The Express.
London, England, 1858-01-15 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 15, 1858.

APPLICATION UNDER THE NIW DIVORCE ACT.

Oa Wednesday en application under the new
Divorce sad Malriterieini Causes Aot was made to the Bath
magistestm by Bush Wooed; wife of Simon Woolf, who
Jed
for ea oldie to her propeety, acquired or to be
soquind by her owa lawful induty, waist her husband,
wits bed deserted her.
Mee. Wooer dermal that she was married to Simon
Wool!, of No. 11, Manver's-place, Bath, on the 24th Much,
1861, at the Registear's-otlfe. They lived amicably together
for seem thee, after which her husband, who was of a vio-
lent Maw, began to dad fault with everything she did ;
said be bated bee ; and told bar to leave the house. This
weal as until ems evening in last per (she could not recol-
lect the day wr math, but thought ft wee June), when he
told her that it tie did not have the beam next morning he
weed worry bee to death. lie got up at 3 o'clock in the
morning, and seating himself in a chair, said he would not
leave until he had men her out of the house. She told him abe
had nowhere to go, and he told bar to go bito the West, and
that was too0VI:or her. She left about 12 o'clock that day
and took I at No. 1, Hairy-stave, which was just
opposite. The fo lowing weak her husband mme over to her
lo4ings and asked her to come beck to him, but she refused,
having heard that his only object la desiring her return was
to gm possession of her eilthes. He repeated his oaUs, but
she refused to have anything to my to him, and shut the
door against him. She afterwards maw him pack up the
goods, which were taken away iu • waggon, and he and a
young women, with whom he was in the habit of walking
' out evenings, left the house sad went after the waggon. She
had since heard that they had been living together at Bristol
and at Swansea.

Eleanor Parker, clear Marcher, of Prospect-place, Well's-
road, was present at the marriage of the applicant and Simon
Woolf. and had worked for Mrs. Woolf ever 111111.. She was
when her husband Melded upon bar leaving the
rols:k on Friday. the 6th June, 1867. She always cona-
dewed Mrs. Woolf a good wife, and that her husband had no
reasonable ground he desertiag her.
The Mayor suggested that, &wording to Ides. Woolf e evi-
dence, there was no desertion on the part of the husband,
dace he had made overtures to her for her return to his
home, which she had rejected.
Mr. Payne (Mrs. Woolff's solicitor) admitted there wee
some difficulty in that respect, but he submitted that there
wee • sulhoient mason o in Mrs. Woolff's mind to
warrant her in the nfoml namely, that the husband's object
was merely to get her back to deprive her of her clothes end
then lend her adrift again.
Tim magistrates said there wee no proof that mach wee
the husband's intention, but, even supposing it was, it was
questionable whether that would justify the wife in refusing
his ommarea, because he would only be seeking to obtain
Ermaof what acoordiag to law was his own property.
, as this was a novel , under a new law, the
justice of which the bench admitted, end were estrous of
carrying into effect, they would hear any evidence that could
be adduced to prove that Mr. Woolf 'a application to his wife
to return was not bona tide ; or to show that she had a se-
Brieut mason for not going beck.
Wm. Henry Hutton, clerk to Mr. Payne, was then cal/ed.
He depoeed to several conversations be had with IMOKS
Woolf' within a few days of the separation, during which
Woolf his wife had 601. worth of property belonging to
him and that be should try to get her back to obtain pos-
session of that, alter whieh intended to go to Poland, and
that he had another girl looked out to go with him.
After some deliberation, the magistrtee bald that as the
applicant bed rejected her husband'. overtures, she might
thereby ham drives him into • wrong course, sad Mentors
they meld net nay, in the words of the statute, that they
was usedellid of the fact of desertion and that the saws tree
thewithout remenelske emass." They Ihteefere dailead to teaks
order.

tab intdliptct.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.—JAN 14.
(Billings tl Haace—Before Lord Campbell aad lumber
Gabled" Wiettmaa, and Crompton.)
LIMN e. LIIIVT.-11111111PATI1 "SPORTS.

