The Express.
London, England, 1865-12-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAT.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
After Term Nisi Prins Site's", at Guildhall.—(Before the
Lord Chief Julien and Special Janie.)
HILL t.. FURIET.
The further hearing of this extraordinary cam was
A
mused this moaning.
Mr. Coleridge, Q. 0., Dr. Tristram, sad Mr. Mauls we
counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., led yr..
Watkiu Williams for the didendast.
Tka plaintiff, in continuatim of his evidence in claw,
said—When I left Boulogne I came to Linden arid ow•
suited my unols,who recommended me to ge to Mr. riash
above all others. He bad been for acme years the taws;
attorney. I consulted him the following day, sad 1
had afterwards several intervieith .ws with [gay ,
told him my gtievances w refe2,,.., yr.
Wood and my wife. I went back teaid by yr.
Fiansy's advice to collie* evidence, I=ound tiai
my wife had left with Mr. Bannister, an alums', vb.
acted for Mr. Wood, and bed goes with tkea
to Mr. Wood's residence in Wales. I couitounicatas
that to Mr. Finney, and he gave me • titter ed
introduction to Mr. Selby, an English steamy,
'at Boulogne. After a week I returned to Leeks,
' mad told Mr. Finney whit I had done. Before y *es
left Boulogne she showed ins a letter from Mr. Plnawal,
statiag that Mr. Wood bad celled oe him, and
that she bad better join him in Esflaar' 7l.
letter referred to a separation, but it did net
mention anything about proomedinp in the Divan:, Capt.
Mr. Sinewy wrote a latter in answer to it, aM Sin hi
beard for the first time that prooesdings had been takes hy
my wife for a judicial separation. The petition was Cad
on the 20th October, 1860. Mr. Finney &dried ow
that I had good grounds for charging my eta
with adultery, and counsel's opinion was taken, sad
ape that my suit for a divorce was instituted aft*
my wife'se ems petition had beim SIM. In retinae,
wwwedeuis ismilii, sad evidence was token at Souk,:
In February 1861. I was present and gave Mr. Homy la.
formation as to the witnesses to be called. I did ac• knee
the consents of all the letters that paled betels.
Mr. Selby and Mr. Finney. My snit is the Hiram
went was heard first, became on Mr. Finney's aeries I
went to Frames to provost being served with the citation is
my wife's suit ; her me in her exit worsen
set up in mine, ancohlar . atendey always said I Weald
be able to disprove them ; he OW told me that MN
of those charges would be entered into in the dines
suit. There was no saggestioo in the divorce suit that I keel
seduced my wife before marriage. I always denied it, sal
told Mr. Finney so. Mr. Finney asked me if I was Is
father of the child. I told him I was not, sag
I showed him by dates that I mad rid is
father. I was in England whoa the dime
suit came ea and I was in waiting in Westeniasemball at
the day of the beating. I saw Mr. Finney several time
whilst the cause was him heard. I told him many air.
mmstances of which I was icformsd that was my
discreditable to Yr. Wood; they had Menem to
Mr. Wood's dealings with women. Before the lid
Mr. Finney told me he thought that tom d
my letters to my
_wife would hi damaging to eay
suit. I told him I had written a lot of love titters. WI
had forgotten what was fa them. I assured him that I hail
not seamed my wife before merrisee. I heard duns' tots
trial that those letters had been put in. and Mr. Taw
wished me, daring the trial, to withdraw. I decibel
to do so at any price, and insisted on the suit mooning,
On the sewed trial the jury fouled that the adultery as
not proved. Before the judicial sewed= mit cams ea l
and my friend had an interview with the defenders
;teer:ei uncle's office, in Town-street. They op.
to have discussed the nutter before I
Game. Mr. Finney, who was my . uncle's ma
fidential adviser, and is se still, said the night of the teal
that be would try NM defend me in the wife's suit Who
at my uncle's Mice Mr. Finney showed me a theft let*
he had written to be addressed to Mr. Crewman, Ir.
Wood's solicitor, which I was to sign. The letter attlemed
the defendant to compromise the judicial separatist sait.
The proposition bad come from Mr. Creasman. Whet Os
letter was handed to me the defendant said that if I Opal
it nothing would appear in court against my diameter. TM
draft letter was brought by the defendant all reedy pm
pared. I said to the defendant, " The charges that hate
been made against me are already known ,to a gent
many people ; a number of eaters already hoe
them,and I ought really so defend them, because if they air
egainst me I shall surely lose my commience
probed
strongly advised me to sign the letter, and es.
wired me that aothine should appear in court
spinet my character. He said my wife would gat
the decree of the court without evidence on the production
of the litter. I was very unwilling to sip it, sad lat int
refused ; he also assured my uncle the same, and upon hie
positively assuring me that nothing would appear spice
my character, I was Induced to sign the letter. I said I
was perfectly willing to go into the witoess-box and dew
the charges alleged in the petition, awl I also repeated
the names of the surgeon, I could produce a
evidence in my favour. When I had before onotiosel
this *videos to him he had always thought it very
satisfactory. If I had known that my wife was to Ps
evidence, and that the case was to have been beard as s
cause, I never would have signed the letter. That evening
I met some officers of my acquaintance, and after no
veining about the matter I decided on goisg to Mr. Huey,
and on the next day or the day following I called an In
Finney and asked him to give me back the letter ; in said
he could not do it—it was too late, as he bad shady Pet
it to Mr. Crossmiut I then told him that I thought be
had very badly advised me, because I had been told
that my wife would have to appear in court end fits
evidence splint me. He again assured toe that nothite
would appear against my character, but that if my Ma
said anything he would defend me. Mr. Crow= led
assured him that mywife would not appear. Os that I
asked him if it would not be better to have the witusseo
over from Boulogne, and he replied that as my wile
would not appear it was net necessary to
have them. I mentioned Dr. Pargraushiud's nom;
be was one of the French witnesses who was not esiond
before the commission. Mr. Selby considering that meMs
had been to substantiate my case. ilmy
T. said that if he examined
had not had the letter he would Mr. hamF bed
nothing more to do with the came ; and at the mid di
I interview he told me to go to Bonlogoe out of Mr. Cram
S man's way, as I was lON* to him for Mr. Wood's red wy
1 wife's wets in the divorce suit. I watt Over to
a Boulogne, and a few days after I read, to my astonishment
2 sad disgust, an account of my wife's evidence in the joie
- anal separation suit. I immMistely saw Mr. Selby, sad i
2 wrote to Mr. Honey. I made several medications
new fos '
2 trial, but without seams. I changed my ettoreel.
becalms the defendant would have nothing more to do with
the ow.
2 2 [The wittier was under examination when our report left!
s

