The Express.
London, England, 1866-07-17 00:00:00

Ulu, fartaligram

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Jeri 16.
"IMAMS.
ROWILIT V. ROWLIT.
This was an appeal from a judgment of the Judge Ordi-
nary of the Divorce Court, in which Mary Ann Jepson
Rowley was appellant, and John Jepson Rowley rowan-
dent ; by which a petition of the appellant, praying for •
dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on the
ground of his adultery coupled with cruelty, was dis-
missed. It appeav'ed that the parties were married
in 1844, and in 1848, the appellant having left her
husband on the ground of his cruelty, and, as
she believed, adulttsm he instituted • suit for
restitution of colliegal rights in the Consistory Court
of York, which faieedd, and • separation L month et
thorn was pronounced. On appeal to the Judicial Coin-
mittee of the Privy Council that decision was reversed,
and the appellant ordered to return to her husband,
which she did in January, 1854, and continued to live with
him until November of that year, when the again left him
because of alleged cruelty and adultery with one Anne
Green, their servant. In 1860 the appellant Med
a petition in the Divorce Court for a-dissolution of
the marriage, and the cause having come on for
trial, her 'counsel, as alleged by the appellant without
her knowledge or consent and contrary to her wishes,
signed the following arrangement •.—" ' Rowley r.
Rowley.'—A juror to be withdrawn, and the petitioner to
move at the proper time to have the petition taken off the
file, the respondent oonsenting to the application. The
respondent undertaking to execute a deed of separation,
with covenants, with a trustee to be named by the peti-
tioner, not to molest the petitioner, not to put in force the
sentence of the privy council, and other usual covenants in
such • deed, including a covenant to allow the petitioner
to choose her own place or places of abode. The deed to
be prepared by the solicitor of the petitioner and
at her expense, the respondent bearing his own
oats attendant on the execution and settling of the deed.
Mr. Dart to settle the deed if the solicitors differ, the
petitioner undertaking not to institute other proceedings
in the Divorce Court. Each party to pay his own costs of
this suit. (Signed) J. P. DRAM, for Respondent.
krumirow, for Petitioner."
She protested against this, and urged that the case
might proceed. In 1863 the appellant having, as she
alleged, discovered numerous other acts of adultery on the
part of her husband, which were not comprised in her first
petition, and subsequent to the settling of the case, filed
another petition, in answer to which the respondent set
up the memorandum of agreement above stated. The
appellant applied to have t.he cause tried by a special
but the Judge Ordinary refused to make the order,
and intimated that on proper application he would enter-
tain the question whether the respondent was not
entitled to be dismissed from the suit. It was not until
May, 1865, that the respondent applied for the dismissal
of the petition, which was opposed by the appellant, of
whom the Judge Ordinary inquired whether she would
amend her petition, and ask fur • judicial separation
instead of • dissolution of marriage, which she refused,
and her petition was accordingly dismissed. From the
order to this effect the present appeal was brought. The
question was whether the agreement entered into at the
trial of the brat petition was binding on the appellant,
and it was contended on her behalf that it was inopera-
tive in reference to matters not in bane in the second suit,
and that any waiver of the appellant's remedy by that
agreement was inoperative in consequence of the subse-
quent misconduct of the respondent.
Dr. Deane and Dr. Twin appeared for the appellant ;
Mr. Philbrick for the respondent.
Judgment was postponed.
DOOLIANI V. CRISPIN. _ _ _

This appeal trot:Witels& Court was being opened by
the Attorsey-General (Sir H. Cairns), when, at twenty
minutes to 4, it was adjourned in order that the learned
gentleman might take his seat in the House of Commons.

EQUITY COURTS.—JULY 16.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir R. T. 'Cindersley.)
MATHER r. THR DUCHISB OF NORFOLK.

This w;;;,;n3ilonio—isTarain the defendant from
obstructing the plaintiff's light and air. The plaintiff,
Hannah Mather, occupies a private hotel, No. 29, Arundel-
street, under a lease from the guardians of the infant
Duke of Norfolk, and two houses immediately opposite
having been pulled down, it was intended, as she alleged,
to erect new buildings to a greater height than the old,
to the material obstruction of her light, the street being
only 30 feet wide. The plans of the new buildings
showed an elevation of 56 feet, whereas the houses pulled
down were only 44 feet in height.
The Vice-Chancellor granted the injunction, reserving
the question of costs until the hearing, and putting the
plaintiff upon the usual undertaking as to damage.
Mr. Rally and Mr. 0. Morgan were for the plaintiff ; Mr.
W. M. James and Mr. Wickens for the tenants ; and Mr.
Glass and Mr. Bagshawe for the Duchess of Norfolk and
the guardians.

(Before Tice-Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
RE THE ORIENTAL COMMERCIAL BANK (LIIITTE11).
This was a petition for the compulsory winding up of
this bank. Some of the parties interested desired a volun-
tary winding up, but after hearing counsel on their behalf,
The Vice-Chancellor made the usual compulsory order
for a winding up.