The Express.
London, England, 1859-01-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAT.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCE.
Beass.—(llabee Lad CombsLl sad hisikse
Vligkraisa, Compels. md

&EMUS .. IFAZDJCDOIIIXT.
The wait in anima by Yes npreeemenne of a man who
killed by a tionay eseigme, tam* the alleged segli-
of the &feeds% the weer of the nine.
Lad Oleephell, he sea lielivetietijudgmat, mkt the emit
~t of opines that the rule le gam a wen fre the &-
Oast non be min ehenele. The action genii at be
r eteinabie spiel the deneelent it the ectiobat were
,Iy hem the segieet at the deanned's hnow-weEreele
royal as the eine India There wee cienty ender
a the pen el the nehriest, and if ittfl:
. ohms dee tiseered wee Mleysawl
~itgeees inneelfnet, the dealt be be
tie mineable made mar the at of grinner* in the
veleta of seism nestled thee wee, nandse& Wine the
teem wen gest dews, *env bervgy Yen &Ma ler let
es and pulled woo* le ent the selle=alatiez
tackle; bee the diehemnet, win
stoat at the nine lanes& of tiekeeteg tbat
-tie, allowed it to be eatirely, rid he ateif
imphel9 might ny„ aleentihlly eagleteed. During the
tin the rope wee faired by as enlientiel len lad la the
:.remit the donweed sad ewe gem yen eget
i.e. the Ant walkout the rope et erßi hang Went If
ste rule bad bra obeyed, he healkissal of no repo wonld
ee. beat thee..eet, end the nee ell end; amt the rope
ion, end the deceesef end newel akar paw= were
What en the not. then wee min wirible
b 7 the defendant to dieeheyleg the Inle,"Zal:
Imiplog h bib espierseml a loaebeara vhs alio habituany
dreprded It Laotian at these hale drum they should
lane held that the defredaat wee Ilehlk
_lds eregligence
boatsteesnially coetributed to the ftid; bat the
widows proved the gross negiaree ea the pert of the
assmot nand, end that astetielly
rearibred to hie death. Hs lie Yet the
nit we disobeyed, art es the reaties he e=
he am rid by the Waimea net the repo at hum
ha • lee awl tat be had bare moire is bedew re ONO
Lem neeeethellenhedbregerded the weenlesendtpleilethe
tre•
rep win the ether nos, red the ma Weide. se dm
JAWIIMIAIII dry vur”ll Idled. The matt suret Oat 1
dee legisheere trearta dat the seguerededre et • pima
WWI is • nine druid oak) maw amps elm Vibe
terms bed cubed= night bleren hew anineeineden be•
nod at man= lowegidaa the peet7 Itudi7 adman.=
rieder the inaismineeere of We awn dry
dowenel, If he beleerati red, could we bow nedetelsed
es mean fa vent he Ird eralured, ice =lt wad less
tats• seed row, letbeene he the Cent the w-
ader roe slaty mot by oho walapat al a Maw ere-
rah ME ten at ere ten dielenel vita enierielly
senellined le Ma MC epos tesifierelilhld yen-
del" deplett do at hie emsdr. la dis NM ten
ire ohm reire arras oat et do atm sesm=stalds.
al dr war read dream le kit fir jiredgeleets it the deardere.

sarong. v. LAD? 1311.011110L7LIANL,

Thie 1111 rhos hr libel, brought by Mr. Hegira
whet Lady Moorhen. It aro tried is this omit is Ism
list Were Lord C COIF 0.11 sad • reeds, jury, sad ressibed
Is • whet for the fell demurer, 40.1. The libels men an.
ward is t.o looms, &WI is Jaly, 1832, sad Wesel by the
'hand to ben tees anus& by Lady thaerine—the Met
bang addressed sad rest to the Wu Lard Rovenswartli.
sad the mead to the primal Lord lbstinswertk. At the

time they wwe armee Idr !lushes W paying his addresses
to the daughter of the prelim Lord RavestrwartlL atom be
had face warted. In a {seceding term a ride was obtained
oa the tat of Lay Moorhen. calks; upon the plaintiff to
Jew cars why there skunk' net be a oat• trial on the
grand of the verdict being against the evidence. sad the
im-
propr reception of evidence.
The Attoreey-Ofteral, Mr. E. James, Kr. Bovill, sad
Mr. Raney mai, now spprind to show cause against the

Mr. Macaulay mud Mr. Lush •an isatrocard co 'Oa part
et the daleadast. . _ .

Photographic copies of the two letters deelurd upon, end 1
men ether anourrome letters, also said to be in the hand- :
writing of the defendant, wars handed up to their lordships. i
Lord Cempbell having read over his notes of the evidence
given at the trial,
The Atteeney•tieneral, in showing mum, said it wee quite
impossible to Meares with his teamed friend, Mr. Macaulay,
when he observei, in moving to the rule, that this wee a
use of the deepest interest end of imspeaksble importance to
the lady who was mad* the defendant. At the same time
be might be permitted to say that if, on • calm and Im-
partial review of the whole evidence, the mind of any
regional man wee led at once to the irresistible
conclusion that these letters must hove been written
by that lady, it was only, if there had been
• miscarriage in point of law, that this court, whatever might
be the (relives of their lordships, could Interfere to disturb
the verdict. The rule had twee obtained on two grounds—
first, that the seven snotty mous letters attributed
by the plaintiff 'a witneemes to the defendant were
improperly need as evidence in the ore; and,
secondly, that the verdict was legislate the weight of evidence.
His short and cm:elegies answer to the Bret question
was that his learned friend on the other side seeds no els-
iection at the trial to the adminibility of the wren Were.
.tfter several witness had stated their belief that the two
letters declared upon were in the handwriting of the
defendant, the other anonymous letters which were re-
tired by various persons were put into the hands of other
witnesses, who In rucceselou said they believed that they were
in the hand-writing of the writer of the first and second
i letters. The sewn leases were then, without any objection
ty the defendant's counsel, handed to the offimr, and read
or euly in court.
__ _ .. . . . . .

Mr. Macaulay said they were never read by the officer of
die court. The way their content■ became known wee that
the Atternerassend read them in hie opening speech.
Lord Campbell—They mat be considered as read. You
'say make all objections to them ae if they were actually read
17 the °Meer.
The Attorney-General said that the Common Law Pro-
e lure Act gave power to the judge at a Dial to allow a cow-
, I r1.01:1 of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the
rof,• tion of the judge to tei genuine. and coatsaded that
tc legielattue, in pueing that enactment, intended that the
lige should mutilate the ante tribunal to determine that
intim, and that there should be no appeal from his declakia.
'mat inconvenience would be the moult of the judge not
nag allowed to exercise an unfettered discretion in each
min The Alleeney-Geseml also submitted that no use
we Ended Me re= letters at the trial, nor earl:nag said
r done with peopoot to there, either by counsel or by
~ LAMA Joke la his oworoisg up to the jury, which en-
. i the isimbiat a e am trial.
:be Isamd ossosal woo proweediag with his argument&
-.ft our repel WIL