The Express.
London, England, 1859-07-11 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, JULY 11, 1859.

entertain an doubt, and therefore wo decline to do ito:'
Now the all ofhnee is that cue was committed before
the peeing of the 6 and 7 Vic., cep. 98, and although the
ICI
ease was WU more than two months after the peeing of
that art it dote not appear to have been referred to. The
case hi, therefore' a strong authority for oonstruing the
16 G. IV., cop. 11d, secs. 2 and 10, according to the plait
sad obvious sense of the general language construed with
due regard to the enhject mater generally, unless indeed the
6 and 7 Vic., cap. 98, sec. I, establishes toe contrary. That
section, abet reciting the Sod union of the 6 Geo. IV.,
eap. 113, sayek" And it is expedient from and after the coin-
,' tOCOCCO2OOt of this act that the provisions of the said
I act shall be deemed to apply to and rotund to
render unlawful and prohibited the several ems com-
mitted in foreign countries in like manner u if they
had been done and committed within the British dominion.,
colonies, or settlemente," and it proceeds to enact that all
the provisions of the 5 Gee. IV., esp. 113. shall, upon and
lifter the coming into operation of this act, be deemed to ex-
! tend to British subject', wheresoever residing or being, whe-
ther withie the dominions of the British crown, or in say
foreign country," and then tonne the proviso, " provided
notwithstanding that nothing herein contained shell repeal
or alter any of the proyitiona of the said act." It appears
from this section that some doubt bad Leta refold, posibly,
in the consideration of the very nu before to upon
the trial, whether the 5 Geo. IV., cap. 113, was sufficient to
reach such a cue, howeva clearly It was within the intention
of the legielaturo, and the act may have been pasted
to prevent any such doubt for the future. The
Motets of Victoria appears to have been meet
weirdly framed, and the most guarded language has been
used not to enact that the 6 Geo IV., rife. 113, should be
extended to foreign countries, but that, after the passing of
the act, whatever might be the cue with regard to former
treasectiou, the prior act should be decreed to extend to
British subjects sad their sere, whensoever they were ; cad
it is carefully provided at the sad of the section that nothing
therein contained should repeal or altar the 5 Geo. IV. o.
113. It was contended, betrayer, that as the action pur-
ports to be enacting, and not merely declaratory, it amounts
to a legislative assertion that what is enacted by it was Sot
previously the true construction of the 6 Gee. IV. c. 113.
The 'mein already refund to is a sufficient @newer to this
argument ; sad though, if the oona'ructioe of the former act
ware open to doubt, the enactment of the latter might be a
coesiderahle make weight towards& decision, yet it we consider
the ow:mutation of the t omer act solely, wean booed by the
proviso to put tb-t c ,netructitat on it, notwithsunding it
may follow se a cooseluence that the later act was tmente-
eery except to remove the porsibility of a doubt for the future.
Nor I. this the Ant instance of an enactment extending the
constroudes of an set of parliament to cams which the
unaided cause of judicial decisions might ban brought
within it. The true construction of the 6 Gee. IV., e.
113, opteirt to us to prohibit the tradieg in slaves by all
prams within the control of the legislature, that is, by
British mobjects all over the world, and by kungen, whilst
locally within the British dominions. By the urstrection of
the *et the umbrae of slaves by the dehadants after it
paseed, though before the 6th and 7th el the Quern •
an, rendered illegal by the operation of the 10th
section of the former act, which prohibited the bold-
int of slaves, end rendered the reetesion of them
unlawful, consequently the 6th end 6 b sections of the later
act did not authuriee the isle, which is unlawful by the law
of tbi. eouirry. It is hardly necespary to add, that the fact
of the plaintiff being a Levi:nue does not authorise him to
rue in the rotate of this euuttry for the breach of a contract
catered into by a British subject in violation of our laws.
It lea been urged on on that this contract, it such, was
entered into under an order of the Lords Justices, for whose
authority we entertain toe roost profound rennet, but it does
sot appear that the matter wee diecussed before those learned
judges, or that the order had the sanction of their deliberate
opinion. Of nurse, the ender than h 130 juntifloatios for an
natal act. Poe the above nevus, without saying that there
ere sat others, we are of opinion that the correct of sale
both as to the parents and sate the offspring, wee illegal, end
that no action for the borsch of it can he be maintained.

