The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-30 00:00:00

TIIE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 30, 1867.

11,Ma intelligence.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Its. 20.

Sittings st Nisi Prins, in Middlesex.—(Betore Mr. Justice
Bytes and a Common Jury.)
SIZAPIRA Y. ITUDDT.

This wsei on action to recover for necessaries supplied to
the defendant's wife.

Mr. 0.31..i11ey. Q.l'., and Mr. R. Cooper appeared for the
pl. ntin ; and Mr. Serjeant Parry for the defendant.
The learned counsel, in opening the plaintiff's ease, said
that the defendant, who load carried on the business of a
rag merchant at Queenhithe under the name of iienrinuez,
married his wife in 1535, and shortly after received from
her Lisl4.ll. A long course of ill-treatment followed, and
the wife became chargeable to several parishes, and on
another occasion the defendant had a month's imprison-
ment for assaulting her. Finally the defendant deserted
his wife altogether, and in 1865 she went to board and
lodge in the plaintifFs house, from which she had, ten
years before, been married.
_

Mr. Saipira said he was a professor of languages, and
lived in Hunt. r-street. The defendant lodged in his house
in 1,55, and mulled his wife, Miss Maria Young
Henriquel, there. They continued to live there for
eighteen months, when they left. In July, 1863, Mrs.
Ruddy applied to his wife, and that lady aftenrarde lived
in his house from the Ist August to the end of December,
at 11, a week. She came again, and continued, with inter-
val. of absence, till October, 1866.
ernes-examined—The defendant was a general mer-
chant, and had had a warehouse at Queenhithe. Witness
did not know that since he gave up that place be had
lived in the model lodging-houses at Deptford. The de-
fendant never complained of the conduct of witness to-
wards Mrs. Ruddy Witness never visited that lady except
in company with his own wife ; nor did the defendant com-
plain of his doing so.
Mrs. Ruddy said she was the wife of the defendant,
!mein.; been married to him in April, 1855. Her father
was a physician in Jamaica. On her marriage the defen-
dant received 1,0001. from the sale of a reversionary interest
belonging to a itness. After leaving the plaintiff's house
with ter h•: shard they went to reside at Battersea. The
plaintiff ealled there with his wife, and once or twice
alone. Her husband never charged her with adultery with
the pLiictitf. When her husband received the I,ooof. he
opened ortices as a merchant in Mark-lane. The business
was carried on in the names of Maria Young Henriques
and Jesse Henriques, the maiden name of witness andthe
name of her sister. He passed as their servant. lie was
turned oat of Mark-lane, and then be took a warehouse at
Queenhithe. He did not take her to Queenhithe. He sent
her in a boat, and told her to wait until a person
came to her and took her to where she was to go to.
He afterwards took apartments in High-street, ICingsland,
for her, describing her as his fancy lady, and saying he
was going :Amid. In three weeks he was turned out
from that place. They moved about to various places.
He bou;ht some laud and built a house near Victoria-park.
He soon mold the furniture, and put her and her children
, into the stables with some straw to heliport. He went off to
Scot; in.! with ;OW. This was in 1862. Front this house
the mash doctor ordered their removal to Bethnal-green
workhouse. A day afterwards the defendant appeared,
bringing with him a printed bill called a" Third Caution,"
addremed to the public, and it called attention to " a
woman who goes shout in a bat and feathers and a silk
dress, and calls herself my wife." He also accused her
of making sway with property, and made other men.
pations. and declared that she was not his wife.
The witness asserted that most of these statements were
un'rue. and others she explained. She had on one occasion
sold some gravel of his, and this she did by direction of
the defendant's solicitor, who said the defendant was mad.
In 1862 she also became chargeable to the Whitechapel
parish, and soon afterwards she was in Mile-end workhouse.
In November, 1862, the defendant was sent to prison for
throwing her out twice into the middle of the street in the
night. The defendant went to prison for a month. He
had not provided her with a home since the last day of
Nevenber, 1863. When he left the apartments he was
indebted to the landlord, and told him to take the few
things he hail, and a broker was called in and they were
sold. He had given her no money since, but she had re-
ceived assistance from her motbees trustees.

