The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-27 00:00:00

SPORTING.

WARWICK AND LEAMLNOTON NOVEMBER
MEETING—TtEsuay.
SWEEPSTAKES of 5 save. each, and 20 added ; 2-yr olds,
7st 3lb ; 3 yrs, Bst 10lb ; maidens allowed3lb, and fillies and
geldings 31b. The winner to be sold by auction fur 1001.,
it entered for 701. allowed 3lbs., if fur 50/., 71bs.; and it for
301., 1 tlbs. Five furlongs. (14 subs.)
Lord Lumen's Trghtwalat, a yrs (3OL), 75t 71b (J. Arnold) 1
Captain Powell's b c by t othersteme out of loyla, I yes (Jut),
Gat (J.W sum) 2
Mr. Taft's f by Din John dam by Mundig, 3 yrs (lad.),
Set 710 (K. Denman) 3
Mr. N. Darling's Stratagem, 2 you (34.), Gat 31b (E. Ann r) u
Mr. Damon, tad l'Aney Pres, 2 jra (301.), OM (carried G.t 2(b)
Mr. Theobald's f The Ferret, 2 yrs (301.), Sot 1 ilb(Alsicoll) 0
((Sliver, jun.) 0
Mr. Winch's Herschel. tyrs (.10/.), Est 31b (from) 0
Mr, Wering's Glean, S yr* (3W.), 7st 7lb (Prince) 0
Mr. B. Austin's Brawn, 2 yes (70).), Ost 111 b (Knott) 0
Ur. Sayley's Once mare, 3_yrs (301.). 7st 71b (W. mbarpr)
Betting : 7 to 4 agst Tightwaist, and 4 to 1 agst any
other. Won by a neck; two lengths between second aid
third. Run in 1 min. 13 secs.
°NEAT WARWICK HANDICAP of 20 sovs. each, 10 ft,
with 100'. ad,lesl; the second to save his stake. Two miles.
(18 subs.)
Mr. Williams's Cider Justice, 4 yrs, 7st (including Gib cartes)
(T. L e I
Mr. (mbaldeston dJohn of Berwick, 4 yr*, Gst lib (carr
but 31o) (11leto 2
Mr. Palmer's Doubt, S yrs, 7st 31b (including Glb extra)
n 3
Mr. Meiklam's Italian, 4 yrs, let 21b (Ar(Knoo l (Knott)
) U
Mr. W. Sounder. nd Trieketress, 3 srs, but 10Ib (Alticrolt) 0
lord Waterford's,The Marquis, 3 yrs, 6st 91b (D. 1.1.4 le) 0
Capt. Ilay's Little George, 4 yrs, Ost 21b (J. Wynne) 0
Mr. Austin's Miss Julia, 5 yrs, list lib
Mr. ChaLiner's Master k'nday, 4 yrs, Get 21b (Wells) 0
Mr. Isaac Day's Waterfall, 3 yes, fat bib (carried 4st 10. b),
(011iver. jun.) 0
Betting: Even on Doubt, 3 to 1 apt Chief Justice, 8 to 1
apt The Marquis, and 12 to 1 apt any other. Won by
half a length ; a length between second and third. Run in
3 min. 57 see.
SWEEPSTAKES of 5 son. each, and 20 added; for3-yr olils
and upwards. One mile. (18 sub..)
Mr. Wad's Young England, 4 yrs (Sl.), 7st alb I
Lord Lurgan's Tightwiust, 5 yre (AUL), Is; Illb (J. brown 2
Mr. Winoh's Flytrap, 4 yrs (M.), Mt 1110 ( Wells 3
Mr. Oliver's Colocynthua, aged CUL), 7st 91b ...(Oiliver, jun.) 0
Mr. Ism Day's Mignon, aged (NI ), 7st 910 .. . ....... (Arnold) 0
Mr. Owen's isms Somum, 4 yrs (IOC), Got illb (tarried lot
Ilb
Lord Warwick's Grief, S yes (1301.), got lib
Lord Newport's Lady Bibina, S yrs (1(1.), 7st Sib (W. rils ape) 0
Capt. Powell's Aromas, 3 yes (201.), Set I alb (J. Wynne) 0
Yr W. Cooper's by Pantaloon out of Kite, 4 Ira, Mt bib
(Preece, 0
Mr. Dawson's Joe Sutherland, 5 yrs (201.), 7st 31b . (T. Lye)
Mr. B. Darling, jun.'s Exhibition, 3 yrs (JWL). Set 1 (lb (car-
ried. let 1310) SR. Archer) 0
Betting: sto 2 agst Amereen, 3to 1 agst ightwaist, 6to
1 each agst Joe Sutherland and Flytrap, and 8 to 1 apt
Young England. Won by a length. Run in 1 min. 53 sec.
(Full particulars of tho remainder of this day's racing ap-