JulgrAest f.r the defendants,.
Lord Brougham—The set cf 1843, which I brought in in
conjunction with the Duke of Welltnetom, was a good deed
altered in the flows of Common' but we did not think it
right to r.jeet the alteration', anti therefore we let the bill
p.cta aa altered.

HALE T. THE GUARDIANS OF THE CITY or LONDON UNION,
THE MAN IN I FIAT Db.
This was an appeal from a decision of the justices of the
City of London under the etstute 20 and 21 Viet., cap. 43,
and the question wee whether en order made ire August 1834,
by.the guardians of the Union upon the overseers ot St. Nag,
Dothan), fur oontnbution to the funds of the union ander the
following aruntstances, was valid.
Mantel, who collected for some of the other parishes, em-
bezzled largo sums collected by him instead of psytog them
to the treasurer of the union, and In order to uncurl the
fraud he canoed the books of the guardians to be made up

from fabithettiros of the treasurers book. The guardiana,enp.
peeing thi money had been paid, in fact paid to the trea-
surer, drew cheques in accordance with what they believed to
be their available balance in head. Itaey of the cheques
were intercept,' by Mario', sari the tradesmen for whom
they were intended were induced by him to wait for their
money ; nevertheees a larger amount !of cheques were still
Mt to be paid by the treasurer then should have teen had
the guardians known the true amount of money in hand.
According to the usual prectimi Ito contribriti..na levied on
each pa, made for --

pariiTh, being , prospective purpooes, were ammo
what more than the amount actually required, so that most
of the plebes had a baleen* in their favour in
the binds of the hemline. The cheque drawn
u above mentioned in excess cenied away all thew balances
amounting to about 11,0001., and 4,2001, more, which the
treasurer advanced. At the lime when the order was made
the accounts of the guardians rendered to the parish of St.
Mary Bothaur showed a b.letce in favour of the perish to as
amount exceeding the amount of the call, but in consequence
of this many having gone M honour the cheques drawn on
the supposition that other uacceys which Manila ought to
have paid in had beam paid lc, the guardians bad no such
balance in fact ; and the qumtion was whether the guardians
could make an cider on the perish without giving them credit
for the money they had Feld in over and above that which had
been exploded so their share.
Mr. Watkia William. (with him Mr. Borah Q.C.) argued
In the appellant, and contended that the guardians had
no power to make the order except by the autho-
rity of the thirty•firat article et the conecilideted orders
of the poor-law counniasionire which prescribed the principle
upon which the order must be made, namely, by takieg.the
amount of expenses of the corresponding hall of the previous
jeer; then, calculating the balance due to or from the parish,
and on the boots of this making an order for such sum as
should be necessary; that the balance to this coca waa
clearly a 'Lama doe M the parish, although the guardians
had lost the mosey and they had no power to make an
order without allowing for ouch balance ; that the hes was
the loss of the uni.in, and should either have been diotri-
bated over the whole tli, n, or have been paid bythe parishes
for which 3lanioi was collector.
Mr. Iss Breton (with him Mr. Hoddleaton, Q.C) ap-
peared for the guardians, and argued that as they had nut
the balance in fact, they bad power to call for a contributive
for the prospective expenses; for otherwise the poor moat
*terve.
Mr. Justice Willi ,nos now delivered the judgment of the
court, and said that the mgninents for the appellant must
prevail. The balance that the tespooduite bed bet by the
defalcation ofManiniouOtto have beam made good in their
- -

bands, according to tbidccisloa albs QII•Ile; Bench, by
ordsra apportioning the anennist amens the rari ms pariehes
of the anion, or by throwing the whole lose on th se perishes
for which Menial was collector. If the former course were
the proper one, the appellant pariah would Wive contributed
its proper proportion, bat the order in question conflecated
the whole heliume dos to P. The guardians had no righe to
treat this balance as con, xi Cog, sad therefore the order
lad lois illegally made, acd could not be enforced.
Judgment for the appellant.

