The Express.
London, England, 1860-06-29 00:00:00

9, 1860.

Mr. James, for the defence, said that theplaintirs own
evidence fully justified the defendant. The pleintiff ad-
mitted lie was guilty of adultery—he admitted he had
struck his wife a blow with a clothes brash, and he ad-
mitted his desertion of her, at all events for a time.
When called up, the plaintiff, although he knew of the
allegations in Ma wife's petition, remained skulking away,
not deeming them worthy of an 'newer. That alone jinni-
find the defendant in treating the charges in the wife's
petition as true. lf, however the jury should be of
opinion that there was some slight discrepancy between the
chawm,, of cruelty as laid in the article and the evidence ad.
duoed in the Divorce Court, the very smallest coin in the
realm would abundantly satisfy the plaintiff's just claim
upon their sympathies.
The Lord Chief Justice then charged the jury. His
lordship said he regretted very much that a plea of justifi-
cation bad been placed on the record. He thought it would
have evinced a better spirit and more judgment if the de-
fendant had contented himself with vindicating what had
been published as a legitimate commentary on proceedings
in a court of law ; and that observation was strengthened by
the fact that no evidence had been addnoed to support the plea.
Undoubtedly if what the plaintiff swore were true, his
conduct bore a very different aspect from that in which it
when in the Divorce Court •, and as no attempt
appeared
been made to deny his facts, all that the jury had to
do was simply to say did they believe him ; and although,
too, he might not have acted properly in not resisting the
petition, yet if his explanation were received, his conduct
in that anent was capable of a very different interpreta-
tion from that put upon it by the plaintiff. His wife was
in court, and yet she was not called upon to contradict him.
Had she been called end disproved the statement; of her
husbimd, the sympathies of the jury would have been with
much more likelihood enlisted on the side of the defendant
than at present. Well, she not having been called, was it
quite certain that the plaintiff wee the monster of depravity
he had been represented? He could not help thinking that
the line of defence founded on the plea of justification had
been most unfortunate. Al for the second ground of de-
fence, it was quite certain the evidence before the Divorce
Court did not warrant the charge of general cruelty, because
the judges who heard the case did not feel warranted in
granting a decree for a divorce. However, it wee for the
jury to say whether upon the whole the article in question
was a fair and legitimate commentary upon the proceedings
in the Divorce Court.

After;•l•;e;Cec4 half an hour the jury returned with
• verdict for the plaintiff—damages 25/.

SECOND COURT.
Bittinp at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall. fore Mr. Justice
Blackburn and C01:12111012 Juries.)
CLIFTON AND WWI V. THE MOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a laundress
at Charlton, against the defendants, to recover compensa-
tion in damages for injuries received through the alleged
negligence of the defendants' servants. The defendants
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Serjeant Mee and Mr. Chitty were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Field and Mr. Gordon Allan were counsel for
the defendants.
It appeared, from the female plaintiff's evidence, that on
the 10th of October she was about to return home by the
12 p.m. train from London on the North Kent line. She had
placed her foot on the step, when the train moved, and she
was thrown on to the platform, and her arm was very much
injured. She was put into a carriage and taken home. She
then sent fur a surgeon, who attended her for some months,
and she was now unable to dress herself. Before the ac-
cident the plaintiff was in the habit of supporting her hus-
band and two children by her industry.
The surgeon was called, who said that the plaintiff's arm
was broken just above the wrist, and that she would never
have the use of her arm again.
The defence was that the plaintiff bad not sustained the
accident as alleged by her, but in attempting to enter the
carriage with a large bundle she slipped and fell, which,
it was stated, she had acknowledged.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Jtrws 28.

Sittinp at Nisi Prius in London.—(Beta,. Lard Chief
Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)

INNTB V. THE GREAT NOITHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.-

ACCIDINT.

The plaintiff in this case claimed damages, upon the
ground that whilst he was a passenger from Xines.croas
to Aberdeen an accident had occurred through negligence,
and his lws were broken. The defendant. paid MC into
court, and disputed their Wald* to anything beyond that
amount.

Before the cimurnstances were detailed to the jury an
arrangement was come to, and a verdict was entered for the
plaintiff by consent for 6001., including the money paid into
court.