peared in our last.)
WEDNESDAY.
FEES] HANDICAP (III:1111LE RACE) of 5 SOTS. each, and
30 added. Two miles, over five hurdles. (16 subs.)
Mr. Carew% BaLlicch, 4 use MAIM (Boyce) I
Lord Lampe* Fugitive, s, 10at (bib (8. Du ling) 2
Mr. Paws d ale Mobs" 4 )es, bat (lb (R. lily, Jun.i 3
Mr. Motets Melia; 4 yor. gat Mb linker) 4
Mr. Damming ad BaNan4Hal4 lost 1010
Mr. C. Illegliela Made Manly 10M 210 ( lamer) 0
Mr. H. Dwelt 1000
0' Atyps, 10st Lb (Yates) 0
Cautidn (late Pander), 4 yrs, 104 0
Mr. eannitimiftrnpe.a fear-Debts. 6 yrs, gat Illb :..(Bradley) 0
Mr. William% nut.- Oft Nth (J. Holman) 0
Mr. C. flbsokrds Potad lia6, gat. IWb (airtad Nat) ...(Fnaby) 0
Betting: II to 4 apt Half-and-Half, 4to 1 apt Ballet
Girl, 6 to 1 each agst Fugitive, Sir Robert, Maria Monk,
and Bullfinch, and 10 to 1 apt Pay-your-Debts. Won by
a length ; Sir Hebert a bad third. Ballet Girl fell at the
sat hurdle.
HUNT Cur STEEPLE CHASE STAKES of 10 SOTO.
each. The winner to be sold for 1501., Three miles.
(10 subs.)
Mr. C. 11. Carew's Proceed (31:11.), lest 1310 (Oliver) 1
Mr. Theobald's (301.), lest bib (Burrows 2
Mr. Price's licilltlncber (301.), lOst ISIS (Frisby 3
Lord Waterfoes's The Piero (501.), Ilst 71b .. (Mr. Hamilton) 4
Mr. Linclow's Auctimser (1001.). list 710 (Owner) 0
sto 4 apt Proceed, and sto 2 apt Hinton Won easy
by two lengths ; half a length between second and third.
Auctioneer fell, and did not jpasa the chair.
GYAND OPEN STEEPLE CHASE 1 KEE HANDICAP of 20
sore. each, 10 ft, and 100 added, the second to save his
stake. Gentlemen riders. 4 miles. (26 subs )
Captain Forster's Omar, b yrs, get 410 (Wynne) I
Mr. T. 011iver's Maurice Daley, aged, gst. .. . ... 2
Lard Waterford's Lord George, 6 yrs, 12M 41b. (tyan) 3
Mr. Carew's British Yeoman, aged,l ist 410 (litiyee) 0
Mr. W. Barnet's Sir Peter Lamle, aged, 114 4lb (Including
71b min) (W. Holman) 0
Lord Largess St. Illeßer, 6 yrs, Inat gib (Darling) 0
Mr. Csrew's Mies Morbray, aged, likat 615
Mr. Booth's Term, aged, lOst (J. /Volliirean'el 3
Mr. A. Itouth's Itscrolt, 9st 11th (carried 71bs sates)
Mr. Thcaapson's Hardwick,' yrs, lot 12Ib (H. Bradley) (Manning) 00
Mr. Land's Defaulter, 6 yrs, get 101.0 (carried Lbs over)
(Owner) 0
Mr. Oath's Metre., est lib (Fowler) 0
Betting : 2 to 1 agst Mies Mowbray, 5 to 1 agst Hard-
wick, 6 to 1 eget Victrees, 6 to 1 apt Oscar, 6 to 1 agst Sir
Peter Laurie 6 to 1 agst Lord George, 7 to 1 agst Oscar,
and 10 to 1 agst B. Yeoman. Won by two lengths, half a
length between second and third, Victresa fourth, and Sir
Peter Laurie fifth. Hardwick, Recruit, and Loddiugton
were hers-d• combat early in the race.
Faam HANDICAP (Stusrix-citasz) of 5 sore. each, and
26 added. Three miles. (8 subs.)
Mr.Click'snabeate (SOL), Set fib
Mr. Pewee Baglisales (1101.). Om . (2=l
Mr. J. Bell's Lima Syse (301.), gat Sib ',Fowler 3
lanre lONE (OIL), get ILb (Owner 0
Mr. Beilimmesßansath, aged (SON.), get gib (Burrows 0
Ismaingrfe Therege, yrs (so sem) gat 6lb (Wynne 0
CILUTBS COP Bzrzure.-1,000 to 15 each taken about
Piteford, Le Julf, Black Doctor, Trickstress, Grand Duke,
Ringleader, Boh-l-noor, Merry Bird, and Cardinal Wisc.