IT. JAMES, PICCADILLY, r. AT. MART, BATTERSEA.
LIOHCING HATE.
This was an appeal fr.= an order of justiene, the question
being whether a lighting rate for the sub district of Better-
ma had been legally male. The appellants wire rate] for
their industrial school►, which were situate in the sub-
Mr. Justice Williams said the rate in dispute had been
made is conformity with the act, and was velid and en-
forceable.
Judgment for the respondents.
IIioLML6 V, MITCDILL.—OrAILANTLI.
The defendant le this cm, in reference to a proposed
mortgage, had written, 1 will take any resputeibilry on
myself respecting it, should there be any,' arid the question
was whether tale wee a sufficient guarantee "dada the
Statute of Frauds.
The Court thought that it wee hot.
Sittings at Niel reins la Ludes.—(Before Lord Chief Juts
tics Erie and a Special Jury
GREEN r. MACNAMARA AND SLUING.
The plaintiff in this case wee an omnibus proprietor, and
be Warmed to prover damages from the Landis General
Oressibue Company for the lore which he had sustained in
emeeequence of his vehicles having been "nursed" by the

the earnest desire to wens her. They eloped, and
were married at Gretna-mem. They had not been
merited 24 hours when she revealed to the plaintiff
with cries and team that she had been subjected
to °wrap s of the most extraordinary description.
Thai consequence was the pinineff packed up his things at
once, it having best screed that they should not live
together, sad at S a.m. he left the apartment, and was going
down stairs when ha heard ehrieks and shrill laughter, and
saw his wife dancing about to her night clothes, end call-
ing to bim to came back, for all she had mid win pun
imagination. He went back and lived with her, on and off,
for four or five rare, a life of extreme weetcbednees. Her
conduct from UM 10 time was monstrous and extraordinary.
A determination to live in idleness and filth was one of her
main characteristics. She would lie in bed for weeks. The
defendant was a medical man who is August, 1857, was
living at Long Eaton, in Nottitighamehire, sod on the 10th
of that month he advertised that he should be glad to
take care of a lady of unsound mind. The plain-
tiff answered the advertisement, and afterwards sent nu
wile to the defendant, who, on the 17th September, reported
his opinion that she bad a morbid perversion of natant feel-
ings and a disposition to vice, that she was incapable of
thinking correctly, and that she had &beard prejudices. The
',Limiff bad the greatest difficulty in acquiring any informa-
tion as to his wifo's habits, hc., before his acquaintance with
her commenced, and he employed the defendant to make
inquiries and to study her symptoms principally with the
view of mosereieing her state of mind at the time of mar-
risge. Dr. Window was also consulted about the mac
Afterwards the plaintiff commenced a suit to annul the mar-
riage, upon the groundphat his wife was not of sound mind
and capable of tealong a contract at the time of the marriage,
In December le,t the suit was ripe for triel, and on the Bth
the defendant promised the plaintiff that he would attend
the Divorce Court next day to give evidence. The defendant,
however, was not sutipcnoried. Oaths day of trial the plain-
tiff was examined, but tee defendent did not make his ap-
pearance tten nor en the following day. The connuenes
of the defendant's non-attendance was that the plaintiff's
enamel bad to withdraw from the cause, and 6201. or 7001.
was thrown away in law ewe.
The plaintiff was examined in support of this statement,
and on his nose-examination he said he did not think it was

