away by sympathy towards Mrs. Geils, and
begged that the court would limit the learned counsel in
their reply to remarks dealing only with the facts.—The
further hearing of the case was adjourned.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
Before Mr. Cemmiationer Law.
Ix in Jougs.—Hoasa BETTING.—This ineolvent, who
had been the director of the Rugby, Swindon, and Wey-
mouth Railway, was opposed for Mr. Lovegrove, an attorney.
He had, it appeared, been living by betting at horse-races;
and it was urged that a man who gained a livelihood in
such a manner had no justification for getting into debt.—
The Court thought the objection wu not a fetal one, and
intimated that the insolvent would be discharged after some
amemdments had been made in hie schedule.
•

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before E. C. moylau, Esq.
WRIGHT V. STORR.—THE DIRRCTOR OP A LOAN SO-
CIETY NOT THE PROPER Paeans ro RR lIVELL—ThiI Rae en
action brought by Mr. Wm. Wright, • Frinter, direr Ful-
wood's-rents, Holborn, against Mr. Edward Storr, a tor
of the " Wasters Loan Society." for work, labour, and
Koala sold and delivered to the society. The defendant denied
his plaintiff said the orders for the articles
were given ny a person, named Thompson, who was formerly
secretary to the society, and he could prove that the books,
&c., which he supplied were being used by the society at the
present time.—The Judge ail that did not make the de-
fendant responsible for the payment of them. The parties
to be eued were the treasurer and trustees, in whom the pro-
perty of the society was vested. They are the only partie•
entitled to sue and be sued under the act of parliament.—
Plaintiff said the defendant was an officer of the society, and
he could show that he was a director, and that he paid away
and received the money of the society.—The Judge : Can
you show that he ever gave you any orders or paid you any
money?—The Plaintiff: I cannot swear that he has. But he
has been sitting at the table with other gentlemen when I
have taken in my bill.—The learned judge said the plaintiff
appeared to have sued the wrong person, unless he could
tiring home satisfactorily that the defendant was a trustee.
It would not do to select a man because of his solvency, and
make him liable for the debts of a society ; he might not
even be a shareholder in it. It was the duty of a plaintiff
to ascertain who the parties were he was going to trust be-
fore he gave credit The plaintiff was nousuited.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
The January adjourned session commenced yesterday at
the Sessioas-house, Clerkenwell, before Mr. Walesby and a
full bench of magistrates. The calendar contained the names
of about the average number of prisoners—viz., 96. Of that
number 86 were charged with felony ; the other 11 with
misdemeanor. The state of education amongst the prisoners
was as follows ;.-2 could reed and write well, 15 could read
only, 39 were imperfectly instructed in both, and 38 were
entirely ignorant of either acquirement.
STICALING BRIAD.—J. Took, J. Smith, J. Barrett, T.
Williams, J. Johnson, and T. Mills, were indicted for steal-
tag a loaf of bread, value 34d., the property of Charles
Butler. Two of the prisoners pleaded guilty. The prisoners,
who were " navvies" out of employment, were l
li
along Marylebone-lane, on the 13th inst., when Tool-
Smith went into the prosecutor's shop, took a loaf, and
walked off. They were given into encode, and when
searched one halfpenny weal all that was found upon
them. They pleaded hunger as an excuse for the theft.—
The learned Chairman,: in laying the case before the jury,
said that it was a truly lamentable spectacle to see six men
like the prisoners at the bar driven to crime by absolute
hunger, and that, too, in the most wealthy metropolis in the
world, where richei and opulence existed to en almost un-
limited extent. There could be no doubt but that the pri-
soner were incited to the act of felony by distress, for only
one halfpenny was found upon them. He should probably
be excused for mentioning a ease which bad come under his
notice as a visiting justice of the Westminster House of
Correction. A prisoner had been committed for the offence
of stealing. bread to satisfy the cravings of hunger, and, on
his admission into the prison, he was in to emaciated and
exhausted a condition, that he was at once placed in the in-
' Camay, and treated with Cat and attention. However, be
died, and a coroner's jury was summoned to inquire into the
cause of death. That jury came to the conclusion that death
had resulted from absolute starvation. These things were
enough to make every feeling and humane heart bleed, and
he trusted the jury would not consider him outstepping the
strict limit of a judge's duty in mentioning them. He did spin
the hope of calling attention to the subject through the pub-
lic press. They did not sit there to administer justice with a
stern and unrelenting hand. Whilst the courtwu bolted to
protect public property from depreciation, and to guard the
interests of society at large, at the some time it was not pre-
cluded from giving full consideration to the circumstances
surrounding the commission of crime, circumstances which
by some would be deemed irrelevant to the case.—The jury
found the prisoners Guilty, but recommended them to mercy.
The learned Chairman said this recommendation should
have full eifect. He wished the prisoners to understand
that, by application in the proper quarter, they could always
obtain a loaf to satisfy hunger.—One of the prisonen here
said that he had wandered about with the prisoner Johnson,
and for two days and nights they had been exposed to the
inclemency of the weather, and had not tasted a morsel of
food. They had been taken to Marylebone Police.court by
an offices, but they were told that there were no relief tickets
for disposal.
The learned Chairman said the court felt that a very light
sentence would meet the merits of this very painful case.
The sentence wee, that each of the prisoners be kept to bard
labour for the space of one month.