RAW intelitgence.

JUDICIAL COMNit i this OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL-1, :F.STERDA Y.

The judicial cominitiecassenthlid---ifiis morning at the
Privy Couch Office, Whitehall. The leannat lords prevent
/ were Lord Justice Cranwortb, Lord Justice Knight Bruce,
Sir Herbert Jcnner Foot, and Dr. Lushington. The eases
/ which will be submitted to the council during the ensuing
sitting, will consist of five appeals tram the High Court of
Admiralty ; three from Bengal ; one from Bombay ; one
from Madras ; two from British Guiana ; and one from
Jamaica. SL.vi cal petitions for the extension of letters pa-
tent will also be heard during the present sittings.
WILKINSON D. WILSON.—TILE BUNAPAKTIL—BOTTOMRY.
The question raised in this case was the validity of a bot-
tomry bond. It appeared that a schooner culled the Bona-
parte was on a voyage from Gottenburg to Hull with a
cargo of iron and deals. She put into the South Custer
Bay, in Swede'', on the 22d of November, 1848, in conse-
quence, as it was alleged, of injuries sustained through
previous bail weather. On the 24th of the same
month the master, it was also alleged, communicated
with the managing owners of the schooner, and requested
them to supply hint with the funds said to be accessary for
repairing tut schooner. The owners, it was alleged, in-
formed the master that he must get the vessel repaired at
a pert twelve miles disbsut, and that he must borrow the
money for that purpose. The master, ul.on that in-
formation, on the 3rd of December, applied to W. Torrcn,
who finally lent the sum of 81121. 15s. lid., on buttomry of
the ship, canto, and height, at the maritime premiunt of
MI. 17s. 5d., and the whole sum, namely, 4511. 13s. 4d.,
was made payable after the safe arrival of the schooner at
Hull. In the court below, Dr. Lushington said the ques-
tion raised was whether or nut the bond was invalid by
the general maritime law upon the ground that it hail been
granted in the country of the owner of the ship, and that
notice hail nut been given to the owners of the cargo. lie
was of opinion that Ate principle, as far as it extended—for
it wits not a universal rule that a bond should not bo
grant:it iu the country of the owner of the ship—was a
principle directed rather to the proti•ctims of the owner of
the ship than the owittAr of the cargo; and that principle
depended upon the facility of communication with the
owner of the ship or of the cargo, if resident in the country
in which the bond was granted ; and when the owner of tho
cargo was resident abroad, the principle could not apply,
especiaby in this ease, where the owner of the ship was a
consenting party. It had been objected that the cargo
ought to have been transhipped, or communication made
to the uglier of the cargo. It was quite clear that there
was not a general obligation upon a muster to tranship.
It was front Dr. Lushiugton's judgment that the present
appeal was Mad:.
Dr. Addams and Mr. Willes appeared for the appellant.
Dr. hinter and Dr. Twig. represented the respeudent.
The arguments, which were only partly heard, were ad-
journed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BFANCii.-YEKTEIWAY.
efITINIIS IN BANC:O.-8.4'1M )411...J1.111101 CIL.ItIVOIK AND ML

VOICE Eats.

The court sat to-.lay by appointment to hear some ap-
peals from the county courts.
Ititimas r. lt.twkrowourit.—Juinotasr.—Fului:ro

BAN K-NOIE;

Mr. Justice Patteson COM; into the court to deliver judg-
ment in this ease, which had been heard at the sittings
alter last term. The plaintiff was in the shop of the de-
fendant, near Charing-cross, when he found on the dad a
parcel of Lank-mots, of the value of bit., which he handed
to the defendant, until the rightful owner should come for
them. Nu person, however, applied for them, upon which
the defendant advertised them. Nu notice having been
taken of the advertisement, the plaintiff desired the de-
fendant to give the mites up to him, uttering to pay for the
cost of ad tertising, and to give security in case the owner
should eventually be found. The dednitant refused to part
with the notes, but offered the plaintiff 2/. 10., and
subsequently 51., for his honesty, both which autos the
plaintiff refused, but suggested that the money should be
put into a savings hank :aid divided between them ; the
defendant, however, refused to secede to this proposition,
upon which the plaiutiff brought an action to recover the
amount iu a county court, when the plaint was dis-
missed, the judge ruling that the notes belonged to the de-
fendant, because they were found in his shop ; the plaintiff
had appealed against this decisiun, and this court was of
opinion that tile judgment of the court below must
be reversed. The plaintiff found the nutes on the four;
evidently they belonged to somebody ; and the general
right of the finder was well established. %Viten he delivered
them to the defendant, he did not intend to give up his
right to them, but only that they should be delivered to the
owner, if he could he round. The single point which the
• learned judge seemed to have decided wan that the notes,
having been haunt in the shop, belunged to the defendant.
There was no authority on this point, except that of "
ley and Lee" (7 Wesel' and Welsby); but that case differed
in many respects (*femme present. If the defendant bad a
right to the tunes, when did it accrue? It must have been
antecedent to the finding by the plaintiff, fur that finding
could not give the defendant any right. If the notes had
been accidentally kicked into the street, they might have
been picked up by any one, and the defendant would not be
entitled to them, nor would he be liable to any action ; the
defendant, in fact, hail nu responsibility, except that which
arose by the plaintiff giving the notes to him, and his having
advertised them. By the general rule of law, a tinder was
entitled, in the absence of the real owner, against all the
world. The court was, therefore, of upiuiun that the judg-
ment of the county court must be reversed, and that the
plaintiff was entitled to the value of the notes, and the costa
of his legal proceedings.
CUIPPINGDALE c. Tole LANCASIIINE AND YORKPOIDE
RAILWAY CUMPANY.—L/ABILITY UV RAILWAY COM-
PANIES.

