The Express.
London, England, 1859-02-08 00:00:00

iLato inttlitanut.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Fus. 7.

&taws at NW Prins atter two•—(Belor• Lai Campadl
sad • Bpsoisl hwy.)
lIIALLLLVZ P. LYON.

(Concholud from yesterday's ispress.) •

Yr. Lush fur the defendant, and Mr. M. Chambers for the
plaintiff, having addressed the jury ea the part of their tee-
-I,ec twat clients,
Lord Campbell summed up. He said it was a very painful
cue, and that it wee much to be lamented that some arrange-
ment had not been made which would have prevented the
inquiry into which they lied entered at such great length,
but they must do their duty to the beet of their ability. He
warned them that they must not be influenced by any feeling
they had se to the eondoct of the defendant. They must
decide the cam according to the rules of law, and although
they might not approve of some parts of his conduct, still if
the defence sat up, did, in point of law, entitle him to a ver-
dict, their verdict mast be for him. He coalessed that, con-
sidering they had lived most happily and harmoniously for
stone years without the nulled complaint of any sort, and
that it was the illneem of Mrs. Lyon which drat brought on
the consequences which followed. That it was the Mans
ceased by two miscanieges which rendered it n
e
ac-
cording to the opinions of Dr.Lceock and her m icerark o rs,
that she should Mks opiate'. to a barge amount, and that at
was from this carcionsiance she unfortunately contracted the
habit of taking stimulants in greater quantities than were
preeetibed for her—he did my he would have expected she
would have been treated with the utmost possible tender-
ness by her husband. Again, it did surprise hint
to find inceseistesake is the conduct of the de-
fendant, for, at the same moment, he treated Mrs.
Lyon ea sans and Memel& put her =derma:and mania-I
gene person, and then, considering her sane, he premed her
to execute a deed of eeparatioo. Now the Jury would have
to say whether the dent bomb fide sought to fulfil the I
decree for the restitution of conjugal rights, or fraudulontly
evaded it. With respect to the drat part of the demand, if
Mrs. Lyon signed the deed of separation consciously end was
aware of its contents, the plaintiff could not recover, for it
was well settled by the law of Engled that ifs husband end
wife agreed to live apart, sad ea slbweme were made by the
husband for the realatesence of hie wife, and the allowance
wits regularly paid and received, she had no authority to
contract debts on the malt of her knekend. The nest
googlies would be whether she wee ender restraint when the
deed of separation was executed, sad be mast say that the
evidence seemed to show that eke was not. There
was :another question as to the suMdency of the allow-
ance, hat they would probably be of opinion that 1,6001.
was en ample sum to maintain her as a gentlewoman.
With regard to the second part of the claim, if at
the time the goods were supplied, the defendant had
fulfilled the order of the Court of Divorce for tho netitution
of conjugal rights, and if Mrs. Lyon had bees properly re-
ceived by him se him wife at • suitable home, that would be
a good gnawer to the action; but if, on the other head, he
had not dons so, and did not receive her in a home where
she mold with propriety rentals, then ha woe liable for the
claim. He would, therefore, first ask them whether the de-
fendant intended boa We to milord her a home ; and, se-
condly, whether she could, without reasonable apprehension
of restraint, have remained at such home
The jury alined irnmediate'y found a verdict for the plain-
tiff for 12U. 16e. lid., the second pert of his demand.