The Express.
London, England, 1859-05-23 00:00:00

SMITH C. SMITH AND VD,

TM partite were married at lomoerrh on the 20th of
October, 1839, the pc' itiontr, Henry Charles Smith, being a
baker at Norwood. Toe parties had had uncial children,
but in the year 18*, warm on a emit at the house of lb;
co-ropondent's father. an act of adultery wee alleged to hove
lama committed by Mrs. Smith. TOY kid to a separation,
and she bed lud two oinking einem

Mr. Starves emeted for the petitioner.
Toe grease t the divorce, but refused give the
qv Muller hie crate, he having made no atteeept to remove hie
nbildrva from the cestody of their mother.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—MAT 21.
(Elbe ths Chist Camissishes.)
IX RI ROOM TUOMIAI IDWAIDS.

Tlits laralviet, • balk*, w *prod b Mr. Bagley,
with wbots w•• J. Mc a••,21L31•1 • tit of Mr. Rams rd
Mr. P.m. Mr. &mood
no sereles la this are =II; • ea solo by sYrs.

Mr. William Howard and his Son, toy manufacturers, of
IS, Barbican, were euromonel behalf Sir Paler Laurie for
assaulting • carman in the employ of the South Rastas
&Wanly Company under the following oircuaistanoes :
Samuel Chalks Brampton said—l am • porter in the am-
vies of the South Hameln Railway Company. On the god
of the present month I took • box to the defendant's home.
I pieced it on the counter, and retained my bold of it while
I made • demand for 2s. td. for the carriage. There was •
label on the box directing that it should be forwarded by
the r. luggage-eau train." Mr. Howard refused to pay the
amount, and on my saying I must take the box back, he said
I should tot, and called his eon to ambit biro to take it from
me. In the struggle for the box the cord retied it cut my
band severely, sad that is the umiak I complain of. This is
not the Bret time I have had • bother with the defendant.
about the payment of parcels carnage.
Croft examined—The defendant refused to pay because he
thought the charge ought n to have been more than lc 6d.
I brought the box from the London-bridge station. Mr.
Howard, jun., signed the delivery-book which I produce.
Mr. Ds Jeremy, for the detendenls—We contend, Sir Peter,
that the parcel wee actually delivered, end the company had
their remedy against the defendant. for refusing to pa
Sir Peter Lurie—That is the difficulty I are In this case,
It le • nice point to dwermine whether the box was delivered
or not. The company's mean! clearly did not intend to part
with the poremeion of it without toe money ; but, on the
other hand, he has taken • receipt for the delivery, and the
naked to pay may, to • certain extent, be justified by the
error to the charge.
M. Howard, son.—The fact Is, air, this parcel was directed
to go by the luggege-van train, which would met about
le. 3d. or Is. 6d., Mat the company have thought proper to
convey it by perempr train, end to charge keit at the Lea
creased rate for passenger luggage, which I, of course,
objected to pay.
Sir Peer Laurie—Thin is guile a rew case, for I
heard of such a point being raised before. I would recom-
n=on, Mr. Howard, to pay the charge demanded, and
against the ceeepeny to recover the elem.
Mr. Howard—l would rather not, sir, foe I had • similar
dispute with the South Easton Railway Company la August
lam, sad protested against the charges. I, however, pied
them, and then tried to recover the excess, and It was Wm
months before I succeeded, and then sot until I had
threatened to write to the Times newspaper about it.
Sir Peter Laurie—l think the defendant was wrong in this
ease, but I should like to consider It further before giving
my decisioo.
Mr. Martin—The defendant had no right to questidn the
charge made by the company.
Mr. De Jersey—He had every right, for the company pub-
lish • seals of charges from which they ought not to depart,
and if they do we have • moat undoubted right to dispute
them.

Sir Peter Laurie—l. it legal se well so customary for car-
tons to take parcels back when they cannot get the money for
them P
Mr. Rases—Moat unquestionably, sir, as the company
bays • ilea upon all parcels until the carriage le paid. This
is the Slot case of the kind we have ewer hat

Sir Peter Laune-1 will giro my decision on Wednesday
Wit.
The summons was adjourned accordingly.