The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-14 00:00:00

THE BANKRUVIVY BILL.

Mr. MALIN% asked whether the Bankruptcy Bill would
be taken on Monday.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the committee would probably not occupy any great length
of time, and the bill nitt pomade come on afterwards.
GAME CERTIFICATE% BILL. _

On the motion of the CIIANCILLOR of the EXCIIEQUKR
the house went into committee upon thi bill, and its
several clauses were agreed to after some oonversatiou on
tbeirdetailn

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT
AMENDMENT BILL
The house went into coauuittee, and the dunes having
been disposed of, the house resumed.
POOR-LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE BILL.

On the order for committee on this bill,
Lord E. HOWARD moved an instruction to the com-
mittee that they have power to introduce clauses requiring
that a creed register be kept both in workhouses sod dis-
trict schools, and providing that access shall be had to
ee►►weryy inmate by the minister of the religious persuasion to
which he or she belongs.
Yr. VILLIERS, declining to avail himself of an objet.

tion to the motion on a point of order, suggested various
moons against its adoption upon its merits, observing that
the bill was amply for the continuance of the Poor Law ,
Board, and that a bill was under consideration in which a
provision
uced-
of this kind, which was full of difficulties, might
be introd
Mr. JAMEB moved the adjournment of the debate.
This motion, after some discus ion, was negatived upon •
division by 97 to 40.
Upon an assurance given by Mr. Vuxnces, Lord E.
HOWARD withdrew his motion, and the house went into
committee upon the bill.
Other bills were advanced their respective stages, and the
remaining business having been disposed of, the house ad-
journed at twenty-five minutes past 2 o'clock until Monday.

lab) ihttrilignut.

EQUITY COURTS.—JULY 13.
(Before Vice.Chaecellor Woud.)

EVANB V. CARRINGTON.

This cue, which has figured in the Divorce Court, and in
every court auxiliary to, or connected with, that institution,
and the facts of which are, consequently, pretty well known
to the public., came before this court upon the hearing of a
suit to eat aside the settlement made on, and the separation
deed made after, the marriage of the plaintiff, Mr. Evans,
and the defendant Mary Sophia, his late and divorced wife.
The ground upon which it was attempted to set aside thew
deed' was that they had been obtained by fraud and collision
between Mary Sophia Evans and Robert Ansley Robinson,
her paramour. The facts have been so frequently stated in
these columns, that it is sufficient to state them shortly in
this place. The intimacy between the plaintiff and his late wife
commenced seine time before the year 1850, the introduction
being effected through Robinson. In DMA the marriage took
place. Shortly after disputes and differences arose, and the
parties separated, a deed being executed upon their separa-
tion, giving to the defendant, the wife, an allowance of =Of.
a year. After this time the plaintiff discovered that before
the marriage an improper intimacy subsisted between
Robinson and his wife,which intimacy, it appeared, had been
renewed since the separation. The bill also alleged that
improper intercourse took place between the parties after
the date of the marriage, and prior to the separation;
but this the court was of opinion was not ens.
tamed by the evidence. Under these circumstances the
plaintiff contended that there was enough upon the face
of the proceedings to justify the allegations that the me-
nage, the settlement, and the separation were matters into
which he was drawn by fraud and contrivance of the wife
and her paramour, and that therefore he ought to be re.
lieved from the obligations cast upon him by the two docu-
ments. . . ..“.

Mr. ffolt and Mr. Hallett were for the plaintiff ; Sir H.
Cairns, Mr. Frosting, and Mr. Brodrick, appeared for parties
interested.
The Vice-Chancellor came to the conclusion that the bill

ought to be dismissed with oasts. Upon a former occasion
(oo allowing a demurrer) he had adverted to the legal diffi-
culties in the way of the plaintiffs claim. He now added
that upon the evidence he thought the case fell short of the
plaintiff's allegations, and he could therefore give no relief.