In this cue the plaintiff was a dealer in cattle, and the
defendants had been sued as common carriers for hire. On
the 29th of May last the plaintiff's drover took 12 head of
cattle to be conveyed by the Lancashire and Yorkshire
Railway, and plaintiff having paid the faro signed a docu-
ment called a pass ticket, winch contained a clause to this
etfkt, " subject to the owner taking all risks of convey-
ance whatsoever, as the company will out hold themselves
responsible for any injury or damage, however caused, to
live cattle," /Sc. It appeared that upon the journey the
cattle became frightened, and the carriage in which they
were placed Suing unfit for the purpose, some of them es-
caped, and two were killed un the line. The plaintiff then
brought an action in a county court against the company to
recover the value of the cattle which had been destroyed,
when the judge held that he had catered into a special con-
tract, by which he might be bound, hut took the opinion of
the jury as to whether the truck in which the cattle were
conveyed was defective or nut. The jury were of opinion
that it was, and found a verdict for the plaintiff fur 21/.
The defendants appealed from this decision, alleging that
it was a matter of law, upon the special contract, which
ought to have been decided by the judge; and that no
question of fact should have been left to the jury.
Mr. Cowling now contended, on behalf of the plaintiff,
that the defendants, as common carriers, were liable for
any defects in their carriages, there being a condition pre-
cedent that the truck should be properly constructed, and
fit for the purpose for which it was used.
The court,without calling upon the other side, were of opi-
nion that the plaintiff was bound by the special contract which
he bad entered into, the effect of which was, that he would
not call on the company for any damage arising from the
conveyance of his animals during the journey, one of
which, it appeared, he had seen put into the truck by
which they were conveyed. The verdict of the jury
must, therefore, be set aside, and entered for the de-
fendants.
Smote' ar Soso

Mt. JUSTICI Wien N AND A
Coates Jets.
PARIS O. SPUltillEtt.—Cßll4. COX.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for a criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife.
Mr. Watson, in opening the case, said the plaintiff
In this action, Mr. Paris, was a mate on board an
lase Indianian belonging to Messrs. Green and Wigram,
tits ealabested shipowners of London, in whose service
IN had been ever since 1842, and the defendant,
Mr. Spurrier, was a gentleman of property, a member of a
fashionable club at the West-end, and also a wine mer-
chant in an extensive way of business at 168, Old Bond-
street. Ho was, in fact, a person of considerable position
in life, and mixed in the best society. The plaintiff, by
this action, sought ti recover compensation in the shape of
damages for one of the most serious injuries which one man
could inflict upon another—the seduction of his wife, and
consequently the destruction of his happiness and the ruin
of her character as a virtuous and chaste woman. Ile should
briefly state the facts as they were presented to him, and
then leave the jury to estimate the wrong and injury which
his client had sustained, and the amount of damages he was
entitled to under the circumstances. The defendant had
taken advantage of the plaintiff's absence from this
country first to secure his wife's affections and then seduce
her. In 1839 the plaintiff was not in any business, but was
maintained by his father, who had since died, but was then
a perfumer and soap manufacturer in the Strand or Fleet-
street. It was in that year that ho first became ac-
quainted with the unfortunate lady who was the subject
of the present inquiry. She was then about 20 years of
age, and possessed considerable beauty and charms, and
there could be no doubt that a strong attachment and
love for her induced the plaintiff to make her his wife, as she
possessed no fortune, which was sometime* considered a
necessary or agreeable quabecatioa by persons of riper
years than the plaintiff, and it appeared equally clear that
there existed great fondness and attachment on her side,
as the plaintiff was no richer than herself, and was to a
great extent dependent on his parent for the means daub.
name. The marriage took place in 1839, and they lived
as happily together as man and wife could do until 180. The
event was entirely unknown to the father, and it would
seem that the plaintiff kept the marriage a secret from his
family, as he expected some fortune on the death of an
uncle, and thought his prospects in that respect might be
injured if his marriage were known. Not having, there-
fore, any means of supporting himself, he was obliged to
live with his father, who kept a country house at Egham i
and, in 1842, he placed his wife with a respectable family
of the name of Warren, in Roupell-street, Lambeth, and
agreed to pay them for her support. In the same year his
father obtained him a situation as midshipman in a ship of
Messrs. Green, and on his return to England he visited hie
wife at the Warren's. The plaintiff only made short
stays in England between his arrival and departure from
hie different voyages, and did not sec his wife
on every occasion. The plaintiff's salary was ex-
tremely small, and he had little or no money to
c send to her while absent abroad. In 1848 ho received ma
anonymous note, and this gave rise to some dissatisf , _
in his mind ; but, like most husbands, he was the lan ~T.:ol-CiTr.` ,
suspect his wife's dishonour and guilt, and it was n r:,/-X,., --.,:, „ow
1849 that the truth flashed upon him. The defendan ''',,l, 4.:,*:,-/' n
lodgings in a respectable house near the Warren's, : i't.if',/:::,.., a
be and the plaintiff's wife lived together as man ad • ..- -' ~Ds'l - - ' z
)
There could be no doubt that Mr. sad Mrs. Winos, ' 44:-• ---
• ,I.l' -fte:-. I ta
,S ,„.:
.ir,T.-r t ,
;,:. ,-; ~.. . : .1 !.. -c . 4/
Q° •!. ....±i iii
\ tj............ 4.2,1

