The Express.
London, England, 1859-02-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,
(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittiap at NI Prier, in I[lddlw:.—(&ton Yr. Julies
Dylan sad a Comma Jury.)
ItOINIBLOW •. VALI( AS.-11/TILAORDINAZT CAlli.

This woo so sails' to sec.wer dososiss forsossooitsod
Ida topelsoaroost, 554 for .leader.

Mr. droned awl Mr. Madinat apprued for ilia plaintiff,
and Mr. &roam Spas set Mr. Demon for nu &haunt.

In opening the ease it was stated that the plaintiff, Idles
Baeastnalt 11.eniblow, wee a young woman respeetably eon_
meted, and she was on the 14th July last between 8 and 9
in the evening sitting on a seat in the Itegeseeipark ; when
the defendant, accompanied by a young lady, came cap.
Immediately he came up the plaintiff walked away
and went in the direction of Edward-street. Abe bed
only g•,t a ettort distance when eh* was followed by time de.
fen I int, who called out t, • policemen saying that be ewe
the plaintiff in charge. The policeman inquired what foe,
and the defendant said " For annoying nag." The policeman
and she &if not appear to be annoying him, and inquired if he
knew her. The defendant mid he did; that she was nothing
but • prostitute, and that he had picked her off the streets
and bad kept her for four years. The policeman said be I
would not t mks her unless the defendant charged her with
being a prostitute, as he had not seen her do anything. !
Another p.liceman came up and the charge was repeated
in the preience of a number of people, bat the defondeat said
he would not give her In charge if the policeman would pre-
vent her following him. lie said he could not, bat he kept
the people back, end the defendant went away. The learned
counsel said that the defendant had promised the plaintiff
marriage, bat hod not fulfilled hie promise, that be had
secured her aff..-tions, and had deceived, betrayed, and
sedated her.

The policeman was called to prove the giving In custody;
it app. wed that the defendant had sot actually even her in
charge, although he rid he word do so.
Miss Susannah [Jonahlow, the plaintiff, rid she via un-
married, and lived with her dater, war Hagest's-park.
About S &dock on the reels; of the 14th July lam she
was in the ltsont'a-park. She was walking towards • art
when she noticed that the defendant was sitting there with
• Amide. The defendant roes and rid alas had been
following him about the park, and ha word give
her in custody. It was her habit to walk to and
fro in the park of an evening. Hs rat to the other aide of
the park, sad she reamieed few watiMig to and
fro. After • time dm took • mat, and subsemeendy Isla the
park. Witco she got to ltdward•etrest, she saw the 6e-
hndant with • feciale. She crowed to the other aide to avoid
him, but as mos se be law bee he abased her in • mast violent
manner, sad pototad her out to the crowded • perms whom
he bad Maud od the green sad kept for four years and
than turned of. She could not say that she herd king
all her • rootlets. SU Ited sot bean following ME in
W perk. Rho had known the delendant Mae years. Them
bad hem an engagement far maniere nevem them. W 1
the intimacy began etia was living with bar father, • naselical
gentleman. She and bar sister were independent peg* end
lived on their property. Thu .engagement fur marrialp had
continued for year., whoa the defendant broke it off.
Mr. Ovcrend—Had you previonoly yielded to his .eli-
citation. ?
The witree remained anent.

Mr. oareacirectei Mien.
Mr. domicil By however, said if the witness declined
to answer, the answer might be taken for granted.
Witness continued-1n September, 18.54, the delenbat
assaulted her by kaock.og her down from the step of a dear.
She was going to the none house sa he was. Stie bomb
scion against am, and ha gave her 211, to settle and
he also gave her an apology.
Cross-examined-. She flat met the defendant In August,
1849. She met him at an auction in Hamilton-terraca New.
road. He made proposals to her. which she aceeptak end
afterwards wailed her. She would swear there wee an or
gagement of marriage. It was about al wombs After thin
acquaintance.
Ur. B..ryo.nt Shas—How ell were you thou?
Witmer—Nine years younger then I am sow. (Leaghtee.)
She we. then • hole ever thirty. She did not knew her spe
exactly. the wee sow se muck se thirty-nine. The do
fesdeat was two or three years her 611010 f. She had
walked within • short distance of the defendant Infrerr .:-
mere park since the 'opponent had bees Woken ad
bed frequently pawed him there when be was with Ids
mother. She might have eon the mother thirty or forty
time, and elle looked her hard in the ace, to that oho might
know her again. She thought that oho hat been cruelly
treated ty her lam and that the mother had bees the and-
'o'er of it. She sever comidered whether the defendant
liked it or not. She did sot do it to annoy him. She had
followed hire d the streets the cases aa oh* had
dose other people. She frequestly met him, and
whoa Me toted en Mabee rework she followed him. This
generally hreggened. He wee In the !obit of spitting,
ea:tibial/, rod slag issoltho restuaw. She might once or
trios have followed Wm • roam turning when he turned.
FM would sot *weer that during Sr. year. she had not
followed him is the way twenty liable, live years was a
loss period.
Mr. &epos' Shoe--It wee • long time to worry • mac.
Witome—lle mobil net say as .1 he boor the cruel treat-
ment she had received. Dose she followed defendant to a
frivol** home end nag the bell. She did not know the
deirodent'e Mend. Sin winked to speak to him in the pre-
emies of Ind Weed. Ohs who'd to tell the frond's wife
*nut tic Sho did aM assisikier whether It would annoy
bro. Defendant moo up to the door ea soon as she
got, there and pushed km away, sod that was
the moult bee which eke bed received 251. After that
she Mond he eras waiffing gnarly Is salad
in rm. Towne of having Jail ilienesem sad she met him
and offatedlo return it. He bid her to take it to Mater-
men's, his !oaken,. but she decliaed te demo.
Ere nsibinod—When the dritrodent passed her he frm
quently loop bed, and he and his friends sang tau of soap.
Then was one which she knew wee blended ea en Leah.
It wee

