The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-19 00:00:00

COURT OF DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUSM.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde.)
PHILLIPS V. PHILLIPS.

Mr. Willis for the petitioner ; and Dr. Spinks, Q.C.,
and Mr. Searle for the respondent.
This case, which was commenced on Saturday last, was
resumed this morning. The petitioner was a dentist, re-
siding at Tavistock, and, in 186.5, his wife commenced a
suit in this court against him for judicial separa-
tion on the ground of cruelty. The marriage
took place in 1861, and the wife alleged that soon after-
wards he began to treat her indifferently. He was
a man of peculiar religious notions, and represented him-
self as one of the Plymouth Brethren. He was in the
habit of getting up in the middle of the night and going
into another room and praying for an hour at a time.
He opened her letters, and altered the conclusion of some
of them from " yours obediently " to " yours disobe-
diently." In 1862 he was alleged to have been guilty
of acts which are totally unfit for publication. When
the suit was tried in 1865 Mr. Phillips did
not appear, and the decree was made against him. It
was to reverse this decree that the petitioner now appealed
to the court, denying the whole of the acts of cruelty
alleged against him, and stating that it was inconsequence
of his being a bankrupt at Exeter at the time of the trial
of the Brat suit that be did not appear on that occasion.
Mr. Phillips was called, and conducted himself in a
somewhat peculiar manner in the witness box, declining to
take an oath on the ground of religious scruples, and an
I affirmation had oonsequently to be administered to him.
He gave a general denial to his wife's &Hegelian' of cruelty,
and to support his case a servant girl was called, who
' said that during the period she was in the service of Mr.
Phillips, he treated his wife with great kindness, and Mrs.
Phillips never complained of his misconduct to her.
On the other hand, Mrs. Phillips was examined and re-
peated her former charges against her husband.
IThe case was proceeding when our report left.]

COURT OF ADMIRALTY.
(Before the Right Hon. Dr. Lushingtoe.)
THE GREAT EASTEILY BELAY bIiIP.—INPuICIANT
APPLICATION.
_ _

Tht case of the Great Eastern, under arrest at Liver-
pool. on several warrants, was opened yesterday on an
important application and resumed this morning at the
sitting of the court. The seamen, numbering between
400 and 500, had instituted one suit for wages and claimed
damages for a wrong dismissal. The petition filed on
their behalf was objected to on the ground that the court
had no jurisdiction to entertain the question of damages
against the limited company of the ship. The defendants
applied to the court to amend the petition and the im-
portant point was discussed at some length.
Mr. Butt appeared for the company, and Mr. Vernon
Luahington (with whom was Mr. It. G. Williams) on the
part of the seamen.
Mr. Butt said it was a suit for wages by 320 seamen of
the Great Eastern steamship, which belonged to a limited
company, and the motion would raise an important ques-
tion of law. The petition alleged that the mariners were
engaged to the end of June, at certain wages, and that
they were dismissed on the Ist May last. An affidavit of
a pitiable nature, made on the part of the seamen, had
been put in, and which he submitted ought not to have
been filed. There was no doubt the men were entitled to
the wages earned, but the point was, whether this court
had jnnadiction to entertain a claim for compensation. It
was said they had a lien on the ship—they had as to
wages actually earned, but the measnre of damages Ins' a
question for a jury, end not for thin court.