aware of their living together in adultery prior to this, but
they had failed to communicate the eircantstaxice to the
lawful It would be proved clearly in evidence
that they had cohabited Irons lsl7 up to the present time,
sad that the husband was wholly ignorant of it until
1619. The kora:A counsel, in conclusion, stated that
the plaintiff had dune c.crythia; in his power to sup-
poet hi. wife, thot4h to a great extent unsuceemful
in that aspect, as the amount of his pay would
show; but he had riga from uthl.hipman to be
mate, and he hoped one day to become a commander; and
when his hopes were brightest, and he expected to be able
to keep hi. wife in a way becoming his station and her re-
spec-tab.:4y, all kis hamsweet blast. d by the conduct of the
defendant Under these circumstances he called upon the
jury to n.ark their sense of his conduct by awarding a con-
siderable amount of damages.
The following evideuce was then adduced :
AVilliarn Davenport, solicitor, Ely-place, said he WAR pre-
sent at the marriage between the plaintiff and Maria Neerai,
his wife' but could not recollect whether he gave the bride
away. IL visited them afterwards when they were resid-
Mg In Drunimond-stri et, New-road, and they appeared to'
live happily and comfortably together. Ile recollected the
plaintill goat' abroad in 1342, and be continued to see him
anerwarils on his return from his different voyages. In
July I es: witame went with a Mr. Thurgool to Mrs. War-
ren a, r, Itoupell-strect, Lambeth, and afterwards to Mail-
dos-strict, Itegentstrett. At the latter place he sow the
plaintiff'. wife., whom he addressed as Mr.. Spurrier, and
she anew, red hint in that name.
. . .

Peewees anise.' by Mr. James—l think I recollect seeing
the Rudy before the plaintiff's marriage. That wa. in Mar-
garet-street, Regent-street, or some other street there. I
saw her with the plaintiff. I cannot say whether I saw her
at a pa.tr}eook's shop before the marriage. At this di.-
lance of lime I cannot .ay positively whether I gave her
away. I •,•ily heard of the marring,: three day. prior to the
event. Aft., the MAT flolge we went to the paatrycook's
shop you alluded to, and lout some lireakfa.t. That was
somewhero in ltegent-.treat. The plaintiff had previously
bete cprn nticed to some business, but he we. then a clerk
at the hnnton Hotel. I list saw the plaintiff in June this
year. 11, was two or three weeks in this country, and
stayed at Li. mother's at Egham. I never saw his wife is
hie elelp,:v risme 1812, when he went abroad.
Natth •. Paris, perfumer, in the Strand, and brother of
the plaintiff, deposed to the plaintiff having no resources se
his rosin eel, to .upport 'timid( or hi. wife at the timed'
and alts r ti. marriage. Witaccs's father Lied about wen
years acv ; be knew nothing about the marring., of Min
pla•ntiff.
itarained by Mr. James—After entering the MASS
of Mime.. fire-en be war home every year for about MO
Ile went out I.a.t in June, Nil. When in Lew
don he ....edam ei.ited me and sometime. my mother.
Ili. wife called upon we only one.--three yearn ago, to in-
quire who nmy brother would return home. That was the
hot tits.. I her.
John Murray, clerk in the office of the plaintiff's ma-
ployers, ea. called to prove that the plaintiff'. father paid
a lame pOTOWUM, outfits, and me money, ea le
three Si, t soyageo, and that he only rec •I a alba
on hi. loinoviiient voyage, barely enough to cover the
charge. for nievi and outfit,.
trovv• za, ii iii ed by Mr. Jame.—The plaintiff's wife caged,
upon me en information, but never in distress. I sew hie
thr.e tini“, and she came to weertain when her husband
Irft mot would return, mid nothing more. In 11119 the
plaintiff about 13 month. an England. The pl.iintilr Ru
now ea a voyage to India. Ile is about twenty-sin years of