his own evidence which had destroyed hie cute. He had
separated from hie wife several UMW. Ho had had two
children by her. He did not thick he cohabited with her so
late as HOG. She was now with hor friends la Germany.
Some of his own friends believed that ohs wee not mad. He
had based his father express opinions both ways, end his
brother Henry had .1. done so.
Mr. Yenning, the plaintiff's solicitor, was called, and be
produced • statement of the evidence which the defendentwas
to give is the Divorce Court. Ths defendant stated, among
other things, that the plsintirs wife was with him from
Angelo, 1857, until March 17, 1858, and the first thing that
Mena him was her d—g his eyes because be was rather
awkward in wain leg her on to her horse. He told her that
be had family prayer night and morning, and she meld It wee
all nonsense, and that eke had been brought up to believe
that there was no God. He sent the parson to talk to her,
and soon afterwards found her chasing him round the room
with • pillow, and holding up her clothes to enable her to
fellow hint quickly. He (Mr. Dempsey) went in, and she hit
him on the bead with the pillow for interfering. Sits after-
wards played at bagatelle, and called the clergyman to place
theballs for her, but when he did so she hit he fingers with
the cue. She we. eery filthy in her habits. She spirted
water down his (Mr. Decopeey'a) back, throw bread at bins,
and threatened to me aknifete him. On one Decision he inked
her to have 11 shock firm a galvanic bdtery, but eke declined,
and cc his placing it against her neck, but without comma-
nicattog any shock, sec stabbed him in the arm with the
schema, and laughed at what she had done. She on another
emotion *ski that the erica of We bead and her body were
growing out, and would not be convinced to the contrary,
although her sense of touch wu appealed to.
Mr. Seejeant Pigott submitiod that there wss no case to
to the jury to prove that the defendant bad contracted to
use
• n with • subpoena.
is Lordthip doubted whether the plaintiff had made nut
any case, but he thought it best to leave the matter to the
jury, giving the defendant leave to more. He apprehended
that under ordinary circumstances an action would not lie on
• promise to attend as 11 witness, b. cause them would be no
good consideration. The queen= here, however, was, who,
ther the attendance as • witness was incorporated with the
original employment.
Mr. Serjeint Pigott—And upon the question of damages
there was no evidence that the result would have been differ-
ent if the defendant had attended as a whams. It noseband
to think of annulling the marriage under them circum-
stances.

---
The defendant wee called, and be said thtt there was a
balance of 77!. doe to him, and that the day before the trW
be called on the plaintiff and raid be mum have 101, or he
would throw the matter up. The plaintiff *aid be would not
pay him then, but would do so after the trial. Witness maid
he moat have it then, but be did not get it.

—Mr.iuTii;i3ii;;:ii;•urnmiagsP,';;Liethat in all Ws ex-
perience he had never known an action of this kind before,
but hie opinium wait that an action would lie on a training to
attend as a witriees if that promise was made for good consi-
deration.

fie Turf , after a short 'bermes from court, focad a verdict
for the plaialilf--claraape, 50i.
__—
COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES.—Jvtv 9.

(13Mors Mr. indite WlHams, Mr. Baron Martin, and
tha Indio Ordinary.)
TOLLEXACUE O. TOLLIMACIII.

In August, 1837, the petitioner married the respondent at
Greta&lentil, she being then Miss Amelia Sinclair, the
daughter of Sir George Sincleir, Mr. Tol'earache, who was
a lieutenant in the Furllhr Cards, with an allowance of
2001. a year from his family, sold out of the army and lived
with his wife in many plows in Scotland. A son was horn
at Rotheeay in 1839. The adultery charged was committed
' with a Major Power, and in July, 1841, the petitioner ob-
tained a divorce in the Scotch Court of Sessions. The re-
spondent thee married Major Power, to whom she bore
three children. The major died in 1851. Mr. Tolleinsche
having come into • legacy of 8,0001., mode an attempt to
procure an act of parlament declaring his Scotch divorce
valid; but he did not mimed.
A question was now raised as to whether the piritioner
had ever sequind a Scotch domicile ; and a special jury sego-
tired the allegation.
The Court, without entering Into the question of the effect
which the verdict would have on the legitimacy of Major
Power's childreo, dissolved the marriage.

OWNER T. CAOKER AND NAVINS.

