The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-25 00:00:00

bled. The interrogatories wee to be added by the Mester,
mad the order wee to be without prejudice to any .tioe
the parties might be advised to nuke to the euWinth of
the evidence, _

ii;.1112-fierrat or Lorriarrow Ph3IIIIII.—CNAZITY.
—This was a petition to ewers the MI. ST IP
previag of • scheme for application of the es rats
of an estate devised to the pariah of Loppingto!, Bhi.p
shire, for shakable papaws. The testator had directed the
feats of the estate to be applied in payment of the repairs of '
the parish Haab, and to seek olearterrposse as church I
rates me usually applied to. It ap that after
_Paying
for the man of tbe church sad et papaws usually pro-
vided for by church rata, • earplug of the charity rent WU
Left, the application of which formed the ground of the pre-
seat ale The Master, by his report, after setting
apart a portion of the rents for the speckle ob-
jest menamest by the testator, had approved of a
1116111110 for the application of the avplm rents to the
dashes of the poor, and reeommeodad the use of a
wheel already existing in kw perish. To this report °hies.
dens were taken by tartan inhabitant, of the parish, on the
mead that • onflident sum had not been set apart to pro.
side for the repairs of the church ; and secondly, on the
Cithat the site of the present school was inconvenient
the general use of the parish. His Honour thought that
• this. spat the principle approved by the master should
M adopted, and recommended that the site to be taken for
the whoa weld be left to the discretion of the vicar and
elomehwardsms of the parish. The petition was then directed
to staid over, that the parties might, If possible, come to
some arrangement upon the subject.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YatienankY.
Sittings In Banta
Tam Qraux r. Hatmarr.—Ltuer..—ln this cue a rule
had been olenined, calling on the defendant, the proprietor
of the Cheltenham Journal, to show cause why a criminal
information should not be filed against him fora libel im-
puting corrupt motives to the Cheltenham bench of magis.
trans. Mr. Godson, Q C., now applied to enlarge the rule,
on the ground that the defendant's attorney had rot had
time to procure all the effilants which he considered nem-
vary for the defence of his client, in showing cause against
the rule. If the court granted his application, it would
cause no unnecessary delay, because the prosecutors could not
try until the spring assizes, before which another term
would intervene. Lord Diemen The affidavits are to
prove the truth of the statements, I suppose?—Mr. Gad-
' son I hope they will be, as far as the editor is concerned,
an apology.—Lord Dessau : You don't want any time for
that. —Mr. Godson said it would be no cum" to ascertain
certain facts before his client could be advised as to the
apology he ought to make. If he found that he
ought to make an apology at all, he hoped to
be able to do justice to the magistrates, and make
such an apology sa would be satisfactory to them. The
Attorney-General said he must oppose the application. The
libel complained of included the whole bench of magis-
trates, fifteen of whom had made affidavits disclaiming the
charge, and were anxious to avail themeless of the earliest
opportunity of vindicating their chamber —The court re-
fused to enlarge the rule.
Is see PAIII.-41•BgAl CORPoB.—This was a ease in
which a Mr. Henry Parr had obtained a habeas corpus to
bring up the body of his eon, a child of three years old,
for the purpose of hoeing the judgmert of the court se to
whether the mother or the lather should have the custody of
the ehild.—Mr. Prentice, on behalf of Mrs. Parr, now stated
that she was unwilling to resign the custody of her child, un-
lose ordered to do so by the court. The ground of her refusal
was set forth in her affidavit, by which it appeared that she
serried Mr. Parr in the year 1845, but was obliged, on ac-
count of his violent and cruel conduct towards her, to leave
him, and that from the time of her so leaving him up to the
month of August, 1847, she resided with her mother at
Holston. In that month, at the earnest solicitation of her
husband, she was induced to return to his roof, bat unhap-
pily he again resumed his cruel treatment towards her. The
affidavit then proceeded to state that in the present year Mr.
Parr bad struck hill wife's head violentli against the mantel-
piece; and also that upon another occasion, some consider-
able time previous to his striking her head against the
mantel-piece, he had entered his wife's bedroom and de-
manded a bunch of keys, and on her refusing to
deliver up the keys on account of their locking
some place wherein her own property was kept,
Mr. PUT drugged her violently across the room, Mrs. Parr
being, as we understood, in bed at the time. This circum-
stance was confirmed by two witnesses of the name of Mary
Ann Hearn end Hannah White. Mrs. Parr's affidavit etated
in conclusion that since she left her husband she had I
been sued by a tradesman in the Clerkenwell County Court
foe 15L, and that the judge had ordered her husband to pay '
Husain., on the ground that she was fully justified in leas,
lag him on account of his cruelty. The learned counsel
then read the affidavits of Mary Ann Hearn and Hannah
White, who both swore that from the creel disposition of I
Mr. Pan he was entirely unfit to have the custody of a child
of such tender years. The next affidavit was
that of a Mr. James Sheraton, of Compton-street,
B-unswickequere, who in proof of the cruelty of '
Mr. Parr's nature, stated that he had assaulted a little child
who had occasion to go into his shop. For that umiak he
wu taken before a magistrate and tined 10a. The child had
received a wound which had left a scar for the remainder of
its life. He (Mr. Prentice) believed that Mr. Parr meant to
rely on the authority of the case of " Ex rare Greenhill,"
and in that case Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Coleridge
said the father was the proper party to have the custody of
the child unless guilty of great violence, or that his pro-
relw likely to corrupt it. But he would propose to
ineas
to let this matter stand ever for a month, during
which time some application might be made to the Court of
Chancery on the subject —Mr. Parr, who appeared in per-
son, sated that he was fully prepared to go into the case ;
that he was sorry to say this amounted almcet to a case of con-
spiracy on the partof the ladies who had made the affidavits,
Use statements in which were quite untrue—Lord Denman
observed that he did not see how there could be mistake
about Mr. Parr having been brought before a magistrate.—
Mr. Parr replied that the magistrate had recommended the
case to be settled out of court, and that he could satisfactorily
explain the whole matter.—Lord Denman °Nerved that, as
the rule had been granted by Mr. Justice Pennon, who had
read Mr. Parr's affidavits (which we should observe were
five or six in number), the matter had better stand over till
next molaing, in order that they might hear that leaned
judge's opinion upon the case.