The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-12 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-Fm. 10.

After Term Niel Prim sittings at Westminster.—(Before
the Lord Chief Justice and Spacial Juries.)

CAMPBELL V. LORD WRNLOCK.
This was an action to recover 500 guineas for the noel
and occupation of a furnished house, No. 49, Ertoo-place.
Tie defendant pleaded that the house was infected with
• certain noxious insect—to wit, bugs.
After our report left on Saturday,
Lord Wenlock deposed that when be took the house he
stipulated that the house should be thoroughly repaired and
put in • proper condition for his reception. Lady Wenlock ,
also in his presence said she expected the bowie to be put in
a Olean state for their reception, and the house agent was
told that they were very particular as to cleanlioas. The
remark upon that was " there is nothing to fear of that."
After entering into the details, his lordship said that be,
Lady Wenlock, family, and ethers! servant., arrived
at Eaton-place on Tuesday, the 28th of April, about
eleven o'clock at night; some beds and bedsteads had been
previously sent up horn Yorkshire; there was no truth
whatever, so far as be knew in the statement
that any beds, bedsteads, or bedding came from
a hey loft in Berkeley-square. On the Saturday
morning he and Lady Weolock received a commu-
nication relative to the state of the beds. He and her
ladyship slept that night in the best bedroom ; they were
not disturbed. In consequence of what he was told by the
servants he made up his mind to leave the hones at once.
He never saw a but in his life, and he hoped he never
should. Mr. Douglass was informed of the reason for
leaving the house, and he (Lord Wenlock) told Mr. Law-
rence that there were such quantities of bugs in the house
that be could not remain. Lawrence did not deny it, and
he offered to put in fresh beds and bedsteads. Defendant
lied he was so annoyed Heaths would not remain at the risk
of up his establishment; be refused to have the fresh
beds and bedsteads ; be had no recollection that men were
sent in. On the Saturday he went to Parence's Hotel, at
great inoonvenieoce to his family, and all the house ser-
i vents left the same night. He eventually took Lord Lich-
field's hone* in Dover-street, and remained there that
season. He had no reason for leaving Eaton-place except
the hugs. He was put to much trouble and expense in con-
esquanoe. He considered the house in Exton-plies per-
, fectly suitable for his family.
Cross-examined—Mr. Lawrence said he bad never before
bad such • complaint about the house. He did not recol-
ua peaces being sent in to take down the beds, and he
would not undertake to say they were not.
Lady Wenlock also gave similar evidence. and said that
when they we about to take the house she particularly
made a point about its cleanliness. The beds brought into
the house came up from Yorkshire.
Mr. Charles Abott deposed that he was now the pro-
prietor of the Great Northern Hotel at York. Previous
so that he was house steward and butler to Lord Wenlock.
On Ssnday, the day after his arrival, be went over the
house, when be found it was not prepared for occopatior.
Nothing bad been done to it since the previous tenants left,
and it was impossible to go through the inventory. On the
Monday he complained to Lawrence of the state of the
hones, when he said he would send in a staff of men on
the Monday to dean the bonne. Three or tour men, and
as many women, were sent in on the Monday. When
shifting one of the beds previous to Lord and Lady Wes-
lock's arrival one of the servants brushed • bog into his
face, sod on examining farther there were the " vestim s"
of ahem. In the front attic he was shown • number of
bugs which bad been found in the bedsteads, and he
afterwards saw another lot. There were upwards of
twelve or fifteen shown to him in the first lot Lucy
Darnell saw them, and she said, What can you expect,
the room had not been cleaned out for three or four month',
for the kitchen people were so busy in the kitchen that
they could not do it. Later in the day be was shown in
the same room • second lot—upwards of 20. He did set
say anything about the vermin the night of Lord and Lady
Wedlock's arrival; the cook was to have slept that
night in the attic where the bugs were found, and
on the Saturday morning he was sent for by Lord and
Lady Wenlock, who informed him that they had received a
complaint from some of the servants. He then communi-
cated to them what he had seen, and until he was asked he
bad not mentioned it to his lordship. George Allen's face
was very much bitten by the bogs. When be saw Mr.
Douglass and complained, be replied that there was no re-
run/see to be placed on any servant's statement; he posi-
tively denied that he ever asked Lawrence for a pro-
mpt or commision ; be complained to Lawrence of the delay
in getting the house ready, and he excused himself for the
delay, and said he would recompense him (witness) for his
trouble in doing his beet to get the house ready. With
regard to the extra sable, Lawrence said be would make
me • present. He did not complain of the size of the house.
Cross-examined—He had never received • present. When
Lord Wedlock had taken a house in London he said nothing
of the kind attributed to him by Lawrence about a pre-
sent cooneeted with the taking of the house, but there was
something shout • commission on the taking of the stables ;
he had not received a farthing; he found several bugs
crawling over the counterpane.
The further hearing of the case was then adjourned.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DI VORCE.
FEB. 10.
(Before the Judge Ordioary.)
COOK V. COOK ♦ND RODFORD.

Mr. Warton for the petitioner; Mr. Searle for the re-
spondent ; Dr. Spinks for the co-respondent.
The petitioner, who was employed in the General Post-
alee as a sorter and letter wartierlened for a dissolution of
marriage on the ground of his wife's adultery with the co-
respondent, who was a superannuated mail inspector. He
also claimed damages. The respondent denied the adultery,
pleaded cruelty, neglect, cod misconduct conducing to her
adultery, and countercharged the petitioner with adultery.
The so-respondent also denied the adultery.
The parties were married is 1840, and lived together at
differest places in the neighbourhood of the City-road until
1863. There were four children. Is 186.1, the petitioner
found a man one night in the house with his wife, and
thereupon broke up the household, sold the furniture, and
turned his wife out of doors. She became chargeable to
the pariah, and he was sued for her maintenance. She sub-
eftitrently went to reside with the co-respondent.
This was the case for the petitioner, but the evidence
only showed that the respondent lived in the 00-respondent's
house. For the respondent it was contended that she was
there as servant, the 00-respondent, who had for years
known the family, giviog her shelter. In support of the
countercharges made by the respondent, the evidence of her
two grown-up sons—one a sergeant in the army—and of a
young woman, Mary Bertram, a servant to Mr. Rodford,
proved that the petitioner bad been taken in the act of
adultery with a woman named Tennant, who lodged in the
house. This was a few weeks before the petitioner broke
up his house, and turned his wife out without means
of support. One of the sons, Daniel, proved
continual acts of cruelty committed by the petitioner
towards the respondent. The other son, the soldier,
had sines contributed to his mother's support, and
was now maintaining her. The witness Bertram proved
that the respondent slept with her while she stayed at
Mr. Bedford's.

The jury, without hearing counsel or asking his lordship
to sum ap, at ono. found against the petitioaer on all the
Maass, negativing the alleged adultery of the respondent,
and co-respondent, and affirming that of the petitioner.
Petition dismissed, with meta against petitioner.