The petitioner, the Rev. Richard Croker, married the
respondent, then • Miss Lornsore, at Tewkesbury, to
1841. Shelves a lady of some (Mute, being possessed of
Froperty to the mono% of 14,0001 or 16,0001. She oohs-
bited with her husband at St. Helier'. and ether places, and
bad flee children by him. At the beginning of 1862 be
accepted the chaplaincy of her Majesty's ship Winchester,
sad went with it to the Chine Seas, from which he did sot
return till Marob, 18.56. In the meantime Mrs. Croke had
formed • liaison with MMViel., a dentist, in Jersey, and the
result was the birth of another child.
The jury found the feet of adultery, and
The Court dlasolved the marriage, with coots.

POULIN/WIVE V. POLLINDORS AND WADOE,
That petitioner, who kept the Red Lion, at St. Coltunb
Major, Carswell, mirried the respondeet in IBSI ; but in
consequenos of her drunken habits he separated from her,
&Vowing her an ennuity of 25/., which was secured to her
by deed. While lodging at the house of • person named
Ould else made the seqnaintotos of Wedge, who wee an at-
torney's clerk, end her fellow-lodger. Mrs. Odd ninon-
grated with her nn the subject of the intimacy which had
sprang up; but she said she was like " Hockine's dog, she
bad neither mete r.or fe11..w," end that if Wdga chose to be
civil she should not prevent him.
The jury found the feat of adultery, and assessed that
damages of the husband at a shilling.
The Could then dissolved the marriage.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—JULY 9.
(Before Mr. COMEthEtiOIIET Murphy.)
IN BE NEERT OARDNEE.
This Insolvent, who had kept the Black Bull in Whits-
chapel, applied to ba discharged.
Mr. Sargood supported.
Tbe insolvent was plaintiff in the action "Gardner. v.
Goduey " foe the seduction of hie daughter. A verdict WY
given for the defendant, and hie ousts were 1621. ge,
for which the ins Aveat hid been arrested. Tim in-
solvent in his schedule stated that all his creditors had taken
a compensatlm of 9s. in the pound, the which compensa-
tion Dr. Godfrey had refused, cud he woo the only creditor.
The learned commissioner discharged tits insolvent without
• gurstlua.

NOTRE MODE Or SWINDLING.—OR Saturday •
yams men armed Walter Dyson was pieced before the ma-
gi-tmtsa at Manchester, charted with obtaining looney under
false pretences. An advertisement had appeared in the Man-
chester papers in January last, which and, " The Watts of
the Chadwicks, Dyson', and Ilatailmas will be paid over to
those who have proved their descent in three months from
this date, unities some other persons come forward and prove
nearer la. By order of the independent L•in I Company.
T. Sutcliffe, Req., &moody. Central CounniOee•rooros,
Manchester, 111 Jan, 1839." To this advertisement, it
splatters, a number of persons have simmered,
minding in dams and proving descent from the
three families named, and were induced to enclose sums of 20a.
and 30.. by Miter to the supposed secretary. They sub..
quently received letters intorming them that t:e Inds-
;waited Lead Company would pay over 2001. to each t f tha
claimants on the 18th May. When that day &mind some
excuse was made for further postponement, and ultimately
the police ware applied to, when tt was found 'hers was no
Independent Land Company, and no Mr. Sutcliffe. The
p ditx, watched the PUft-4 sad ulsiwasely traced a Nor
imager wish latter.. ndemeeeil t . Mr. Satc1:111 to the lodgings
of the prisoner, and thin to the prim oer, who prole-mei to Le
the der[ of Mr. Suteliffr. 'lough tt wee shown that be
generally burnt all tics ktega addriserd to .Ir. flotelitia,
after reading there, aed paltettd the COUII tvr. Elmira e
was taken in three maw stover the 'smelter, cad he was
than remanded till Thareday melt.
MAsSittioTlolf OF THE SRI? SARAH MINOT ST
Peas.—lntellinues was received at Liverpool, on Saturday
last, of the burning of the Boston ship the Sarah Week on
the 18th of Jane, in !entitle 48, Lltneirovio The crew
were amid by Ma Retriever, which arrived in 4.11 *arm ce
Saturday from Barbados.