Cress-examined—She knew her husband about eighteen
months before she married him. She did not first meet
him in the Euston-romi at two in the morning. She first
met him at a dancing-room in Gower-street. She was
married April 21st, 16. V.,, and her Mat child was born in
July or August following. She never told the defendant
before she was married that she was in the family way by
somebody else. and request him to marry her, as the child,
if born in wedlock, would be entitled to property. It
would, if born in wedlock, be entitled to property. She
had two children living, and the defendant had put them
into a refuge, declaring for the purpose that witness was
dead. They were now out of the refuge, but witness had
not seen them for some time. She paid her husband the
I,OOIY. two or three months after marriage with her own
hand. Her family allowed her, as charity, 36/. a year. It
was mice 401. a year. She denied that she had ever seized
and taken away the defendant's furniture. She had once
broken a picture that the defendant was going
to give to a kept woman of his. She also
broke • chair which he was going to take away,
so that she should sit upon the floor. She never used to
annoy the customers of the defendant at his warehouse,
and tell them not to deal with old Irish Ruddy. She never
threatened to murder the child and lay it to his charge.
The witness denied having been guilty of improper anti•
macy with other men, and she also denied some other
im-
putations made upon her.
Mrs. Szapira, the plaintiff's wife, proved that Mrs.
Ruddy had lodged at their house during the time charged
for.

At this stage of the proceedings a consultation took place
between the counsel in the case, their object being, it
was stated, not only to settle this action but to make some
arrangement in reference to the future.
Mr. Serjeant Parry afterwards said that he was not able
at present to make arrangements as to the future, but he
bad advised his client that he ought, to the extent of his
ability, to make some allowance to his wife. He added
that whatever the real merits of the case were, he felt that
he bad no legal defence to the action, and therefore he
would consent to a verdict for XV.

A ierdict for this amount was accordingly entered for
the plaintiff by consent.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. -JAN. 29.

Sittings in Baneo.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Baron Martin, Chatinell, and Pigott.)
JUNIPER T. THE VESTRY Or BERIIONDsEY.
• • •

This case raised an important question as to the liability
of public bodies for injuries sustained by the negligence of
their servants. The plaintiff's husband, while walking
along Blue Anchor-road, Bermondsey, stumbled in the
dark over a heap of earth, and sustained an injury to hie
ankle, which shortly afterwards terminated in his death.
It appeared that the defendants had entered into a con-
tract with two persons to construct • sewer in that
thoroughfare, but that for some reason they took the
work out of their hands in the course of its progress, and
carried it on themselves under the direction of their sur-
veyor. The accident happened after this change had been
effected, and the jury found negligence on the part of the
defendants in not properly fencing and lighting the path-
siainwhere the deceased fell. and found a verdict for the
tiff—damages, 875/. The trial came on at Guildhall
ore the late Lord Chief Baron and • special jury. Sub-
sequent!y this court granted a rule to set aside the verdict
and enter a verdict for the defendants or for a non-
suit, on the ground that there was no negli-
gence, that the relation of master and servant did not
exist between the vestry and the men through whose
negligence the accident arose ; and thirdly—and this WAS
the chief point in the cue—that the defendants were not
liable, inasmuch as they were a public body entrusted with
R public duty which they discharged gratuitously, had
been guilty of no personal negligence, and had no funds at
their disposal out of which to pay the damages. The rule
was partly argued in • preceding term, but the further
arguments were postponed until after "Coe r. Wise,"which
was then before the Exchequer Chamber, had been dis-
posed of. That case having now been decided, to-day bad
been appointed for re-hearing this case, and it was called
on soon after the sitting of the court..

Mr. M. Chambers, Q7C., Mr. Philbrick, awl Mr. Henry
T. Atkinson were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Serrant
Hayes, Mr. Mundell, Q.C., and Mr. Wills for the de-
fendants.