-The plaintiff's wife never asked me if she
email draw any money.
Edvtas.ll hummed, assistant to a chemist and druggist at
Paddington, said —ln 1517 I ipecupied a house at 84,
Lamb. th, and had then apartments to lit. In Sep-
tember. 1517, a lady came and looked et the rooms, but I
did not Sr" her; she saw my wife. A few days afterwards
abe sill. d again with a gentleman, who gave the name of
Mr. Spurn, r, of the Reform Club and 01.1 Bond-street. I
have sou railed at Bond-street and seen the gentleman
Men, be is Mr. Spurrier, the wine-merchant, of Bond-street.
They einzaaed the rooms and lived in them as man awl wife.
'They lived pith me till November DOS, when I gave them
huh., In ynt, a. I was shout giving UP the house. Ile
used to c.. to business in the morning and return in the
evening. A Mrs. Warren fnspiently brought a buy to the
house, Ile lady who Iwssevl a, Mr.. Spurrier wascontinol
at my hle, in March or April, ISIS, of a girl. On that
0CV.1..1011 .lie. Spurrier took an additional room to sleep in
in anothi r part 01 the house. MD. Warren acted as nurse.
The infant rap taken away from the house in about a week
after it,. liath. Mr. Spurner Pus in the habit of leaving
home every Saturday or Sunday for III" country, but the
female di 1 eat accompany him. I went to ltoupell-street
with Mr. Oat enport, awl there saw the lady who passed as
Mrs. Spunu. r. The house was kept by Mrs. Warren. 1'
once saw Mrs. Spurner at Mr. Spurrier's place in Bond-
street, *two I went there about a matter of businem.
Crum-es. tttt ined by Mr. James—Mrs. Warne said the
little boy whom she brought to my bows was two years old
in OW. I was told it was Mrs. Warresi's child.

Nn. Thur,ood corroborated this evidence, and proved
that a ceit dicata of birds produced gave the correct date of
the bath.

Thu CI r!itiento was put in null read, from which it ap-
peared that the child had bten rettudered in the name of
ttpuffirr.
. _

'Ellen Wilson Ikutun, now a lady's maid at Jersey, and
from ISO to ISO servant ut Mr. hurgooars, deposed to
seeing Mr. Spurrier and the holy who passed as his wife
frequently in the bed-norm together.
LAIMIR, a perlumir in Matliloa-strent,stated that
Mr. and Mrs. Spurrier occupied apartment., at his house.
llr alway. believed them to be man and wife.
This h, ing the ease for the plaintiff,
Mr. James addressed the jury on the part of the de-
fendant, mid commented eloquently and severely on the
conduct of the plaintiff in leaving his wife alone in
London tor nearly live years, not only without visiting
hoe on hi, return grunt suyages, but without contribut-
lag one farthing to her support ; and asked the jury to
picture to themselves the misery she must have suffered
in that period, and the inevitable destruction which the
defeudaet had rescued 111 e from, by furnishing her with
that home and those comforts which she looked in
vain for ut the hands of her heartless and cruel husband.
Ile treated the present proceeding as one more for the pur-
pose of putting money intophe plaintiff's pocket, and of dis-
gracing and proclaiming to the world the dishonour of the
unhappy lady, to whom he hail, unfortunately. been united,
than fur the purpose of relive...Ong his scented or injured
feelings as an honourable ur deserted husband. Ile bad
dace everything in his p.wer to bring her in the way of
temptation, and the defendant was rather to be praised
than condemned fur haying afforded lice, an unprotected,
and hr ungiit almost ray a houseless wanderer, a home, and
the protection of • husband. If he had nut done so she
might hare become the victim of her cruel awl necessitous
situation, and presented a picture of those unhappy ClVA-
tares who till the metropolitan thoroughfares. Ile consi-
&red that the smallest Possible damages which could be
given would in -it tie justice of the cos,'.
The learned Judge having briefly summed up the
sividenee,

The Jury, after only • minute's emp.iderotion, found •
terdivt for th. plaintiff —D•maires one fArthing.
Lb* Lord.top refused to certify for cants.

