The Express.
London, England, 1866-06-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON Pt:hastatetaifisde.terdtaumii_,
SECOND COURT.
Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before Mr. yase..
Ryles and a Common Jury.) --""'
KEMP V. HAREM—BREACH OF PROMISE OP until*
This case was partly heard yeeterday. The defendsai,
Jew, had kept the King and Queen publichouse, Ns;
ington-butts, and the plaintiff was barmaid there
hiltairl:exuprosseriseceTihi,eerrnflisarriagesim":
enbt: wen attltthaeonidet only
a Miss Hart, who was now his wife. •
Mr. Dishy Seymour and Mr. J. Salter appeared ht
plaintiff ; and Mr. D. Keane, Q.C., and Mr. F. Tamer,
t
the defendant. .
Mr. Keane this morning summed up the evidence ele,
had been given on the part of the defendant, see sea
tended that the evidence given would not warrantths a... -
in finding that there had been any promise toiletry
but in the event of the jury being Kabuli him upok
point lie upon them that the case was
which mum &maga only would be consistent with pies,
According to the plaintiff's own ease she had keg ,
worthless man, certainly a poor one, and one wham
own father eowddered to be a fort young men.
Mr. D. Seymour wished it to be borne in mind that th
defendant's counsel, who had begun blot* the dh,
racier of the plaintiff. bad ended by what ha ink
to destroy that of his own client. The • f„„
that three witnesses had spoken distinctly to repera4l
to a promise to marry by the defendant,
on the other hand there was nothing ,
taro circumstances from which the jury wen
to infer that there had been no rouder. Re
had no doubt that the jury would believe
statement' rather than rely upon the
reprouxisefecestreoeten;
ip:toanantd wo egPe
f;o:liirlut3intttefileanr,s7iullactrlfilinoewnhar:?:saithemywiplrledi7*Hdutiill2
charged against him. Taking the promise to bass ban
established, he =Tit upon the jury got the elaistg bed
established her rig t to substantial Jammu tar t►awwag
which bad been done her.
Mr. Justice Bytes, in summing up, said that some dm
Sons hail been put in cross-examination redecual
the plaintiff; which, in his opinion, ought not lips
been put, because the plaintiff could not by law be eigai
to contradict the aspersions cast epos hm, sad 01„
evidence had been offered which not oef, ma jog.
minable, but the very tender of it was lgah
seriously to prejudice the defendant's eme. Ka
lordship also went carefully through the efideres,
left it to the jury to say whether they thought that tia
promise had been made out, and if so to what swat
the plaintiff was entitled for the breach of it. I
The jury after coneidering the matter for a fee eh*
found for the plaintiff damages 150/., and thin was ems
attempt at applause when the verdict wee armoured.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Prins anduildhall.---( Mr. Ben
Bramwell the Special Jury.)
ruminate, T. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANT.
This was an action under Lord Campbell's Act by s
two sons of a widow lady, who hail been hillsdthromt
the all negligence of the defendants.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Philbricl sad Mr.
son were for the plaintiffs ; sad Mr. O'Malley, 417,, sa4
Mr. Pullen for the compan.
On the evening of the 10th January bat tin Massa
went to the Spa-road station on the Greenwich lies lor As
Purpose of coming to London. When upon tie *max
she missed her footing, and fell upon the rash, lades.
tained a fracture of the ribs and other injuries, which hi
to her death a few days afterwards. On the part of fie
plaintiffs the negligence complained of was that tasplm
form was too narrow, and otherwise defective in mom
Lion, and was, moreover, badly lighted.
For the defence it was contended that the saint
arose entirely from the deceased's own negligence.
In the course of Mr. O'Malley's speech in reply fee fie
defendants,
The jury intimated that they were satisfied that as
ease had been made out by the plaintiffs.
Mr. M. Chambers, however, availed himself of his*
to address the jury, and on the conclusion of his speech,
Mr. Baron Martin asked the jury if they were still af 4a
same opinion.
The foreman replied in the affirmative.
The learned Judge said he entirely agreed with tim,
and directed a verdict to be enteral for the ddendlan.

COURT OF PROBATE AND NORM
(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Special Jory.)
JAMES r. wersoN.
This is a probate Gees, in which the plaintiff, a st
of Essex street, propounds the will of the late Mis.
Jane Naylor, who &fl in April, 1865, the will being
on the 29th of March, 1865. The defendant, who is shim
attorney, opposed the will on several grounds —m
val ad
ss
execution, want of sound disposing mind, diespro
the contents, and intoxication of the testatrix. The geo•
petty amounts to some thousands.
Mr. Kerslake, Q.C. ; Mr. Cooke, Q.C. ; Dr. Spinks,
hit..,. James were for the plaintiff ; and Ilr. Orr*
Q.O Dr. Wambey, and Mr. arlier, for the defender.
The case is likely to last some days.