The Express.
London, England, 1865-12-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(TIIII3 DAY.)

JUDICIAL COMMITTEEL. OF THE PRIVY
COUNCI
(Present, Lord CAtehmeterd, Sir F. V. Williams, Sir J. Col-
ville, and Sir Lestreses Peel.)
coney:Naos or VIZ SITTINGS.
Their lordships sat telly to give judgment is three oases,
and to ooriclude the sittings until at ter Hilary Term. Is
the fiat e, " Tayaninmul v. Basher-hells Naiken" their
lordshi cups reversed, with costs, two decrees of the courts in
Meats, and declared in favour of the widow, as to pro-
y, against the alleged adoption and will in favour of •
Eonthe day of the death of thihistator. Lord Chelmsford
vened the jadgmeet of the committee. In the wood case,
from Code, of a legal character, the decree appealed
was reversed, sad the cause removed to Lucknow. spirt
the
third rase " Wickham and others e. Obehniford
The New Briuserrick arid '
anada Railway aid by
Land Compsny,* gave *groat The decree made the smart below was
coofirmed with ems. It was a question ss to the right of
lodgment creditors against debenture holders.
Their lordships proceeded with some matters, partly
, beard, and the committee adjourned until the sittings after
Hilary term, in February.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
After Term Nil Prim sittinp at GuildhalL—(Before the
Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
HILL V.
This extraordinary assn we resumed this morning for the
sixth time.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Dr. Tristram, and Mr. Mode were
counsel for the plaintiff ; Kerslake, Q.C., and Mr.
Watkin Williams for the defendant.
At the sitting of the court Mr. Coleridge, who has
been for some days suffering from Meer sod scarcely able
to speak, applied to hie lordship not to call upon him to-
day-to the jury. His learned friend (Mr. Konlake)
who wee also suffering from • similar attack, would be
equally for
to have the further hearing of the as., post-
Citfor a few days. and after some 0011,1111,60011
e° the learned judge, the counsel, and the
jury, it was arranged that the evidence for the
defame should be coaoluded, and the wretches of amusel
and the summing up be adjourned till Friday. the 12th of
Jemmy, the second day of Hilary tern. His lordship re-
quested the jary not to dhow the matter in the meantime,
but wait until they bad heard the leered counsel sad he
had pointed out to them the haw they were to try.
Mr. Crosaman, solicitor, was called, and deposed to his
tugup the evidence for the 00-reepoodent, Mr. Wood.
riris present daring the heariag_of the divorce snit. I
think I rid to Mr. Fines,' in Werminsterhall after the
ease was overbill I should llke to see him about the separa-
tion suit. He mid very well. I called on him. He was out, and
he nailed on me. As the medical witnesses wanted to
leave, my first object war to get opulent to read the
evidence given by them on the divorce suit sad the rpm.
tins suit. Mr. Finney said he thought there would
sot be mach objection to it, but he would consider it.
I think it wee my articled clerk who called on Mr.
Finney and got his consent. Distractions were given to
missal to make the best re they could of it, for
the purpose of having the evidence read. The ease was on
the paper daily from the 20th. end on the 27th it was
heard, but no decree was pronouseed. It was afterwards
pronounced on the day an application was made by the
plaintiff for a new trial. A new petition for divorce wee filed
about May or June. As Mr. Hill bad sot paid
the costa of the first suit. I apOied for a stay of Prweeiv
on that ground, aid also that Mrs. Hill had not bass estrilX,
and that the charges were substantially the same as in the
Divorce Court. On the proceedings for Mn. Hill and Mr.
Wood, there is about 2001. due to me for costa, but with
regard to Mr. Wood's exits, I have bad more from him than
thecrrocsizumule to.
*dry Dr. Tristram—l was introduced to
Mr. Wood by a aria' ail friend. Mr. Wood informed
me that a suit of a judicial separation had been com-
menced by Mrs. Hill. I knew that Mr. Bannister waa
then sating as her solicitor. Mr. Wood wired me
to see Mr. Bannister, and he asked me to get
an order to change solictors, and act for himself ;
I law Mr. Bannister in reference to Mr. Wood
solely. In January, 1861, I became NM Hill's
altar on on both snit& I engaged separate wire' for Mr.
Wood god Mrs. Hill, and gave them instructious. I think
Mr. Macaulay, who was for the respondent, called all the
whereon. On taxing my oats I charged Mr. Hill with all
the whew= ; 1301. was paid into roan as security for the
costa. I charged Mr. Hill with everything I could. I
struggled hard to get the separation snit on first. When
the suit came oa Mrs. Hill was most anxious not to be
called. I told her it was impossible not to call her, but
that she should be erred as little as possible. No applica-
tion was made for an adjournment of the cue when she
war called. lam stiU Mr. Wood's attorney. I have taken
no part in getting up this ease.
By the jury—l dont% think Mr. Wood underwent a
medial examination. It never occurred to me to have him
examined. Mr. Wood's rider, was briefed in the separa-
tion snit. but be wea not called.
