The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Yirsnaumr.
81170011 •s XVI Pairt—Dame Lon Dzeux AND •
CuIOION IVRY.

MORRWOOD AND ANOTHER T. STEERR.—AcrioN AGAINST

TILE SHIRIPP TOR NEGLIGENCE.

- - -
Mr. Serjeant She., with whom was another learned gen-
tleman, were counsel for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Watson,
Q C , and Mr. P. tertelorff, appeared for the defendant.
This was an action brought against the High Sheriff of
Surrey, to recover the amount of a debt due to the plaintiffs
by one Chu. Wyatt, and which, as they alleged, they should
have recovered, had the officers of the sheriff used due and
proper diligence in endeavouring to execute a writ of ca. IR.
which had been placed in their hands to execute against
Wyatt. It appeared that Wyatt,. who bad formerly
been • builder, carrying on business in the Leipsic
road, Camberwell, had become indebted to the
plaintiffs for goods ea plied to the amount of 661, for
which they had brought an action, recovered judgment,
and Mined at first a writ of 8. Co., which was plated in the
hands of two officers of the name of Cox and Rutland for
execution. Upon Cox going to the Leipsic-road, he die-
covered
that Charles Wyatt had removed from there and
gone to live at Battersea. Another writ, being one of ca.
sa, was then issued against him, it having been ascertained
that he had an goods. This writ had been executed
by the officers Rutland and Cox, and several witnesses were
call= on behalf of the plaintiffs, who defected to the effect that
Wyatt was about Battersea during the whole of the time that
the writ was out against hiss, when be might have been
arrest= if due diligence had been used by the officers.
Mr. Watson, in addressing the jury for the defendant., said
that the question to be decided was whether the sheriff's officers
hail had any oppottunity when they could, might, and ought
to have arrested Charles Wyatt. If such an opportunity
had occurred, no doubt they wou:d have availed themselves
of it, inasmuch that it a sheriff'. officer pursued a men for
months, and did not succeed in capturing him, he got
nothing for all the trouble he had, whereas, if he arrested
him, he was paid • guinea. Charles Wyatt, against whom
the writ was directed, was a person whom it was impossible
to arrest, for he slept in Middlesex during the time that the
writ was oat against him, and be hardly ever
came over to Denver', except on • Sued ey,
when he knew the writ could rot operate against
hire. Even when La was in Battersea he went into
a b. er-shop which wes closed, and which belonged to his
bruthir John, where he was kept safely locked up from the
officers. With reap= to the damage which the plaintiffs
cad sustained by reason of Charles Wyatt not having been
arrested, he (Mr. Watson) submitted that it wee none at all,
because he should be able to prove by the moat respectable
evidence that Wyatt was a man without a penny in the
world, anu from whom nothing could be got by putting him
into prison. He should also be able to prove that due and
proper diligence had Seen used by the officers in eadeayour-
ing to execute the writ, but although they had been several
times to Battersea, they had never been able to lay hold of
Wyatt, or to obtain any information respecting him. Under
these circumstances the learned counsel submitted that his
client nu entitled to a verdict.
In support of the defendant's case, the officers Cox and Rut-
land, and their man Reeves, were called, and from their evi-
dence it appeared that they used every exertion to endeavour
to execute the writ, bat without success. John Wyatt, the
brother of Charles Wyatt, and two tradesmen, creditors of
Charles Wyatt's, we re also called, and they stated that that
individual did not reside in Eatterva at the time the writ of
tx sa. was issued against him, that he had kept out of the
way, and that he was in a state of the greatest poverty.
Mr. Serjeant She* having r. plied,
Lord Denman summed up, and left it to the jury to say
whether due and proper diligence had been used by the
sheriff's officer in endeavouring to execute the writ. II the
were of opinion that proper diligence had not been used,
then they would say what amount as compensation the plain-
tiffs were entitled to.
The jury, aster • short consultation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiffs—damages 561., the amount of the debt due to
them from Charles Wyatt.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAY.

ermites im Woo.

Yesterday was the first day of the sittingssin banco after
Trinity term. A list of ca.os selected from the spacial paper
was proceeded with and dOiposed cf. The following alone
deserves notice :
DALIN, EXECUTRIX, V. BROWNE AND ANOTESE.—LOUD
CAMPBELL'S ACT.
In this we, which arose upon demurrer, the action was
brought by Mrs. Dakin, the widow of tke late proprietor of
• tea warehouse situate in St. Paul's-churchyard, to re-
cover compensation in damages, under Lord Denman's
act, for the 100 of her husband, wh, was killed by
Vie bursting of a steam mach:no for cleansing coffee, which
machine the declaration alleged to have been unskilfully and
negligently manufactured and set up by the defendants.
Amongst other pleas the defendants pleaded that the acci-
dent of the bursting arose, not by their negligence or want
of skill, as alleged, but limn Mr. Dakin having, contrary to
their recommendation, used the machine h-fore the brick-
work was dry in which it was erected. This plea was de-
murred to on the ground it was not a plea in coat sst.n and
avoidaxce, and amounted to the general inane. Mr. Need-
ham argued for the plaintiff ; Mr. Serjeant Dowling on be-
half of defendants. The court, in giving judgment, deter-
mined that the plea was bad, and orders tit to be Pruck out.
Mr. Serjeant Dowling then observed he was informed the
object of putting the plea upon the record was simply to pain
time and to ears the expense of issuing a commission to exa-
mine an important witness now at NV, ashington, in America,
In other respects, the defendants were perfectly prepared to
go to trial upon the remaining issuer.

