The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-15 00:00:00

THE LAW OF MURDER.

Mr. WALPOLE moved for leave to bring in two bills,
one to amend the law relating to murder, and the other to
provide for carrying into effect capital punishments within
prisons. The balls, be said, were the embodiment of the
recommendations of a ormunission. The commission re-
commended that there should be two degrees of the crime
of murder. He did not, however, propose to adopt that
recommendation ; but under certain circumstances under
which the crime was committed the penalty of death
would be retained, while in other cases penal servitude
for life, or a term not leas than seven years, would be sub-
stituted.

Mr. Bright, as a.,snernber of the commission, criti-
cised the measure, vied come of the provisions of which
he expressed lie dissatisfaction: and Mr. Ewart, Mr.
Gilpin, and Mr. Henley stated their opinion that capital
punishment should be abolished altogether; and after a
few observations from Sir G. Grey,
Leave was given to bring in the bills.
Mr. Serjeant BARRY obtained leave to bring in a bill
to extend to Ire Lind the existing law of England respect-
imirtehe presence of military at parliamentary elections.
house then adjourned at a quarter past 7 o'clock.

tato Intent tats.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Fas. 14.
Sittings at Nisi Prius at GuildlialL—(Before the Lord
Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)
KINSER AND AIItYIIICI V. CLOVES.

Thie was an action to recover the amount of an attor-
ney'. bilL The defendant pleaded never indebted.

Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Patchett appeared for the
plaintiffs. The defendant was not represented by commit,
and was not in oast.

Mr. Coleridge said the plaintiffs, Messrs. /Limber and
Ellis, were attorneys carrying on business at Gresham-
house, and the defendant, Mr. Serjeant Glover, had
been proprietor of the Morning Chrunick, and had been
engaged in various other speculations to a considerable
extent. The action was brought against Mr. Serjesnt
Glover to recover a large sum for work done fur him by
the plaintiffs in a Chancery suit, and in relation to a con-
cession of an European and American Telegraph, which he
bad, or supposed he had, got from the Portuguese govern-
ment. The proceedings in Chancery were against certain
distinguished persons to this country, whose names for the
purposes of this case it woe wholly unnecessary to mention.
The serpent gave notice that he would set up negligence
on the part of the plaintiffs, which probably would
have involved a long and difficult trial, but he had
now informed them that it was not hie intention
to defend the action at all. The learned counsel added
that under these circumstances he would content himself
with petting in the bill of costs, and calling one of the
phantiffs to prove that the work had been done.
Mr. Ellis, one of the plaintiffs, said the amount of the
bill was 142/. Ss. 101., but 22/. 15e. had beend.
Mr. Coleridge Applied to the learned judge to eel, ify
that it was ant case for a special jury. Only two days
ago the plaintiffs received notice that the defendant would
not attempt to prove negligence.
The Lord Chief Baron, having looked over the bill of
costs, asked Mr. Ellis if the construction of a telegraph by
the Azores formed the subject of the Chancery suit, and
the business done.

Mr. ; the suit was one by Mr. Glover against
• number of admirals in the British service, to restrain
them from forming a company to work the same line of
telegraph.
The ford Chief Baron—Awl you received an intimation
that this action would be defended on the ground of negli-
gence?
Mr. Ellis replied in the affirmative.
The Lord Chief Baron said be would certify for a special
jury, and allow execution in fourteen days.
Verdict for the plaisitilft—darusses, 1421. Bs. 10d.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Ti,. 14. •
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
ANI) RTLAND T. WILI.IIIDCE.

At the conclusion of the evident» on behalf of the
plaintiff,
Merjeant Ballantine addressed the jury on behalf of the
wife, after which an arrangement was come to, the brother
giving Mrs. Wildridge 2,000/.
. . .

Th; case thus ten;inAetl, each party paying their own
costa.

BRIDGES V. BRIDGES AND BURICL,Tr.

This wag a petition for dissolution of marriage, brought
by the husband against his wife, on the ground of her
adultery with the co-respondent.
_ . _

Mr. Iluddketett, Q.C.s. and Dr. Tristram, appeared for
the petitioner ; and Dr. Wambey and Mr. Searle for the
respondent, who alleged that her husband had been guilty
of adultery with several women.
The marriage took place in 1849, the husband being a
publican in Blackman-street, Borough. In 1863 the co•
respondent Burnett, who had been a draper's assistant,
was engaged by the petitioner as a barman, and it was
while in tbe house in that capacity that he oommitted
adultery with the wife of his neuter.
After hearing the evidence on both sides,
The jury found that both the husband and the wife had
been guilty of adultery, but the eourt did not pronounce a
decree at present, in order that the husband might have
an opportunity of applying for a new trial.