COURT OF EXCIIEUCEIL—YESTERDAT.
Henan Ai Ni., Pars,—Boon tea Lou Criss il•soa •a. •
(Liguori dear.
Toady am the lest day of the sittings at ni.i prin. alter
ilichailrucs term. The printed cause list contains an entry
of 27 renianets, awhich 14 are special juries, and of 46 new
rause., of which 6 an special juries.
Ili. lordship, us taking his seat, disposed of three undo.
frillied

Kivu& r. SS flux iiiiiNsr t Suurtr.
ThU actim woo breliAlit to ream r the amount of a
gwarantry seford by the defendant under the following
firrani..tvici.. The plaintiff was a wioe-fuerehant in
Itarklirsb.ir). In the month of Mardi in the prevent year
the d. &admit called on the plaintiff and said he wished to
parches eons wine fur a friend, who would pay for it by
balls of eavhaalfe at six months' date. The plaintiff ex•
prised humid, willing to eater into the tramuction pro-
•ided the defendant would endorse his friend's bills. The
def f.dant lit a said that his friend was Mr. Morgan John
M r , and tlut he preferred to glee a guarantee
for tb. wintry rather than semen it by endorsing the bills.
Ppm this miderstaading the plaintiff a,:rovd to supply the
wine. The plaintif then drew two bills of exchange, one
foe 'Ala and env for 1 kW., which he gave to thu defendant
for his aceeptante, at late same time taking from him a gas.
ranter in the following terms :

Bueklersbury, March 19, 1951.
" De.tr Sir,—Upon handing me two drafts upon Mr.
Morgan JJ'en O'Connell respectively for NO/. and 146/. at
na months after date. 1 undertake to get them accepted by
bun, and to se: that they are duly paid.
IiINRY Ooneawra."
Mr. Knowles objected that the document did not disclose
the .boo con.ivltrati•at, anJ was, therefore, invalid under
the Statist. of Frauds.

Ila lord•bip havisis overruled the objection.
The jury retuned a voldiot far the plaintiff, damages 3401.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.—YUTUDAY.
nkes.—lleressha. Danes Yams. Ma. ■,ao.
moue. Ma. Jv txe (.111,01FILLL. Ma Na.. hart. Ma Ammo
M►. Jtnxs Twxu, 11111 Ma WON
The court sat to-day, to bear eases from the Court of
gallege. &nth.
KALLSTT A\D OTNIOS r. DOWDALL.-I.IIIILITT O►

_ ....—.....
le this rise (which had been tried before the Lord Chief
Justice) the plaintiffs in error were shareholders in a cons-
ray salted the ?brit me Insurance Company, which had
granted a pAiry fur IMO/. upon the ship Vindicator to •
inn trading under the style and title of W. P. Lytt and
Beebell. In the pokey there was a clause limiting the
liability of the company to its capital stock, and stipulating
that no proprietor should he in any wise liable to any claim
et demand beyond the amount of his shares. The policy
was signed by three direetors, and not by any of the plain-
to in sew. The metal was lost, and an action thereupon
beam* against the plaintiffs in error, which resulted in
▪ verdict against them, and a judgment for 1,'26,3/. and
emits.

rework. Q.C., argued that the fund. of the cam-
paay were shin liable, and that the only rem,dy the in-
sured had onainet an individual proprietor was a proceed-
ing is patty to compel him to pay up the amount of his
area.
lir. Bane Platt add that would not be a very convenient
mode for the roared to make every shareholder the de-
fendant is • soviet of equity.
Mr. Preterit, in reply, ..S.nitted that it would be yet
lame ineeseesieett to the shareholders if they were each to
be made Ilahle he the *belt et the sepia-up milithel•

rise a man only intended to be liable for 10,0001., ha as an
man, only took as many shares as he could meet ;
and surely they ought not to take any supposed difficulty of
procco.linx into account. If they 1.e14 that each proprietor
was liable to each person assured to the amount of his shares
he might, in point of fact, be made lia9le for a hundred
times 25 much. If, on the other hand, they held that it was a
joint clurract, there would be au even arcater hardship, fur
it would mike each of them liable for the whole cnpital of
the company, namely, 1,000,0001. One of the plaintiffs in
error, had actually pleaded that he held 50 shares of 1001.
each, and that, therefore, he was only liable for 5,0001., and
no more; but that he had already paid more than that
sum; and yet if t'.is was held to be a joint contract, he
would be equally batik with others who might not have
paid up the amount of their shares. This, the learned
counsel held, would be a monstrous hardship. It appeared
that only 1.51. per share had been actually paid up, so that
the proprietor referred to would be liable to pay, in addi-
tion to his own shares, 85 per cent. of the other share-
holders' calls, and to pay up the 13,000 shares which had
been forfeited, in consequence of the death or bankruptcy
of those to whom they had been allotted.
Mr. Baron Alderson suggested that the deed of the com-
pany gave the three directors authority to make no contract,
but such as should bind themselves, and that they were to
be guaranteed by the rest of the company.
Mr. Baron Parke said that that was tne better GM for
the learned counsel to put. It might be said on the other
title that the assured had no intimation of the arrangement,
bat the stipulation introduced into the policies seemed as if
there had been such an intimation. . .

