The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-16 00:00:00

7!! f011,,n into desuetude.-

verdict wu

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Nm Pan, —Before air F. Foliose, C. 8., sad a lepers Oomseen Jury.
tircuatie, e. BPUltalla.—AJl/AULT BC • SON CruN
HIV FATIIII.—Mr. Flunkey, Q.C., and Mr. Lush were
the plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Martin, (Lc., and Mr. Wilkin
for the defendant. This was an action brought by the
plaintiff, a deputy commissary-general, to recover damages
for an assault committed on the 13th of January last, by his
son, the defendant. The cue was suffered to stand over for
some days on the suggestioa of the learned counsel for the
respective parties, as It was anticipated an amicable adjust-
ment of the matter might have been effected. The attempts
of the learned counsel and even the suggestion of the learned
judge proved unavailing, and the Cake was yesterday pro-
ceWed with.
The whole of the &eta were detailed by Miss Frances
Spurner, daughter of the plaintiff, and sister of the
defendant, who deposed that, on the morning in ques.
tion, shortly before nine o'clock, and while in her bed-
chamber she overheard an altercation bsttween her father
and her brother, who were in the parlour below rain. i
coming down she found them wrangling sad struggling with I
' each other in the passage outside the parlour door. Her
brother had held of his father by the collar, and seemed as
if endeavouring to pull him down to the ground. She, as
sisted by her tutees Caroline and Louisa (wbo were down
stairs before her), succeeded in separating the parties, and
shortly afterwards observed that her father's face was
marked as if he had been recently bitten. She could see
what she considered were the marks of teeth in his flesh.
She was aware her mother and her father had been living
very unhappily together for some time, in consequence as
she (witness) belieeed of an improper intercourse said to
have been carried on by her father with • Mrs. James. The
defendant took hie mother's part, and both he and his father
had been on bad terms for two or three years. After she
had come down stain she heard her father tell her brother
that he should leave the house. Her brother said he would
do so, but he should fiat go up stairs and see his mother to
bid her good-bye. Witness had not distinctly heard any-
thing that Nosed between the parties while they were in the
parlour, but it was possible her sisters, who, she believed,
had been present at the quarrel when it commenced, had
heard and seen all that had occurred. Her mother had a
trifling income in her own right, but it did not form the
chief means of their support. On re-examination witness
stated she knew nothing whatever et Mrs. James, or of her
intimacy with the plaintiff, except what she bad heard, nor
was she at all aware that the origin of the ill-feeling which
subsisted between the defendant and his father had originated
in that alleged intimacy. She understood her father wished
her brother, who had been a clerk for some few years
put at the Sun Fire Insurance Office, to contribute
to the expenses of the house. The quarrel might have ori-
ginated in that matter. The defendant cea ed to live with
his father since the unfortunate transaction in question.
A policeman, who was called in after the parties had been
separated, deposed that he had seen the defendant striking
at his father, whose mouth was smeared over blood.
Mr. Martin, who addressed the jury for the defendant,
manifestly under feelings of emotion and sympathy for both
the parties in the distressing and unhappy transaction, said
although he could not justify a son even attempting to raise
his hand to his parent under any circumstances, still there
were circumstances connected with t.l.at case which, if
fully disclosed to the court, would plainly show that
the defendant was not, at least, wi _bout some excuse.
The plaintiff had advisedly withheld from the jury
all evidence as to the origin -if the quarrel be-
tween himself and his son. He '.celled the young lady,
who was upstairs in her bedroom when the quarrel com-
menced, and therefore knew nothing of its origin, and he
kept back the two young ladies who had seen it all from
beginning to end. The learned counsel repeated that his
client had done wrong by raising his hand against the
plaintiff, but submitted that, considering the origin of the
quarrel, that unfortunate circumstance should not be made
the pretext for ex. casting mere than mere nominal damages
from the defendant's pocket.
The Lord Chief Baron, summing up, said the plaintiff
was bound te call his two deughters, who had seen and
heard all that had passed; and as he had neglected to dose,
it exposed him to an inference most unfavourable to him for
en action of that description, brought by a father Against his
sou. Common justice, as wall as common sense and huma-
nity, rendered it necessary and incumbent upon the com-
plainant to have the whole ease in all its details fully, fairly,
and honestly brought before the jury, in order to enable
them to arrive at a just and proper conclusion on the sub-
ject.—Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 61.

CONSISTORY COURT.
DaSte Dr. Lushington.
Thugs v. DEANS.—This was a cause of divorce by reason
of adultery, brought by Mr. Henry Wilbrain Deane against
hie wife, Mn. Louisa Ann Deane. The parties were married
in India in 1840, and continual to reside together until 1843,
when in consequence of Mrs. Deane and ono of the children
being in ill health, they went to a place called Missouri., in
the hill country to take up their residence with a cousin of
Mrs. Deane's, the husband being compelled to remain at
home in consequence of his official engagements. After a
short time, Mrs. Deane withdrew from the house of Mr.
Bowles, her cousin, and went to live at what was described
as the hut of Mr. Traven, a cornet in the 3rd Regt. of Dra-
goons, and there remained for a fortnight, during which it
was alleged that she cohabited with him. Mr. and Mrs.
Bowles made some ineffectual attempts to induce Mrs. Deane
to return to their house, and in reply received a letter re-
I Nip/ to do so in terms which it was contended amounted
to a confession of the adultery. The Queen's Advocate
and Dr. Harding submitted that the evidence of Mrs. Bowles,
warmed by that of • Mr. Mansell, who ultimately inc-
luded in persuading Mrs. Deane to quit the hut and go to
the residence of another relation, in conjunction with letters
written to Mrs. Bowles and the husband, fully proved the
case.—Dr. Burnaby and Dr. R. Phillimore contended that
the evidence was too slight to justify the court in signing •
sentence of separation.—Dr. Lushington wee of a contrary
opinion. He regarded the letters as conclusive of the guilt
of Mrs. Deane, and accordingly pronounced for the divorce ;
but the husband not being present to give the requisite bond,
he court could not sign the sentence.
ARCHES COURT.
Before Sir 11. J. Suet.
Elms v. Glitts.—Dr. Addams resumed his argument. He
I commenced by reading the evidence adduced in support of
I the charges of adultery against Mr. Dells with three females
who had been in his service, in various domestic capacities,
I namely, M'Phee, Campbell, and M'Kickan. There were
confinaions, he said, with regard to the first which
placed the cue beyond all possibility of doubt.
The principal witness in the second cue was Campbell her.
self ; but the learned counsel submitted that never was the
testimony of a particeps criminis more fairly given, in addi-
tion to which she was confirmed en several important points.
Exception had been taken to her testimony on the ground'
that she could not be believed on her oath ; but he argued
that she remained unimpeached. He admitted that with
regard to the third party the evidence was alight; bat, eon.
sidering the previous conduct of Mr. Delis, he thought the
court would have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion
that the charge was sufficiently proved. The learned coun-
sel then proceeded to the last branch of his case, which was
of a nature too painful and disgusting for publication. He
had not concluded his argument at the rising of the court.