The Express.
London, England, 1865-04-25 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

- - - -
Sittings in Banco.—((gßddore Lord Mid Jastas Onekbass,
and Justices Meatbun, Mellor, sad Sawn)
THE ECCLESIASTICAL oomtanstolimth V. THE MAX AND
cater= OF lIANCHISTIE.
This came before the court on demurrer. The action was
brought by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners against the
Dean and Capons of Manchester to mower a sum of 2,000 i.
which the Church Commissioners, upon approving the
purchase of the lands by the defendants, required to be
paid to them, that sum being, as was alleged
in the declaration. equivalent to the surplus shares
of the land within the meaning of the mots. The
question turned upon the constrnotatia of two acts of parlia-
mint, part of a series of statutes passed for the improvement
of episcopal estates. The general object of these acts was
to allow ecclesiastical corporations to dispose of lands by
way of sale or otherwise, sod also to purchase lands, but
the commissioners were not to profit themselves by the
transacti•n, but whatever profits were made were to be
banded over to the Church Estate Commissioners to bs
banded over to be disposed of by the Focleaseticel Commis-
sioners.
Mr. Lash, Q.C., and Mr. C. Sumner, were camel for the
plaintiffs ; and Mr. Cleasby, Q.C., sad Mr. R. G. Mills
for the defendants.
It appeared that all the facts were not stated on the re-
cord. -.lt was therefore avoid that all the facts should be
stated on their merits in a special cue for the decision of
the court.
This was special paper day. The learned counsel in the
several cuss were not ready, and considerable delay arose
In consequence. The court, however, after much difficulty,
disposed, struck out, sed postponed seven awe, when there
was another dead lock, and the want of leading conossl to
argue the cases, and the result was that the court bul to
rise at 12 o'clock. The Lord Chief Justice, however, intt-
titnated that on the next special paper day the whole cf
the cases would be struck out of the list if counsel did not
appear.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
S:ttings at Nisi Prins at Middles/m—(Baton M:. Justine
Keating sad • Commas Jury.)
ROT:MY V. VILLIEIS. . .

The plaintiff in this cue, syenneiwoman, was formerly
cook in the service of Mr. Villiers, the proprietor of the
South London Music-hall ; and she mud her late muter for
damages for an assault.
Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Kemp appeared for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Clare for the defendant.
The plaintiff stated that between 6 and 7 in the evening
of the 14th of January last she took the tea.thiags into the
parlour, where there were her ulster and Mr. Shott, his
clerk and brother-in-law. Some complaint wee made about
her not shutting the door after her ; and Mr. Villiers and
Mr. Shen followed her to the kitchen. She went to the
dresser to get the things for the servants' taa, when Mr.
Villiers kicked her in the region of the groin and she fell.
She soon afterwards went home and showed her hurts to a
Mrs. Pattison. A day or two afterwards she went to •
doctor, who found that she was seriously hurt, and he
had attended ber down to the present time. The plaintiff
denied that she was drunk at the tame, and Mrs. Pattisoa and
Mr. Bentley, her father, said she was sober when they saw
her.
The defence was that no assault whatever had been
committed. It was stated that the plaintiff bad previously
received notice to quit in consequence of drunkenness, but
this notice bad been abandoned on promise of amendment.
On the swing in question she was directed several times
to shut the door niter her, but made • sour
answer, which amounted to • refusal to do so.
Mr. Villiers then turned round, and wing that
the plaintiff bad been drinking, he rid that he
would have no more of that behavionr, and ordered her to
Nava the house. The plaintiff went aloe' a stone passage
which a charwoman was cleaning, and fell over the pail.
Soon afterwards Mr. Villiers went into the kitchen for some
hot water, and saw there the plaintiff and also the char-
woman, who was drying her clothes, which had been wetted
by the upsetting of the pail. Be never touched the plaintiff
with hand or fut. As again rid that the plaintiff most
go, es he did not want • disturbance when the public were
going into the music-hall. She said something about some
money, and got upon a chair, and from it upon a dresser.
She knelt upon the dresser aad wrebed along one of the
shelves for the money. In time she gat to the end of the
dresser, and then fell off, struck herself against • chair, and
fell against another dresser.
Several witnesses proved that the plaintiff was drunk ;
and it was stated that she did not at the time complain of
having been assaulted, nor did she do on two or three hours
afterwards, when she went to the hall and demanded her

wagon
The jury, at the end of the evidence, stopped the plain-
tiff. counsel from addressing them, saying that they were
unanimous in favour of the defendant.
Mr. Seymour, however, addressed them, and made some
comments upon the evidence which had been given.
The jury, in answer to his lordship, said that they Still
retained their opinion.
Mr. Jastios Seating said be quite agreed with them, and
added that it was possible that if the plaintiff had taken too
much gin ohs might have thought that she bad hues struck,
and that she made on statement which was wilfully falls.
Verdict for the defendant.

TEIE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)