The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-23 00:00:00

einibtrigtv 3Entetti2enct.

CAMBRIDGE, KAY 221

- -- •
Ttis COMMZ.Ncimeatcr. —This afternoon, at the
time appointed for the recitation in congregation
of the various exercises that have obtained the
University prises, and also for the conferring of honorary
degrees, there was a brilliant assembly in the Senate-
house. The Vice-Chancellor (the Bev. Dr. Cartmell,
Master of gist's) presided, and the seats on the door
were densely crowded by members of the Senate and their
friends, the majority of the occupants being those of the
fairer sex. The undergraduates availed themselves to the
full of their time-honoured right of presence in the galle-
ries, and thence expressed their &ard or disapproval
of all that was going on below, h they were some-
what less demonstrative than usual. The grand mark of
their favour vaa afforded in the wecome given to the
members for the University, Mr. Walpole and Mr. Selwyn,
who were both present.
The proceedings commenced with the usual formalities,
and then the honorary degrees were conferred. it had been
arranged, ea previously stated, that the de ee of Doctor in
Law should have been conferred on M. Alphonse de Can-
dollet the Venerable Professor Sedgenck, Professor
Phillips (Oxon), Mr. Hooker (Begin Soc. Load. Soc.), and
Mr. Thomson, the eminent natural philosopher, of St.
Peter's College. Of these, however, only Professor Phillips
and Mr. Thomson presented themselves, and upon them
the degree was conferred in the usual form, after their
presentation, in a commendatory speech to the Vice-Chan-
cellor by the proctor.
The recitation of the prize exercises then commenced
amid the deepest attention of the company on the floor,
but the criticisms favourable and adverse of the occupants
of the galleries.
The conduct of the undergraduates up to the close of the
congregation was, on the whole, exemplary, and one of
them called for the approval of the Vice-Chancellor by
asking, " Haven't we been good boys, Mr. Vice-Chan-
cellor ? " but on the retirement of the officials they got up
• frolic on their own account, the egress from a certain
window being the case. bell,. Those who were in wanted
to get out by this partioular point of vantage, but when
out their sympathies were immediately enlisted against
the insiders, and a mimic war was carried on, in the midst
of which a large Turk's head broom, with which charges
were effected, came to grief amidst much fun and laughter.
There was an almost total absence of political feeling.

Tip , FR S, WEPESPAY

~~~

Pr MAY 1f3667
i,
L

'Ante.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—MAy 22.
Bitting§ in Baneo.—(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock,
Barons Martin, Bran:mall, and Channell.)

FROM L.

C.ABVILL V. HMI.
It may be recollected that this case came before the
court last term, and it raised a very otuioua point of law.
The action was brought by the trustee of a marriage set-
tlement, whereby the defendant, who was the lady's
father, contracted to pay to the husband an annuity of
200/. a year in consideration of his marrying the lady; and
the plaintiff, who was the trustee and brother of the hus-
band, sought to recover one year's annuity under the
deed. By the fourth plea the defendant alleged that
the huand had proved to be impotent, and that
therefore the contract was broken, the husband not being
in a fit state to ooutract matrimony. On s demurrer to
that plea, which was argued last term, the court held the
plea to be bad, but as regarded the third plea, which was
a plea on equitable grounds and simply stated that the
defendant had been induced to enter into this covenant by
fraud, but did not allege the particulars of the fraud, the
court referred the matter to chambers, in order that the
defendant should give the plaintiff the particulars of the
alleged fraud.
Yr. D. D. Keane now moved to set aside the plea and
the particulars, on the ground that the particulars sup-
plied by the order of the Learned judge at chambers were
substantially nothing more than a reiteration of the in-
competency alleged in the fourth plea, which had been
held to be bad. The difference between the two pleas was,
that one simply stated the fact, and the other set out that
the defendant had been induced to enter into the contract
by fraud, and then stating the fraud.
The Court held that they could not decide a case of this
kind off-hand, and that it must be argued; the Lord Chief
Baron observing that in all human probability no evidence
would be offered in support of the plea, and that therefore
the court might safely order the issue in fact to be tried,
leaving the matter of law to be argued hereafter.