The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-23 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

_
NEWTON AND WISE a. BOODLE.—RIOHT TO TAXI •
MARRIED WOMAN IN BEECI:110N FOR eltaTa.—This was an
action to recover damages for the alleged unlawful imprison-
ment of the female plaintiff, by causing her to be taken in
execution fur costs. The defendant justified under a judg-
ment of the Court of Common Pleas, and the plaintiffs de-
murred to the plea. The question theteby raised was
whether a married woman plaintiff was liable to be taken in
execution fur costs in the event of a nonsuit or verdict for the
defendant. dlr. At herton argued in support of the demurrer and
Mr. Cowling in favour of the validity of the plea. The Court
said that the question was whether under the statute of
Henry VIII., which made plaintiffs who did not succeed
li ,ble for casts in the same manner, and by means of the
same remedies, as unsuccessful defendants previously to that
statute, execution could properly be issued against husband
and wife plaintiffs, or ought to issue against the husband
alone. The statute did not make any such distinction, but ap-
plied to all cases where there were unsuccessful plaintiffs. It
had been urged, however, that at common law a wife co-plain-
' tiff, was not liable to be taken in execution, and some older
authorities, together with the opinion of Mr. Justice Black-
stone, bad been quoted. On examining the authorities,
it was plain, that though the court had interfered to dis-
charge married women from custody on mesne process, it
never had gone so far as to rel, ase a married woman taken
into custody on final process, simply because she was a mar-
' ried woman. It was not an unreasonable principle to say
' that a wife could not be arrested, because her headland had
the entire control of her acts, and ought to bear the entire
responsibility; but no one thought that that doctrine
could he carried out to the full extent. The wife,
where she was properly co-plaintif, had rights that would
' survive to her afier the death of the husband, and
must take such advantages with the corresponding liabili-
Bee. There was no doubt that when a wife was
a party to a suit in respect of rights substantially her own,
she was liable to he taken in execution for thy costs in-
curred. The judgment, therefore, must be for the de-
fendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Baneo.
LIABILITY or PROVISIONAL COUNITTEEMEN.—RIVETT
AND OTHERS V. WOOD.—This MIS one of the numerous
cases against provisional committeemen tried at the sittings
after Trinity Term last, and resulted in a verdict for the
plaintiff, ujiou proof of the simple fact that the defendant
had assented to the publication of his name as a provisional
committeeman. A rule for a new trial having been granted,
when it was called on for argument, this day, the court
intimated that it would be a waste of time to argue the point,
as the deliberate decision of this court war, that when there
was no evidence beyond the fart that defendant was a com-
mitteeman, there was no evidence upon which the jury could
find a defendant liable.
:sir. Martin, Q.C., informed their lordships, that two of
the judges of another court had expressed an opinion that
the tact of a defendant authorising his name to he inserted
an a provisional committeeman was a question for a jury,
from which arm., liability might be inFerred. Such a differ-
ence of opinion existing, he submit...ed that cases of this'
nature should tie allowed to stand r.ver, until the opinion of
a Court of Error was taken on a 'Jill of exceptions now de-
pending, which would raise t!.e •Thole question.
Dorm Parke thought this cor,rt was bound to act upon its
own deliberate judgment, wi',.hout waiting for any decison
trona sestler court.
The rule for a new trial was therefore made absolute.

CONST.STORY COURT.
Wstiscou RT IP. W kLIRCOI; RT.—Divoacz.—Lady
court sues fora separation, on the ground of cruelty and
su'ultery. Lord Walhcourt puts in a risponsire plea, deny-
ing the charges. The noble pipit have been married twenty-
five yean, and have severalshildren. Lady Waßscourt went
to reside with her father in Paris, against the will of her
husband, and Dr. Luallington, after going over the facts of
the case, decided upon admitting the responsive p'.ea, with
certain amendments.