The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-23 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-MRIL 21.

---- - - -
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erle, and
Justices Myles, Keating, and Smith.)
NEZDHAII V. BIMINI&
Mr. Henry James said that this was an action brought in
the Lord Mayor's Court of London, to reoover the price of
necessaries supplied to the defendant's wife ; and upon an
admitted state of facts a verdict was entered for the plain.
tiff, subject to the opinion of thin court upon a question of
law. The defendant had sued for a divorce upon the,
ground of the adultery of his wife with a person named
Brett, and the jury in that woceeding found that the
adultery had been committed, but they also found that the
husband himself had committed adultery, and therefore
there was no decree for • divorce. Subsequently
to this the goods in question were supplied to the
wife, and the defence to the action was that the
defendant was not liable to pay for the goods, because
the wife had forfeited her right to buy necessaries upon
his credit by reason of her adultery. No primary evidence
of adultery was given in the Lord Mayors Court, and the
secondary evidence put in consisted simply of the finding
of the jury in the Divorce Court. The questions now were
whether, under the circumstances, the wife had lost her
right to purchase necessaries on her husband's credit ; and
if so, whether the adultery had been properly proved in
this suit.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the matter was worthy
of discussion.
Mr. H. James contended that the adultery of the wife
deprived her of the right to pledge her husband's credit,
and that this was so notwithstanding any misconduct on
the husband's part.
The Lord Chief Justice said that might be so, but at
first sight it looked hard that where both were equally
wrong the whole penalty should fall upon the wife, whilst
the husband went free.

Rule granted.
Sittings at Nisi Priva in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Willes and a Common Jury.)
LEWIS r. LEWIS.

This was an action broug the plaintiff, a barrister,
against his brother, a captain la the army, to recover
damages for slander.
Mr. Kenealy and Mr. Thomas appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Brandt for the defen-
dant.
It appeared that the defendant having been in India
with his regiment, the 21st Fusiliers, returned to Eng-
land in October last, and went to the Junior United Service
Club, of which he was • member. The plaintiff called
at the club and left his card, but the defendant returned
the card, and declined to hold any communication with the
plaintiff. The latter thereupon wrote to the defendant
this letter :—" bl, Cambridge-street, S.W., 2nd Nov.,
1865.—Mr. C. Wray Lewis, in reply to Captain E.
Leiria's rude and vulgar letter, begs to say he
shall do himself the pleasure of seeing Captain
K Lewis at his club at the captain's earliest
convenience. An early answer will oblige. P.S.—An
officer in her Majesty's service returning a card left at his
club! P.P.S.—A specimen of envelope used by E. L.
eleven and a half months after the death of a parent."
(The objection to the envelope was the depth of the black
border.) On the morning of the 29th November the de-
fendant dined at his club, and afterwards he was handed
the following letter, which was written on the United Ser-
vice paper. " Ernest,—You blackguard. I have waited
here to see you. Let me know where you are to be seen. I
want a few words with you !—C. WRAY Lewis, 97, War-
wick-street, S.W. To Captain Levi, Esq., kc." The de-
fendant thereupon called a Hansom cab, drove to the ad-
dress in the letter, and inquired for the plaintiff. Ac-
oortling to the latter the defendant did not reach
Warwick-street until between twelve and one o'clock
in the morning ; that the Paintiff was roused from
his sleep, and upon going into the drawing-room he saw a
person flourishing a stick, and learned that it was the
defendant, who addressing him said " You are a
Jew thief, and you rob every one ; you have taken these
apartments to rob these people ; you are a bankrupt; and
you have robbed all your tradespeople ; you are a
murderer, you murdered your child and your father."
And he also said to the owner of the lodgings and her
servant, "I give you all warning, be will rob you aIL"
The defendant then drove away, and in consequence of
the disturbance Mrs. Prescott, the landlady, gave plaintiff
notice to quit, and as soon as it was convenient he left.
The plaintiff was called, and deposed to the col, eitness
of the statement which had been made of the facts of his
case. . . . . .

In cross-examination he said that on leaving he did not
pa". Mrs. Prescott any money, but gave her a pro-
imasory note for 111. for rent due. He did not
know whether his butcher and baker were left
unpaid. He had means to pay ; he had earned 300/.
or 400/. by his profession during that year if
he had been paid. He left lodgings in Northumberland-
place owing 30s. for rent. He gave a cheque for 3/.,
and asked for the difference. The cheque was returned,
because there were not sufficient funds to meet it, but he
believed that it was not presented until two months after
it was drawn. He gave Thwaites, a grocer, a cheque for
5/., which was dishonoured, hut Thwaites had a bill for
100/. as security for the payment of the cheque. The bill
was one he had from an officer in her blajesty's service
whom he met when he (witness) was in Lewes Gaol for debt,
in 18E4. Thwaites thought that he could get the bill taken
by a firm he dealt with. The bill was a " kite," which
witness was to fly for his own benefit. The acceptor was
a gentleman of property who had been locked up in
Lewes Gaol for 300/. for costs by a person named Oldneve,
who had been clerk to witness's father. Witness was
bankrupt in 1862 when he owed 1,000/., which
his father promised to pay. He had an in-
come of 1,000/. • year to meet his liabilities.
He could not say if Mr. Commissioner Holrovd declared
that looking at witness's conduct before and after his
bankruptcy he could not consent to give him an absolute
discharge, but that he would order him to pay 50/. a year
until all his debts were paid. Such an order was made,
but witness did not pay a sixpence. He was never asked
to pay. In 1865 he again became bankrupt.
The witness was then questioned as to some other simi-
lar transactions, and he also said that his father had paid
20,000/. for his debts, and made him a weekly allowance.
He admitted that when he left the letter at the club
addressed to the defendant as Captain Levi. be meant to
insult him for having treated his card with disrespect. The
family name was, in fact, Levi.
The defendant, in his evidence, admitted that he called
at the plaintiff's lodgings ; that the plaintiff, who was in-
toxicated, said he owed him 500/., and abused him in vio-
lent and disgusting terms. Witness did not use the coarse
terms attributed to him, but he did say that the plaintiff
had taken the apartments for the purpose of robbing them,
and that he had robbed everybody.
The jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict for the
defendant.

The learned Judge said that, as he might feel it his duty,
after consulting the other judges, to send a copy of his
notes to the benchers of the plaintiff's inn of court, he
wished to know what inn it was.

Ir. Brandt—Grafi-inn, my lord.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Arum 21.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
LANGSTON T. MOORE AND OTHERS.

Mr. Langston, a surgeon at Rochester, propounded the
will of Susan Parker Oates, by which he was appointed
sole executor and universal legatee. The deceased was a
married woman, whose husband resided at Northampton ;
but she bad for several years lived apart from him on an
allowance of SW. a year. There was reason to think that
she had cohabited with more than one paramour ; but she
had latterlybeen leading a respectable and penitent life. In
December, 1864, she was dying of enteritis, and wishing
to requite the kind attentions which Mr.Langstonhad paid
to her in her friendless condition, she had requested him
to draw up the paper in question, which she signed • very
abort time before her decease.
Sir J. Wilde said that the fact of the instrument being
in the handwriting of the universal legatee imposed upon
the court the necessity of special vigilance, and lie was not
satisfied that the deceased fully understood the nature of
the document when she signed it. On the contrary, the
probability seemed to be that she had merely wished to
give Mr. Langston her personal effects and her wall
savings, whereas the will would pass • sum of 3,0001. after
the death of her benband. He moist therefore pronounce
against this will, and pant probate of • previous testa-
men paper whir& she had executed in favour of • man
named Liverpool.