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
SECOND COURT.
!Minis at Nisi Prim; io Londoo.—(Before Nr. dulls'
Smith and a Cimmoe Jarv.)
COLBY r. tiAR.ENT.
_ This was an action to recover damages sl
for ander.
Dr. Semenley appeared far the plaintiff and Mr. 13010,
the deteadwit.
The parties to the snit were tradesmen living at Stoat.
ford New Town, and the litigation arose out of 'USW
dispute. Just before the last Derby-day the Plaintiff air
Christmas Carol in • shilling sweepstakes, sod ea
chance to the defendant for Si. C.d. The horse oasts
second, and thus entitled the defendant to rewire 12a
hat be seemed to have the impression that he ought tot
Mo. This udiamderstandiog led to words, and the plaiatt
use was the defendant called him " a swindling thief.
The defence was twofold ; that the defendant had
celled the plaintiff a thief, sad that whatever words
used they were mere terms of abuse.
His Lordship said that to entitle the plaintiff to reeerr
he must show that the defendant intended to chugs hum
with an indictable offence. and not merely to abuse him.
The jury found for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Priam at Guildhall.--(Bstor• Lord
Barra Pollock sad a Special Jury.)
HIM v. SOUTH WITIR:4 PAILWLT CONIPLNT.
This was another action under Lord Canipbell'i
recover co:ape:Nation for personal injuries sistainal
the Btaplehurst amideat.
The daieadants admitted their liability sad the
gaieties wee the amount of damages
The bolicitor.G•nerid and Mr. Blron, for plaintiff,
Mr. fierjeant Balleatine and Mr. Underwood for the

IPIaY•
The plaintiff, Mr. Host, is 5 years of age, and •
manager for Masers. Jonas Brook and Co., cotton man,
barer's, of Milton Hills, Huddersfield. He was is •
clam carriage at the time of the accident, and on
thrown oat fell up to his middle in water in the river
which the railway passed at Stapleburrt. His left srm'
broken, his face cut, end his body very much bruised.
was 'moaned to his bmre far six weeks. and had net
entirely recovered from the injuries be sustained.
No evidence was adduced for the defence, but Mr.
Plant Ballantine addressed the jury in mitigation of dansslol.
The jury gave • verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 0.7••

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COUR'.
(THIS DAY.)

The December sessions of the Central Crimisel
coessesweed this morning before thu Right Roo. tbt
Mayer (it. maw. phinivo, Mr. AldermanFima
Alderman W. Lawrence, M.P., Mr. Aldermen Lusk,
the Recorder, use Common Parjeent, Mr. Alderman
Sheriff Gibbons, Mr. Sheriff Figgie% Mr. UoderSl
Duffel!, Mr. Under• Sheriff Rawlins, and • the mud
fusetionaries.
Tbe first edltios of the calendar costal« the now
prisoners, of whom 36 antrum Load«. 41 from
sex, 3 from Russ, 1 from Rent, and 15 from Surrey
greed jury (of whom John fiiirliog Taylor, Esq.
obeees foreman) having bees sworn,
The Recorder. is charging them, said he wsl
able to isfores them that thew labours would not be
as the ores were sot asinsrona, nor won any of