In Coe r. Wise the action was against the clerk of the
Drainage Commissioners of the Middle Level Fens for
damage sustained by the bursting of a sluice, and
after argument in the Queen's Bench, the Lord
Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Mellor held that
the commissioners were not liable in their oorpoeate
capacity, they being entrusted with a public duty, which
they performed without remuneration, having taken no
part in its actual performance, and possessing no funds out
of which to pay damages. Mr. Justice Blackburn dif-
fered from his learned brethren, and was of opinion that a
duty being cast on the commissioners to maintain the
sewers they were liable for the damage caused by the
negligent performance of that duty. Upon appeal to the
Exchequer Ch►mber, the late Lord Chief Justice &le, as
the mouthpiece of that court, delivered an unanimous
judgment in favour of the view taken by Mr. Justice
Blackburn. It further appeared that the present case
was governed by the decisions of the House of
Lords in the two well-known caries of " Gibbs r.
the Mersey Docks Board " and " Penhallow r.
the Mersey Docks Board," which came before that
tribunal by way of appeal. They were actions
for denier, caused by a vessel getting aground on
entering one of the defendants' docks, through the negli-
gence of their servants, the plaintiff in one being the
owner of the ship, and in the other the owner of the
cargo, and the House of Lords held that the defendants
were liable.

Mr. M. Chambers, in showing cause against the role ob-
tained by the defendants, contended that there was
nothing to distinguish this case from the above authorities.
The Lord Chief Baron said the only question which
seemed. after looking at these decisions, to be open for
argument was, whether the right persons had been
selected as defendants. He thought it was impossible to
distinguish the present from the other cases.
Mr.Serjeant Hayes having been heard ►t some length in
suppoit of the rule,
The Lord Chief Baron, in giving judgment, said that the
'great variety of decisions as to the liability of public

bodies of this nature for injuries sustained by the negli-
gence of their servants bad been swept away by the de-
cisions of the House of Loids and the Exchequer
Chamber, which until dealt with by the legislature must
be considered to have finally settled the principles of the
law as applicable to cases of this nature. It was now
authoritatively decided that a public body created for
public purposes, and having only public duties
to perform, but receiving no salaries, were liable to
an action for damages for the negligence of any servant
under their control. It was not for him to say whether
such a change in the law was generally speaking for good,
but they must be guided by it, and administer justice
accordingly.
Mr. Baron Martin, in concurring, referred to the two
cases in the House of Lords, and said it would, in his
opinion, have been monstrous to have held that the
Mersey Docks trustees, who received a large sum for
allowing vessels to enter the docks, were not responsible
for the negligence of their servants employed in and about
the ducks in the same manlier as private individuals. He
thought the decision of the House of Lords was con-
formable to law, reason, and good sense, and he was glad
the trustees had been made liable.

Barons Channell and Pigott being of the same opinion,
The rule wu discharged.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Jks. 29.
(Before the Right Hon. Sir J. P. Wilde.)
SMITH AND OTHERS T. TERBETT.—JUDORZIST.
Sir J. I'. Wilde, in giving judgment in this case, stated
that the case was argued before him the week before last.
It was a suit in which the plaintiffs propounded the will
of a Mrs. Thwaites, and the defendant came before the
court and sought to oppose that will as neat of kin of the
deceased, she alleging that she was her sister. The plain-
tiffs disputed her right to do so on the ground that she
was not the legitimate sister of the deceased. The issues
raised were that Joseph Hoop and Sarah Hoop, who
were said to be the father and mother of the defendant,
were not lawfully married, and that consequently the
defendant was illegitimate When the case was argued
the defendant was herself examined. She was an old
lady, some 80 yearn of age, and she gave evidence to the
effect that the deceased had always recognised her as her
sister, and that she had always considered from all their
friends and from her mother that the latter and her
father were lawfully married. The evidence, however,
did not rest entirely on that of the defendant, as there
was a deed put in evidence which was executed by the
deceased after her husband's death, she having then come
into the pretension of very large property, by which she
made over to her sister the sum of 30,000/. for life, and to
her seven children after her. In that deed the deceased
recognised the defendant as her sister, and that he
considered satisfied the rules of law, or rather the rules of
evidence, that the defendant was the legitimate mister of the
deceased. There certainly was no evidence of the marriage
of the defendant's father and mother, but that he con-
tended would be immaterial, inasmuch as the deceased had
always recognised her as her lawful sister, and had certi-
fied as to her views in that respect by the deed in ques-
tion. He therefore held that the second issue natlely,
that the defendant was the legitimate sister of the de-
ceased, had been proved, and that the defendant was en-
titled to the benefit she sought, namely, to oppose the will.
The queen's Advocate applied for coats. There could be
no question that the deceased bad always recognised the
defendant as her lawful 'Lister.