This was an motion for libel, alleged to be contained in •
report In • newspaper of certain proceedings before a police
magistrate. It was tried before Lord Campbell, at Westmin-
ster, and a verdiot returned for the defendant.
Mr. O'Malley moved that joigment be entered for the
plaintiff, non obstacle venditto, on the ground that the
second plea was no answer to the action. He now moved as
the ground of the ',Ake being spinet the evidence.
Lord Campbell said the case raised an exceedingly im-
portant question, and the learned counsel might take a ride
on the arse ground. After the deliberate consideration which
the jury gave to the ma, he did not think the learned counsel
would
Hale nisi. pan anything by his toodea on the second ground.

hle tame. The mladirectioa, which was another ground for
has esetlon, wee, that the Chief Baron had left it to the jury
whether the I 0 V wee a plain ewe In the ordinary item, or
whether it might be implied that ft wits gf yea with the state-
ment that it was not to be paid until the reserve fund wee
gewthative.
lir. Baron Channell—That is hardly a direction in point

.
The Lord Chief Baron—lt resolved itself into a remark on
the madam; it was really no direction at all.
The Court thought there had been no misdirection, but
grouted tha rola au the 'Slavic&
Rule nl accordingly..
YILAXILLIW, ADNIXISTRATOI, e. THE SOUTH-ILLSTICIN

knew nothing about him. I alm asked the fen& @tenant,
pardonholy, twin. Moths. she knew the moused, and she
positively dmied all knowledge of him. Some dower-pate
Ma hem removed tram the kitchen window and Owed in the
011114

The amused said that the arrant was partial to him. He
was going back to Train& and went to see her, and to
" taste bar before he wait. Hs went at 11 o'clock and rang
the bell, and mupponsg that no one was up he went and lay
down in the oel az.
The servant, on being celled, gave her evidence in a very
flippant inener. She said that she had known him, but had
not seen him for nine months. Last time she saw ha she
told him she did not want to see him. On the previous
night, when she went out for the beer, she maw him, and
told him " she wanted no one crawling after her." He
then went away, end she thought he was gone.
Mr. Arnold told Mr. Bays, the proprietor of 17, Pelham-
crescent, that he thought the way in which his servant had
conducted herself was very bad, as she had positively denied
all know of the prisoner on the previous evening, and
he (the magistrate) had no doubt It was at her sug-
gestion that man went into the cellar. He should re-
mind the accused, and take one surety of 61. for his future
appearance.
Awes Callus, a respectable-looking, middle-aged man, was
charged under the following circumstances :
Mrs. Constance Lucy Matthews, treasurer of the School of
Discipline, a reformatory for young females, Queen's-road
West, Chaise', stated that on the previous morning the defend-
ant own to the home, andrefused to leaveunlesehis daughter,
who was confined in the school under commitment, was given
up to km. A policeman was sent for to remove him, and as
he would not go, wins= gave him into to custody.
In answer to questions from Mr. Arnold, witness said that
the school was registered, and produced a conditional pardon
from the Crown, under which the defendant's daughter had
hem= there.
p t wished to explain his reasons for claiming
his daughter. She got into bad company two years ago,
when about Mew yaw of age, and was prosecuted at the
lifestmiestor swims, end sentenced to twelve months' im-
prisonment, for st al ng a watch from the house of her em-
ployer. He told the swistent judge that he was most desir-
ous steps should be taken to reclaim her, when the judge
informed hire that he would no what he could do,but did not
mention anything about a reformatory. She stopped in the
prison till May, when she was removed to the School of Dis-
cipline at Chelsea. He visited her there, and findiinng just be-
fore Christmasthat she looked veryillhe questioned ha,when
she said she had been very ill, but had not seen any doctor,
and being desirous of taking her borne and procuring a situa-
tion for her, he had dlied her as he conceived, rightly.
He had let her remain in the institution so long as he had
because he thought it would be beneficial to her. He could
not see that she ought in justice to be kept contrary to her
wishes.

