The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-07 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 7, 1846.

COURT OF QIJ
sittings in Banco.
FLANDER V. BCNBURT.—The court was occupied for the
greater part of the day in hearing the plaintiff's reply in the
case of Fiander V. Sunbury, which has been so many days
under discussion. At the conclusion judgment was post-
poned.
Nisi Pen:.—Before Mr. Justice Erie.
Saone o. GLENN.—LIABILITY OP A MASTER TO A SEEL-
vAarr.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff in formi
pauperis to recover 601. for wages as housekeeper to the
' defendant. The learned judge, Lowever, on the close of the
plaintiff's case having intimated an opinion that the relation
of roaster and servant between the parties had not been suf-
ficiently shown, in which opinion the jury concurred, the
plaintiff submitted to a non-iuit.
Maconeet a. REY. M. A. GATIIERCOLE.—BILLS OF
was an action on a bill of exchange fur
460/. accepted by the Rev. Mr. Gathercole, whose name has
so frequently been before the public. No evidence was
offered in support of the pleas, and the verdict passed for the

[CH.

were fined 30'. each, or a =tenth's imprisonment; Adams in
a further sum of Gl., or two mouths' imprisonment, for the
assault on Mr. Davis's man ; Harrington, the master, is 51.,
or two months' imprisonment, for a like assault; and Mr.
Norton said, with respect to the constables, he was of opinion
that the complaint against Dobbin amounted merely to an
error in judgment, to not having taken the parties into
custody when desired to do so ; and the accusation of having
drunk at the beer-shop with Harrington was not proved,
though he must say it was a suspicious circumstance.
The charge against the other constable, he was sorry.to
say, was very different. His conduct in the first in-
stance, in laughing at the man who wished him to take the
dustmen into custody, was highly improper; and his leav-
ing the man struggling with the two men, and walking MI,
was equally improper, and his not keeping the parties in
custody after the man had shown the wound upon his band,'
and told him that he had been struck several times on the
head, was conduct that could not be tolerated. If conduct
like his was tolerated, there wouuld be no safety for the
public. The law enabled him to impose a penalty of 101. ;
but, under the circumstances, he would mitigate it to one-
half, and the constable must pay a penalty of 51., or one
month's imprisonment.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Non Pares.—Before air F. Pollock, C. 8., and a Special Jury.
HOLDER V. COAPE.—NON-LIABILITT OF HUSBANDS FOR
THEIR WIVES' DEBTS LE SUFFICIENT ALLOWANCE BB
MADE ON THEIR SEPARATION.—MT. Wortley and Mr.
Cowling appeared as counsel for the plaintiff. Sir F. Thesi-
ger, Q C., and Mr. Robinson for the deendant. This was an
action brought by the proprietor of Holder's Hotel, New-
road, to recover 1831. 15s. for board, lodgings, and ne
cessaries provided for the defendant's wife, from June to
October, 1845. It appears that the defendant, who is a
gentleman of fortune, residing at Maldon, in Essex, married
a daughter of General Sir Henry King, in 1835. They bad
no children, and lived together until 1843, when, some un-
happy differences of opinion haring arisen between them,
the defendant, in the month of December of that year, wrote
to his wife, and apprised her of his determination never
again to live under the same roof with her. The precise
cause did not transpire, but it was admitted that the lady's
moral conduct and character were irreproachable in every
respect. The grounds of the separation which took place
appeared to be a total incompatibility of temper. Ihe
defendant, after he discontinued to live with his
wife, allowed her 5001. a year up to 1845, when
his income was increased to 2,8001. a year, in con-
sequence of the death of his father. Mrs. Cospe's
allowance was then increased to 8001. per annum, which
was regularly paid to her credit at Rogers' bank, and drawn
out by her own cheques. Those being the main facts of the
case, it was contended, on behalf of the defendant, that
the allowance was amply sufficient, and that he should,
therefore, be exempted from all liability for any debts con-
tracted by his wife since their separation. The Lord Chief
Baron, in summing up, told the jury that the only question
was, whether the allowance was sufficient. The rule of
law was, that if a husband thought proper to turn a faithful
wife out of doors, he gave her authority top ledge his credit,
and he should be responsible for all necessaries, suitable to
her rank in life, for her maintenance. If, however, the
husband made a sufficient allowance for the provision of the
necessaries requisite for the maintenance of his wife, she
could not pledge his credit, and he should not therefore. he
liable for any further demand on her account—The jury
returned a verdict for the defendant.
sitting in Banco.
O'BRIEN V. CLEMENTS.—LIBEL IN NEWSEAPER.—PRAC-
TICE.—Mr. Lush applied in this case for leave to be heard in
support of the plea to which the plaintiff had specially de-
murred. It appeared that this was an action in which the
plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant, who
is the proprietor of Bell's Life in London, for a libellous
article which had been inserted in that journal. To this the
defendant had pleaded a juatification, and the plaintiff having
demurred thereto, on the last occasion of the court's sitting,
by some accident no one appeared for the defendant, and
judgment was given for the plaintiff. It was now submitted
that the court should re-open the ease, and allow it to be
argued on the part of the defendant, as the non-appearance
of counsel was purely accidental.
The court, after some hesitation, yielded to the application,
and Mr. Lush having been heard for the plaintiff, the de-
murrer was held good ; but leave was given to the defend-
ant to amend his plea on payment of costs.
O'BRIEN V. BRYANT.— fhis was an action of libel also,
arising out of a similar publication in the Plymouth Journal,
in which for the same reason the plaintiff had obtained judg-
ment. The same application having been made, the same
result ensued ; and in this case also judgment was give n
for the plaintiff, with leave to amend on the like terms.
Very little progress beyond these two cases was made in
the special paper, and at three o'clock the court adjourned
to Saturday, the 12th instant ; when these sittings will he
resumed, for the solo purpose of giving judgment..

CROYDON.—C. Green, alias Fletcher, was charged
before the magistrates with having in his possession a quan-
tity of skeleton keys, and also with an attempt to commit
flony in the town of Croydon. The prisoner, although quite
a young man, has been convicted at nearly every police court
in the metropolis. It appeared from the evidence of Police-
serjeant Morton, that on Sunday last, in consequence of in-
formation which had been received, he went to Croydon
in plain clothes to watch the persons who arrived
by train. About dusk the prisoner and three other
men came down from London, and after consulting
together they separated. Morton followed the prisoner, and
observed him go up a gateway, in which was situated the side
door of a tradesman's house. He immediately went up to
him, and after some resistance succeeded in taking him into
custody, when he found 30 skeleton keys in his possession.
The prisoner, in the most insolent tone, said no one had seen
him pick a lock, and, therefore, he could receive only three
months.—The chairman remarked that he seemed pretty
well acquainted with the law.—" 0, yes!" said the priscner,
" I am guilty of having skeleton ke3 s in my possession, but
nothing else has been proved. I know very well the faces
of many of these policemen, who could prove that I have
been convicted before, but you can only give me three
months. I know all about it."—The bench decided upon
convicting the prisoner at once, and committed him accord-
ingly fI. three months.