ARCHES COURT.—YarraiLDAY.
Bums :ill' litzusirr huorzi Am.
'ARRA= V. PARHAM—DIVORCE.

This was a l'uit promoted by Mr. Edward Parrett, of
Lewes, in Sumeir, eg dust hid wife, fora divorce, is cent.-
qsence of adultery.
Dr. Addams woe about to open the cue, when
Dr. Haggard said he did not know what the court meant
to do in this case, but he (Dr. Haggard) bad consulted w.th
Dr. Buford, who was si It him, and they w. re of opinion
that they could offer no defence against the suit.
The Judge seid he bad read the libel, and he thought it
was not necessary to go into the merits of the me. The
libel bed been proved ; he would therefore pron.:truce 1.. r
the divorce.
A noble duke is ,aid to be a party connected with this
snit.

PREROGATIVE COURT.—VESTERDAY.
WARD AND CODD V. Di—THE Cowman Martinson
LAW.
The Queen's Advocate said the question of the validity of
this will depended upon that of e marriage. A young led,
of the name of Shirley E iztheth Fraser, who was an illegi-
timate child, and was residing with her mother in the island
of Demerara, was induced by a person of the name of Dey,
who was a journeyman cooper, to leave her mother's home
and accompany him to the island of St. Lucia, where
he obtained a license from the governor, and was, accord-
ing to the laws of that bland, duly married by a
clergynian of the protestant church in 1837, she being
at that time only fourteen years of age, and which marriage
was duly consummated. They had lived together as m.n
and wife for several years, but some time before her death,
which was in June 1845, they had separated. Previously
I thereto she had made a will bequeathing her property fr:m
her husband, and appointed Mr. Ward and Mr. Codd her
executors. The suit in this cue was promoted by the hus-
band against the executors, on the ground that as afemme
concert she could not make a will, and the husband claimed
to have probate granted to him. The learned advocate said
it had been argued on the other side that the marriage was
not valid, that by the law of Demerara before a marriage
'odd take place it was zeeessary to have the
cue eat of the mother, where the child was
illegitimate and under age, and that the marriage should be
Celebrated in the pro -nth of four witnesses, cr else by du:
notice in the church. This, the learned civilian cont. Ada.
might be the law of Demerara, but it was not of that of
St. Lucia, where the license of the governor, and the ritual
of the church in the presence of two witnesses, was ell that
was 'unwary to make the marriage legal. Tinto) obser-
vances had taken place between the parties, which was ell
that the law required to make the marriage legal. This was
the opinion of the Attorney-General and the chief judge of
that island, as well as the* of several advocates practising in
the island, and was according to the lex lad. She was nee
carried away by forte or fear, but by her own fr e will, and
on these points there was no dispute. The !mimed advocate
argued the point of law at some length, and con-
cluded by calling upon the court to pronounce
for the validity of the marriage, and allow Mr. Thy, to take
possession of his wite'e property as her leral husband.
Dr. Jenner followed on the same side.
Dr. Addams, with whom was Dr. Twigs, held the mar-
riage to be i avalid, and argued thet the law 01 the Wand was
in favour of this view; that a child, being illegieinicte and
under age, could not many without the consent of her
mother, or without the banes being re id three separa'e i:ere
in the church, and after this solemnised in the prune* of
four witnesses. This was a runaway memiage, and was ee-
l.brated by the parties in the church of Casten..., in the
Wend of St. Lucie. The learned civiliaus ha l
hat the marriage was not good according to the
ex loci. One of the witnesses, who give: hir
evidence as b •Mg present at the marriage, and spoke also to
the consummation, as well as the solemnisation, was now
only twenty-one rem of age, so that at the period of cer
marriage she could have been only ten years of age, and let
the same witness said she made Miss Fraser's wedding dress.
Toe l.arucd civilians felt that the court would hid
the marriage to be illegal, quoting the eases of " Lockwood
r. Lockwood," and "Radon r. Smith," and not pronounce
against her teiteey.
The Court gent tbraugh the whsle of the case, and dwelt
upon all the points of law argued fa the cam, an! cam-
eluded LI Oat it fe'e't elm ward ige was ac-
cording to law, •e v.7lnd, it was (seri, w`.-rs
toed intent and puroost 71, mat *gyro • ',et for
the husband :s ' —th wits.