Mr. Arnold observed that the pardon before him, which
bore her Majesty's signature, wee given upon condition that
eh/ should be subject to the ruleN of the institution in which
she bad been placed, and that she should remain there until
duly discharged.
Defendant inquired who was to discharge her ?
Mrs. Matthews replied Sir George Grey, and begged to
call the attention of the magistrate to the terms of the con-
ditional pardon, "that she should be subject to the rules."
one of Which wss that • girl could not be received into the
mhos' to remain less than two years.
Defendant, who appeared to have committed the offence
with which he was charged in order to raise the question of
whether his daughter was not entitled to her discharge, ar-
gued that as her original sentence was only twelve month,'
imprisonment, her liberty should not be restrained any
Imlll7...Arriold was of a contrary opinion. She had been
removed from the prison to which she had been sent after
undergoing a portion of her punishment upon certain condi-
tions offered, and if she accepted them, she wee bound by
them. The magistrate then cited the act of parliament to
show that if any inmate of • registered relormatory sir
sooaded therefrom' or was disobedient to the rules of the
institution, he or she might be brought before a magistrate
and committed for three (*kinder months, in addition to the
former sentence, and unless. considered objects of the royal
clemency, might also be remitted back to gaol to serve the
remainder of the original sentence.
Defendant, who appeared satisfied with this exposition of
the law, wee then ordered to enter into his own recogrusances
to keep the pesos.
Narks Crow, a private in the Guards, was finally exa-
mined, charged with steeling two watches.
The circumstances were somewhat singular. The prisoner
went on the 6th inst. to Mr. Berry's, in Parliament-street,
where the unfortunate man Cases was recently murdered,
and having at his request been shown some watcher, dashed
out of the sharpwith one and escaped. On the following
nigLt he, singularly enough, went to Mr. Berry's other shop,
in Staffurd.row, and played a similar trick, but was pursued
and captured with the watch in his hand. The other watch,
stolen from Parlisment-street, was pawned by the prisoner
directly after he possersed himself of it.
Prisoner was committed for trial.
SOUTHWARK.

Mr. Edwin, solicitor, of the Do;;-road, attended be-
fore Mr. Combs to obtain an order nadir the " New Divorce
sad Matrimonial Column Act" fur the protection of some
property belonging to a married female carryiog on bad-
ness in the Old Kent-road. She had been deserted by her
husband several times, and on each occasion he had plun-
dered her of all her money, and left her largely in debt. She
was extremely intinstrioua and without any asaistance from
her husband was able to Maintain herself and ace children.
Hs presumed that his worship could make the required order
for protection under the 21st clause of the act.
Combe— When did the husband desert her last ?

Edwin—About i;e7.l7:ir.-ii;"s;;Toi, away
401., leaving her to pay three quarters' rent and a number of
bills, and he told her she might go to the workhouse if she
could not pay.
Mr. Combe—l don't think your application comes within
the meaning of the act of parliament. He has only left her
five weeks, and may return, and there is nothing to prevent
the landlord coming in and se:zing the goods for the rent due
by the husband.
Mr. Edwin—But my client has been melded in maintain-
ing her butinese by her relatives. The husband Lever as-
slated her.

Mr. Combe—Yon ray the bnaband has returned several
times, and only five weeks ago ha deserted her. He may re-
turn again to-morrow. I cannot consider that a desertion
within the meaning of the sot.
Mr. Edwin—Cannot you make an order for the pent on
of the goods by which she now gains her livelihood
Mr. Combe—Has she acquired any property by her own
earnings since her husband left her

--Mr. Edwin—l cannot my that exactly ; but bee husband
never rendered her any assistance, and it would be a hard
use for her to to plundered by lam again. Her landlord is
willing to wait for the rent, and her friends will assist her if
she can get protection.
Mr. Combs—Under the circumstance' which you repre-
sent I cannot interfere. It does not come within the
meaning of the act of parliament.
Mr. Edwin—We shall have to come before you again
shortly, as it does not appear likely that the husband will
return &rain in a hurry.
Mr. Combs—l should be most happy to grant you the
order, and as soon air you can bting yaur application within
the meaning of the act you can have it.
The pads then ldt the court.