Dr. Spinks, Q.C., opposed the application on the ground
that there was no proof whatever that the defendant's
father and mother had ever been married.

...............
The learned Judge, however, considered that the de-
ceased having recognised the defendant as her lawful
sister, the presumption was that the father and mother
were married. He must therefore condemn the plaintiffs
in coats.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before the Recorder.)

James Williams Woods, 20, a gentlemanly-looking young
man, surrendered to take his trial upon a charge of stealing
a bank note for 1001. the property of Messrs. Barnett,
Hoare, and Co. the bankers.

,
The prisoner pleaded guilty.
Mr. Sleigh, who, with Mr. Poland, was instructed to
prosecute, said that the prisoner was a young man ; he had
been a considerable time in the service of the prosecutors,
and they believed he had committed the offence under
some sudden temptation, and under these circumstances
be WAS instructed to recommend the prisoner to the
merciful consideration of the court.

Mr. Metcalfe, who appeared for the prisoner, also urged
in mitigation of punishment the youth of the prisoner and
his previous good character.
The Recorder sentenced him to nine months' imprison.
ment and hard labour.
Thomas Cannon surrendered to take his trial for misde-
meanour in having unlawfully made a false declaration
before one of the commissioners appointed by law to take
declarations in certain matte's.

Mr. Collins prosecuted ; the defendant conducted his
own else.

This inquiry occupied the court a considerable time, but
a vast quantity of irrelevant matter was introduced into
the inquiry by the cross-examination of the defendant,
and the real facts appeared to be these. The defendant
was the proprietor of • local journal called the South
London Journal and Croydon Free Peres and itapperred
that in the latter end of the year 186.5 re desired to bor-
row 1001. of • solicitor named Ellworthy, who consented
to advance the money upon the security of the good-will
of the newspaper referred to, but he required the defen-
dant to make a declaration that the property was unen-
cumbered and under his control. The defendant did sub-
sequently make • declaration to that effect, and the alle-
gation on the part of the prosecution was that at the time
the defendant made this declaration he was aware that the
property in the newspaper had been assigned to other par-
ties as • security for • second loan that had been advanced
by them. The prosecutor, Mr. Ellworthy, was creas-
e:stained at iamaiderable length by the defendant, but the
only material fact that appeared to be elicited from him
was that the greater portion of the 1001. had been repaid,
and that he had taken other security betides that of the
good-will of the newspaper, and that under this security
be could realise the whole amount he had advanced when-
ever he chose to do so.

The Recorder having summed up, the jury, after a short
deliberation, returned a verdict of Oniftv, but recom-
mended the defendant to mercy, Re they believed that he
was not actuated by any fraudulent intention.
The defendant was sentenced to two mouths' imprison-
ment.

Bone Fremen, IS, who had been committed for the
murder of her illegitimate child, but in whose case the
grand jury ignored the bill, pleaded guilty to the minor
offence of unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the dead
body.
Sarah Spaldi np, 43, and John Shafer, 42, pleaded guilty
to the charge of unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the
dead body of an illegitimate child, of which the first men.
tioned prisoner had been delivered.
Mr. liesley, who was instructed to prosecute, said that
in this case there was not the slightest ground for believing
that the child was born alive.

Mr. Cooper, who appeared for Shofer, said that all he
had done was to foolishly accompany the other defendant
at the time she endeavoured to hide the dead body of the
child in a field near Notting-bill.
The Reeorder sentenced Spalding to two months, and
Shofar to 14 days' imprisonment.
George Gomersall Ifolroyd, 28, clerk, and Darid
21, clerk, pleaded guilty to several charges of embezzling
considerable sums of money, the property of Meson. Bell
and Black, wax veld& manufacturers, in Bow-lane.