The Express.
London, England, 1859-06-02 00:00:00

iLab) intelltanut.

EQUITY coußrs.—Ants 1.
(Beton tbe Led C Wexner.)

CROUCH V. WALLIS.

This wee an appeal from the Muter of the Rolle. The
matter eetete before the court below in a suit brought by
Emma Christian Crouch, by her next friend. fteeiest her hus-
band, Charles Richard Crouch, to recover tio arrears of an
tenuity of 601., given to her by a settlement made on the
31st December. 11150. Mr. and Mn. Crouch were married
in the year 1845; they subeerptently agreed to separate, end
in August, 1848, the husband, by a memorandum of agree-
ment, agreed with certain pelves la for the wife to make a
it:Ailment of 601. a year upon her for her separate misdating
her life, and after her decease to himself for life, and ulti-
mately upon trust for the children of the marriage. The
moth rot Mrs. Crouch brought an action against the husband
for necessaries which the had supplied to his wife and two
children • and, by a judges order made la No-
vember, 1819, • verdict was taken by consent, and all
the matters in dispute referred to arbitration. As
award was made, under which • deed of
Lion was executed by the partici, which provided tb:lTlrrt:
Crouch should live apart from her husband, and that she
should have the custody, education, and control of the two
children, which control she was empowered to delegate to
any person ; and the deed contained • proviso for making
the same absolutely void if the husband and wife should at
say time thereafter, with their mutual consent, come tope
they and cohabit as man and wife. By &deed of the same
date an annuity of 60/. was given to the wife, and atter her
decease an annuity to the two children, both being charted
upon property to which Mr. Crouch was entitled. The
ennui/ ef tee wife not haring been Enid, an agreement woe
entered iato in April, 1862, by which Krs. Crouch agreed to
take 301. • year in lieu of the annuity of 601. Mrs. Crouch
by her bill claimed the original annuity, with arresre. It
was in evidence that the wife bad led a dissolute life, and
also that subsequently to the deed of 16.50 she and her hus-
band bed for weeks renewed their cohabitation. The Muter
ef the Rolla held that the clauses in the deed of separation
were contrary to public policy and rendered both deeds
void, and dirtaiesed the blll. The lemma appeal was they
brought.
Mr. Roundell Painter and Mr. Cole appeared for the ap-
pellee_ ,t • Mr. Ealwyn and W. D. Innis for the defendaat,
the behead; Mr. H. P. Roche wee for the trustee; Kr.
Bagebewe, jun., for the defendant Waller, the executor of
the father el Mr. Crouch.
At the eencledon of the 'tegument',
The Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment, haviog gone
through the facts of the cox, said that the settlement could
not be considered voluntary, because the warrant of attorney
given by the bletband m ISIS, could have bees enforced in
court of common law, when the husband came of the age of
2.5. He could not concur in the second decision of the
Master of the Rolls that the two deed' of separation and set-
tlement formed one entire transaction. lie considered that
the settlement wee &boleti' In fulfilment of the arti-
cle* of agreement, July, 1848 ; that the children
took no interest under it; that the cisme de-
priving the father of the custody of the children
was nut void on the ground of public policy end that, there-
fore, the right of the wife to the annuity of 601. had been es-
tablished. The decision of the court below would, therefore,
le reversed, and a decree made In the Mame of the original
decree made by his honour.
Appeal allowed.

DAVISON N. TOVNO.
The hosting et this ewe Rai resumed, sad wau not con-
cluded Irks Us mart rase.

(Beers Vlce-Chaacellor Wood.)
ECCLES P. ERE LIVERPOOL BOROUGH A ks; C.

This bill was filed for the pupae of cancelliog or recti-
fying a certain deed, whereby the plaintiff had become secu-
rity for the liabilities of the firm of Joseph Eccles and Co,
of Liverpool, sad also for restraining proceedings at law,
which had been instituted ageing the plaintiff by the parties
repreienting the Liverpool Borough Bank. It appeared that
in 1867 Joseph Eccles was considerably indebted to the bank,
and on being mead for some smutty he executed the deed
which it wee now sought to set aside. By this instrument
the plaintiffs, Thomas and Richard Eccles, agreed to pay all
moneys due to the bank from Joseph Eccles, provided the
amount should not exceed 36,0001. They stipulated that they
should be allowed seven yams In which to pay off that sum.
They oleo agreed to forego a debt of 66,0001. due to them-
/elves Isom Joseph until he had defrayed all his liabilities,
and in the meta time to bold that debt as trustees
for the blink. Shortly after this date the bank
suspended payment, and is now in coarse of winding-up.
When thy first instalment et the 36,0001. became due, the
plaintiffs declined to psy it, upon the ground of fraudulent
misrepresentation on the part of the bank. The bank, how-
ever, recovered at law, whamuten the present bill was filed.
The plaintiffs now set up in equity the case of mierepreeenta-
lion which they made at law.
The Solieiter-Orneral, Mr. Mellish, sad Mr. Bardswell,
were for the plaintiffs; Mr. Bolt, Mr. Blackburn, end
Mr. Kay. were on the other side.
The Vies-Chancellor, without hearing the defendants
counsel, dismissed the bill with costs. His honour considered
that both the ground. of fraud and of mistake which were
put forward were insufficient to suprort the plaintiffi con-
tention.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-JuNE 1.