Mr. Baron Alderson—The court could not take into con-
sideration the question of hardship.
Mr. Peacock was only putting the ease of the hardship to
the shareholders against the hardship of the assured having
to go into equity. There would still be some difficulty in
making even the three signing directors liable beyond the
number of their shares, because it would make them all
equally liable, although they might not have the same in-
terest an the company.
Mr. Mellish, on the other tide, argued that the company
not being incorporated, was a COllllOOll law partnership. It
struck him that the real answer to the whole of this case
was that the parties were trying to set up what by the law
of England could wit be dour, and were trying to erect a
partnership which could not be erected. If persons carried
on a trade an • partnership under the common law and
carried on business in their partnership name, the law said
that they were individually liable.
Mr. Baron Platt—You say that It is as if two persons
were to have community of profit end loss, and were not to
have community of liability—a thing which the law does
not allow. . _

Mr. 31ellish •aid the case he put was where a number of
persons entered into a joint contract on which the♦ were
liable to be sued, but on which they were not jointly liable.
The stipulation in the policy was repugnant to the very
principle of the document. It was just like selling land in
tail or in fee, and then making a proviso that the buyer
should not sell ; or like entering into a joint contract, and
stipulating that the parties should not be liable for its
breach. Of course, if they entered into a contract, they
must be liable.

The remainder of the hearing was postponed until Wed-
nesday week.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-YESTEZDAY.
84/011.11 MIL Cbvrurw..a VuNIKAJWit'L
IN at DAtIl) GIDION.

The bankrupt, of the Minories and Uxbridge, clothier
and 'lowlier, came up on the question of certificate. The
amounts commence in D. comber, 1019, with a deficiency of
33/.' and ended in ?day, 18;1, with debts, 3,6691.; liabili-
ties,3l7l. The assets consist of cash and bill given up to
the mss, 115/. ; property given up to the assignees
realised, 1,0061.; good debt., 1691. • doubtful, 91/. • looses,
8681. ; trade expenses, 8171. ; and personal; ex-
pease", 907/.
Mr. 'teed appeared for the assignees to oppose. After two
or three journments the bankrupt was allowed to pass on
the ground that he could not Ole better accounts. The grounds
upon which the assignees opposed the certificate were—
First, the general character of the bankrupt's trading, upon
which there was a loss ; secondly, extravagant expendi-
ture ; thirdly, continuing to trade while in insolvency;
and, lastly, imperfect book-keeping. The bankrupt, who
had been in business many years, started in December,
1819, with a deficiency of 33' /. and at the end of one year''
and four months' trading owed 4,001!., the assets having
realised about 1,2001. There was, therefore, a deficiency of
2,8001., which had arisen almost entirely in consequence of
tho expenditure. The general character of the trading was
loss' and upon forced sales to the extent of 3,2871. there'
had been a luas of 10 per cent. The charge of excessive
expenditure was proved by the fact, that whilst there
were no profits tae trade expenses had been 8161.;
personal ditto, 9681.; allowance to sister, 751.—in
all, about 1,8001. In August, 1810, the bankrupt
must have known that be was in a state of insolvency,
being aware that he was making no profits; but,
on the !contrary, was selling goods at a loss of 10 per
cent. on the wholesale price. With respect to the elle-
gation of bad book keeping, he (Mr. Reed) would call
attention to the fact that the sales were almost all un- '
vouched, and that sales to the amount of 1,1091. or 1,2001.
were :quite unexplained, except by the ordinary ready-
money sales, which were altogether unvouchcd. Under
these circumstances, admitting in the bankrupt's favour
that he had most readily put himself in the hands of his
creditors, a lengthened suspension of the certificate was
asked fur.

Mr. Linklater, for the bankrupt, urged that there was
only .1501. of sales unvouched, which was nut to be won-
dered at, seeing that the bankrupt had carried on a parti-
cular business at two plates, and that the sales had
amounted to 10,000!. Ile had continued to struggle on,
hoping against hope, and when he came to this court he
gave up cash to the amount of 1131. and other property,
making 1,4001. or 1,3001. The resorting to forced sales was
must imprudent. and the 3311. due to his wife's trustees
was treated sis capital. Ho was nut a person who had di-
vested himself of all his property before coming to this
court, and neither had he made any preference. The
bankrupt was now present to bear the brunt of the large
amount of expenditure, and he was a person advanced in
years. lie (Mr. Linklatcr) would not struggle against •
suspension, but trusted that the court would give lus client
its merciful consideration.
His Honour was willing to give the bankrupt credit for
having placed himself in the hands of his creditors, and (or
having made something like a decent dividend, but be
could not give the bankrupt credit for nut having made a
fraudulent preference. it was quite clear that the trading
was mot reckless, and there was so trace of profit. The
loss by forced sales was admitted, end nothing could the
court hold a more strict hand over. His personal expendi-
ture was very large. The court must mark its disapproba-
tion of such conduct by suspending the certificate (3rd
class) for 12 months. He (the Commissioner) might say,
that wiles.; a man was very prosperou. in one business, he
ought not to take another, as the master's eyes could not be
in two places at one time.