The Express.
London, England, 1858-06-12 00:00:00

TILE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING ; JUNE 12, 1858.

POOR REMOVAL
On the motion of Mr. 8. EoTVOWIT, the following
members were nominated the select c ,umalttee co poor re-
moval .—Mr. B. &town, Mr. Knight, Mr. Edwar,l Pley-
dell &overlie, Mr. Mike, Mr. Lockhart, Col.mel Smyth,
Mc Egerton, Mr. Toikeasobe, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Cobbett,
Beetwoß, Mr. Artois, Mr. ISolusider, Mr. Oregory, end
%slam.
,Itouas edijourne4 at a quarter past one.

lab) Intelligente.
(MORT OF QUREFB BENCII—JuxE 11.
(gyp la ]mss.—DeM Lost Coupball sad J ustices
Co and Erb, mid Crospiims.)

ZILL O. WNW/rt.-ACTION POZ SWAM OF PILOKIIII OF

YklilAo3.-It7DOSINT.

In this ceas the plaiotiff, Isabella Hill, sued the defeodant,
=.• Wright, to recover compesuadon In damage' foe a
of promise of marriage. The question of law raised
upon the pleadings was of a soya Datum. The defendant
pleaded find " Not guilty," sacredly, that the agreement to
marry before the breach was mutually rescinded by the
parties ; and thirdly,that after the said agreement, and before
the breach, be booms, sad still was sliced with a &en-
gorged bodily disease, by ream wheedle became, and still
wee, hecapebla of marriage without great danger to his life,
and therefore unfit for the married state, whereof the plaintiff
had notice before the commencement of the action. The trial
took place before Justice Erie' at Guildhall, when the jury
found that it would have been dangerous to the defendant's
life to marry the plaintiff, but that the plaintiff had no notice
thereof. Upon this finding the learned judge directed •
verdict to be entered for the defendant, with leave to the
plaintiff to move to enter • verdict in her favour for 1001.,
which waa the amount of damages assessed by the
jury. The cue came on for argument a short
time ago upon a rule which the oourt had granted to set
aside the verdict, and eater it for the plaintiff, and also for
judgment for the plaintiff notwithstanding the verdict. On
the part of the defendant it was contended that the plea was
an answer to the action, as it showed that the defendant was
isaapable of marriage. and that thereby he was excused, for a
limejat least, from fulfilling his contract. On the other aide,
it was argued that the plea yea no answer to the action, and
that before the breach the defendant gave the plaintiff no
notice of his incapability.. The court having taken time to
madder, now delivered judgment.
The learned judges were divided in opinion.
Mr. Juana, Crompton gave judgment for the plaintiff. Ha
°Doddered that the plea wee no answer to the action, as
it did not give • sulldent excuse for the non-perform-
ed* dike oontraot.

➢G. Justice Erle aid there could be no doubt that bodily,
mental, and moral disease, voided a contract to marry. The
promise to marry here was to be within • reasonable time,
which was not to be measured simply by the teat of dayu but
by the cause which led to the delay, and which had slimed the
position of the ponies when the supposed time for marriage
arrived. It would be unjust to say that the time for marriage
had arrived when the marriage would probably be the cause
of death, and when a little farther delay would restore the
party to health, or release him by death. Upon oonsidera-
non of the whole circumstances he was of opinion that the
defendant was entitled to mooned in the defence, although
he had given no notice before the plea was pleaded.
Mr. Justice Wightman was also of opinion that the ver-
Ot should be for the defendant.

Lord Campbell said he oonmdered that the plea was bad in
not averring that before the expiration of the reasonable time
within which the marriage ought to have been solemnieed
the plaintiff had Dodde of the defendant's dangerous state of
health, which constituted the impediment, or in not alleging
some reason why he did not give such a notice. Without
any notice of defendant's Hines% the plaintiff might probably,
as the time for the celebration of the marriage approached,
have made all becoming preparations for her change of poai•
ties, and, as a bride, might even have expected to meet him
at the altar ready to fulfil his vow. The plea said the
plaintiff had notice of his condition before the oannesee-
mint of the action, but the jury found that no
such notice was given. Indeed, none could have
been given, because, according to the evidence,
he was not aware of his danger, and he mud have refused to
perform his contract for some other reason. On the whole,
be was of opinion that the action wee maintainable, that the
plea was bad, that the defendant bad failed to prove the
material allegation of the plea, and that the plaintiff was
entitled to the damages which the jury had awarded. The
Court, however, being equally divided, it would follow, ac-
cording to the usual coulee, that the junior judee would
withdraw, end then the msjoeity would be in favour of the
defendant. Therefore w;th the view of enabling the parties
to take the opinion of a oourt of error, jadgment would be for
the defendant.