Bittinp at NI Pds;.—(Batore Mr. Baron Channel! and
Common Jades.)

10111 TEA AND MINE O. OIAHAN.-FALSE

The plaintiff is this case is a commission agent, and the
defendant IN s widow lady, residing at Sunderland, where
she pommies mots house property which she lets out is fiats.
The defendant and his wife occupied one of these, and paid
his rent fora time, but some dispute having when he re-
moved his furniture bef rte quarter•day to South
Shields. Oa the Bth of March, Mrs. Faster wee
at the Sunderland railway station, about to proceed
to join her husband, when she wee followed by the defendant,
who called out, " Tbis is the woman who ha. robbed me,"
sad sppealed to the bystanders to fetch a policeman, to which
they did sot however reopmd. The defendant then mid she
would preescule Mrs. Foster, sad actually followed her to
Newomtle, who she wee detained by the guard until the
passeagere had lift the room. The defendant then renewed

the charge in peesence of the station-master, who sent for a
policeman, but be would not take the plaintiff's wife into
custody, and she wee ',hewed after an hour.
The jury found for the di fiodent on the slander, and for
the plauatifi on the false imprisoament, with damages of one
farthing.

FOSTER AND WIFE r. O*DlitIEN.

This was en action aliens, oat of the wee state of facts
against the defendant, the station•mnter. The record was
withdrawn.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.--JoNs 1.

Sittings at NW Pries, at Onfldball.—(Bekoe Mr. Baron
Mansell and Cosmos Judo.)

NEM O. 11.011 ET.—AX CSIDTZTAZZIeII DILL.
This was sa action brought by the plaintiff to recover 221.,
the amount of his bill. The defendant pald .201. into court,
end as to the balance denied his liability.
Mr. George Francis was counsel fir the plaintiff; Mr.
liuddlaiton represented the defendant.
The plaintiff is an undertaker, of Cherlotte•atreet, St.
GeorgiVe East, end the defendant is a smi-maker. The
defendant met the plaintiff in Watzeratreet on the let
of March, sod told Lim that his wife was deed,
at the same time giving him instructions for her
funeral. The defendant tipreeeed his satisfaction at the
manner in which the (enteral had been conducted, and de-
sired him to teed in kis bll the next morning, when be
would give him a @bowie for the amount. The plaintiff said
that be smiled and told the defendant that the funeral
would coat 601., to which the letter replied, " I should think
not half of it." The plaintiff then said " Wall, it will be
about 261."

la his croae.examination the plaintiff said he did not
publish handbills healed, "Respect to the deputed,"
"Incenc7 and pomp combined for 101.," with a house
drawn by prancing horses. He bail charged 61. for the elm
shell, which was polished. Ile preecnnd the clergymen with
a silk band and gloves, and the defendant did not object,
as it was usual and nspecteble. Ile bad charged half-a-
guinea for attending the funeral with silk Beings. Ile had
°barged for en horses, beans, velvets for three hammer
clothe, one hearse, and two mourning towhee, and for ten
men, inclining two muter, described in the bill as two poe.
tern, with notes and silk fitting..
Mr. Houleey, Mr. Adam Spreyfield, and other under-
taken, were called to prove the reatonsldenese of the plain-
tiff's charges.
'-e defect*

The was that the action was defended on prin-
ciple, as bents were charged la the bill which had not been
supplied. I.r instance, there were only eight sea
Instead of ten, and the defendant denied lire converiatlogi
with the plaintiff, aa sworn to by the letter. lie also said he
hid called at the plaintiff's shop, end had ettu,tly yeti hited
anything approaching to powp, included, es he had
many bills to pay, aad wiehad to he just before he was
generous.
Several witnewes we wiled to prove the charges too WA,
and maid thew, an undertaker named ILdMy, eat the practice
of the trade was to chirp persons according to their condition