The Express.
London, England, 1860-04-17 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—AranI6.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr.
Justice Crompton, Mr. Justice Hill, and Mr. Justice
Blackburn.)

IN THE HATTER OP - COBBETT.

Mrs. embbett appeared and made her usual motion for a
habeas corpus to tiring up her husband, who has been in
custody for a long period. However, their lordship* de-
clared that they could not depart fmm the decisions so
frequently delivered in the case, and the rule must be
refused.

This was en action for libel against the defendant, as pro-
prietor and publisher of the Sporeing Life, which was tried
before Mr. Justice Wightroan, at the sittings at Guildhall
after !sat term, when a verdict went for the defendant.
The plaintiff now appeared in person, and moved for a
rule, calling upon the defendant to show cause why there
should not be a new trial in the case, on the several grounds
that the verdict was against evidence, misdirection by the
learned judge, and that certain of the defendant's evidence
took the plaintiff by surprise
Their lordships granted a rule.
THE QUXI2I V. MARY FAIMIANI.

This came, which 'toed on the peremptory paper, wu then
proceeded with, but was only part.beard when their lonl-
ships roes.

COURT OF COMMON PLFUS. -APRIL 16.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie, and
Justices Wiles, Bylea, and Keating.)

HAWKINS I. RIORT.—COUNSF.L'N F.
The parties to this suit had been engaged in carrying out
various contract works of great extent, the plaintiff acting
as engineer, and the defendant as contractor; and the
went between them being that the plaintiff should WITS
one-sixth of the profit... The action was brought to recover
the sum due to the plaintiff upon this agreement, and the
matter having been referred to arbitration an award was
made that the plaintiff should have 9,3201.
Mr. M. Smith now moved for a rule to review the taxa-
tion, principally upon the ground that the master had re-
fused to allow the plaintiff the fees and expenses of two
counsel, he saying that there was no precedent in this court
for allowing for more than one counsel in a case of
reference.

Mr. Juatioe Willem raid that he knew a came in the Ex-
chequer where three counsel had been allowed for, and the
amount recovered was 2,0001. lees than in this came.
Rule granted.

Si COBBETT—APPLICATION TOB A HABEAS CORPUS.
Mrs. Cobbett repeated an application made on many pre-
vioua occasions for a writ of habeas corpus to bring up the
body of her husband, in order to his being discharged out
of the custody of the keeper of the Queen's prison ; and
stated that she now based her application on two entirely
new points of law • the first being that the creditor who
detained her husband bad not within the first year's custody
taken any means to bring him before the Insolvent Court ;
and secondly, that her husband being in custody
produced
had been confined with criminal. Mrs. Cobbett
along affidavit, which was read, and she then addressed the
court, stating that each of their lonlships was liable to a
penalty of W. if they refused the writ, and so was the
Secretary of State, for ordering her husband to be
confined with criminals. She submitted that Mr. Cobbett
had a right to come into court and speak to their lordships
epos the matter ; she protested against his being kept with
criminals, and she called for their decision neon the poets.
If he were not brought ap to argue the case it would be an
utter denial of justice.
The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion that the
writ ought not to issue. First, it was said that Mr. Cobbett
having been committed for non-payment of asum of money,
was entitled to his discharge bemuse his detaining creditor
had not proceeded against him under the insolvent law ; but
the creditor bad an option of bringing his debtor before the
Insolvent Court or not, and his not having taken such pro-
ceeding was no ground for discharge. The second question
was whether Mr. Cobbett bad been confined in a proper
manner by the Secretary of State ; and he thought that
point bad been previously disposed of, but anyhow it was
no
_point for discharge.
Mrs. Cobbett—There is an act of parliament which says
that a debtor is not to be placed with criminals, and do
your lordships decide against that net?
The Lord Chief Justice—lt would he no ground for dis-
charge if Mr. Cobbett were placed in an improper position
in the prison.
Mrs. Col,hett -Your lordships have not looked et the act
of parliament, and therefore you cannot have considered
the matter ; your lordships have not even got the act of par-
liament before/on.
Mr. Justice WWes—You are mistaken as to that.
Mrs. Cobbett—Are all your lordships of the lame opinion?
The court is silent as to three judges.
Mr. Justice Willes said he was perfectly clear that there
was no ground for the writ ; and in continuation he re-
tarred to the regulations which had been made by the Secre-
tary of State.
Mrs. Cobbett—l am not complaining of the regulations,
but of an act of parliament being broken be my husband
being placed with criminals. I do not say that the Seem-
tary of State has no right to make regulations, but that he
ham not kept himself to the law and to the act of par-
Bement..

The other judges concurred ; and Mrs. Cobbett left the
court declaring that she must go ehew•here.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-APRIL 16.

The Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Baron Martin. ►nd Mr. Baron
Bramwell took their mate on the bench at 11 o'clock.