The Lord Chief Justice—The object of the court was to
prevent going into the case as much as parable.
Re-examined—Mr. Wood was ready to give evidence, and
if the ear had gone on hostilely he would have been called.
Mr. Hill was most anxious to say as little as parable. Mrs.
Hill has been living abroad ; at first I objected to her com-
ing here as having nothing to do with the action, but when
I saw the averment in the declaratioa I wrote to her to come
over and give evidence in support of her own character.
Mr. Finney did not re her or know what evidence she
would give until she was in the witness-box.
Mr. Edward Godsell (plaintiff's uncle) was called and
corroborated Mr. Fancy's evidence relative to the inter.
view that took place in his office after the trial. After the
trial the plaintiff suggested to me to write to Mr. Finney
to have a cousultation is to what had beret be done. I
accordingly wrote to Mr. Huey appointing the following
day for the meeting. His uncle and Mr. Finney strongly
imprered upon the plaintiff it would be better to with-
draw. He objected for two or three minutes, but he ulti-
mately agreed to sign a paper Mr. Finney was to draw up,
authorising him so to do ; the document wee then drawn up.
Crow-examined—l thought it was better to withdraw for
the honour of the family, Mr. Finney having said that if
the suit proceeded evidence must be called.
By the Jury—There was a feeling of disgust entertained
by the whole of the family. They were much annoyed, and
with than teary I attended the meeting.
By the Judge—l know nothing of the details of the case,
and I was only present in Westminster Hall about half an
boor, when one of the witnesses was under examination.
Some letters from the wife before January, 1860, were
put in.
This we the case for the defendant.
Mrs. Hill, the plaintiff's mother, woe then called to eon-
tradict her daughter.in-law's statement relative to the time
when the plaintiff gave her the "Physiology of Marriage."
My son went to Wales in March, and during hie argue I
found the book in a drawer in kis room. I put it sway ;
after his return from Wales I gave it to him.
Orossoxemined—l have been here during the last two
days of the trial, and I have had conversations with my
son. I read the tithe-page and the resume of the book.
My eon first went to Wales on the 30th December. I doe's
recollect when he retureed. He went again on the 24th
March, sod returned about the 29th. He left my_ house
on the 7th or Bth May for London, arid thence for Wales.
_ By the Lord Chief Justice—He was home from March
until May. I um positive I found the book during his
absence. He asked me for it on his return in March.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf she is right blithe date, Mrs.
Hill must have mistaken the time, and had the book in
May and Dot in March.
The further hearing of the car was then adjourned until
-
2 Friday the 12th of January next.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sitting. at Nisi Pries in London.—(Before Lord Chief
Justine Erie and a Special Jury.)
ICHISELOW e, WICHOLSON.—BIIZACH Of PROM= OF
simmers&
The plaintiff in this case was Charlotte Madeline Rum-
below, and the defendant was Henry Whalley Nichol-
eon. The action was to recover damages for •
breach of promise of marriage and the damages
*ere laid at 5,0001. The defendant, by his pleas, denied
the promise ; sod also alleged that • reasonable time had
not elapsed for the performance ofathe promise ; that the
plaintiff was not ready and willing to marry ; and further,
that the plaintiff bad absolutely exonerated and discharged
the defendant from the performance of his promise.
Mr. D. Keane, Q.C., and Mr. Douglas Brown, appeared
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Ms. Chas.
Pollock, for the defendant.
Mr. D. Keane, io his opening speech, said that the plain-
tiff was •daughter of a surgeon, who bad died some years
ago, and the defendant was a subaltern officer in
one of her Majesty's regiments of infantry. They
had been friends from their childhood. and the feeling
between them from friendship ripened into love ; but the
defendant made no explicit avowal of his passion until be
went to India in 1862, when be wrote to the plaintiff, ob-
tained her love, and afterwards the sanction of her mamma
to their union. The correspondence continued in the
wannest terms for three years and • half, and indeed
until the detain:bud came home on leave of absence,
and as the plaintiff believed to be married, but a few days
afterwards he wrote stating that the plaintiff had released
him from his engagement, nut. on the other hand, there was
• latter from the plaintiff to him, and which seemed to have
crossed his. and in which she reproached hue with
the " cruel words " which he had used on their last
isterview, and in the warmest terms expressed
her continued love for him, and refused to con-
sent to allow hint to abandon the sapiremsat which
he had mitered into. Subsequently there was aa laterview,
and on that occasion it was said that the defendant obtained
some paper from the plaintiff which he contended amounted
to • release, but when they saw it and heard the eircom-
dances under which it bad boon obtained they
would judge whether it amounted to anything.
Bat be (the learned counsel) should contend that previous
to this paper being obtained, by what mesas they knew
not, from • highopirded girl, the defendant had already
broken hie promise, and if this were so, then clearly the
defendant's paper was worth nothing.
Mrs. Lary Rambelow, the plaintiff's mother, maid—The
plaintiff was 19 the 4th of last Jane. My daughter and the
plaintiff were acquainted from childhood. The dalaadaat