(Lntabler )h, Sußaumawl you cry for mi."
. . . .

le.fltri:ant shoe saLwltted that there was no twee to go
to the jury ; that the defendant bad not siren the *bad to
ours. atd that as to the other cow, the word " prow.
titan' wet of actionable.

Overead coatanded that inasmuch as proatitudon wen
sa eccieekuitical effuses, It wan actionable to call • Imam
promitute.
the bcdoblp field that there wee no evidence of falai
haprisoameitt ; and that the word "prostitute" was not
actioaable withal"' !pedal &reap. There woo as allegaboa
of epecial dam spa in the declaration to ihe affect that the
plaint& had, in coseeepieries of what the dedradsat said,
Lesseurr-ciailid by a mob, sad impeded la her pragreas
&keg th.. street. He thought that utters was lOW wfdwa
ape that single point, and therefore the menus mont ge te
the y.
jur
No evidence WOO produced for the defendant, but the
ettuneel ou each aide eddrereed the jury for their respective
clients.

lire lordship la eunnalag up directed the jury that it wee
sun aci cable to call • wom•a • pros: Out', ualese it were
done la tt. City of London ; where it wu• said that • rrounta
guilty of that sea was liable to be carted through the City,•ad
otherwire puciehed. Such an eccuration, however, would be
actionebbi if rpeciel damage readied, end the quertion I. thie
re... whether it was proved that the plaintiff hod Pr
tie epecial damage of being 'torpid and impeded In bar
Talmage along the street. If he were woe, to leaving the
groutiun to ihe jury. he would give the digendantsr counrel
leave to clove the full court to eater • verdict fur the defen-
dant.

Toe jury gave verdict fir dle plastid, &raw' 61

COUR r FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUSKS.

(Before the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Justice Wiegman, and

the Judi; Ordleery)

WEBER WEBER AND lITNI.—PENTEVCII.
in ibis caw the issisw had bees Sound in favour of the
reepoadrata, oa behalf of whom.
Dr. Spilka and Me. L. Temple moved that the petition be
dismissed. and Met Mr. Weber be condemned is all enrol.
Mr. M'Unees said be wee Instructed by the petitioner to
CROWD% (Las/Ater.)
l'etition d‘saiissed with omen

REED 0...MFF1, DAYIII.-PIXTINCV.

In this rase neither of the respondents appeared, bat Inas-
much as the husband claimed damages. a jury bad been
sworn to assess damages. There bad, however, been some
defect in the proof of identity; and Dr. Warnben
therefore, DOW called Parke TIMMS. of Cardiff, the
brother of the retpondest. The wonees denied all know-
ledge of the co-respcedent, and said that he knew nothing
stout his sister's proceedings daring the last two year., but
after • minute examination of the evidence already takes,
The Court thought eaMnient proof had been given. They
therefore decreed the divorce condemned the co-respondent
in the i.rts, and directed tliti amount of damages amertred
by the jury (201.) to be targeted in the eithings bank for the
bsnelit of sbe respendanffe only etuviriag child.

COCLTIIII4T AND OULTH WAITE.

-
In this CYO there wen so appearance on bithallof the
revpmadvats. The parties were married at Liverpool. in
sad at fret they resided with Mr. Coulthart,
son. Mrs. Could:tart, it was alleged, was • person of
very tad temper, and did not stay long at the house of bar
hitherto-law. Her hasband wept to New York, and • few
days afterwards his father sent her de. sad MHO tea,
with a mmeage to the effect that if she coaducted her.
self with propriety, ohs should neither want foe food
Soc clothes. Soon after aw, she west with some other
females sad mode • disturbance at Use bowie of Mr. Conk-
herr, ere. In oonsequence •Ir this, he withdrew hie coos-
tenencc from her, and eh* rat inier? to her old wore* of life,
which It was stated bad not be reputable. Evideste
was also gives that she bad cohabited with &person sensed
Loll Goulliwatts, a clerk Is • cotton-lookeee bake.
Mr. lider.rd sad Dr. Spiels appaued Li the
husband; lost the am was prrieding When we rat; to
prow.