The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-03 00:00:00

THE EXPAESS SATtIitDAT EVENING FFr RUARY 3, 1866

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Fen. 2.

Sittinp in Nisi Prins at Middlessz.—(Bof ore Air. Justice
BA. and a Common Jury.)
BICIDALL V. THOMPSON. -EIM!E V. LOVETV.

These were two actions to recover damages for an ell Pied
libel, which had been published in the West London
Observer, sad there was a pleaot justification that the sup-
posed libel was true.
Mr. Rib-ton and Mr. Eyre Lloyd app aced for tit+
tiff ; and Mr. kluddleston and Mr. Brandt for the
defendants. .

The plaintiff bad been • butcher, in business at Notting-
hill, and the actions were against the sewspaper and Mr.
Lovett, the sanitary inspector of the district. The
alleged libel was • letter written by Mr. Lovett
to the paper, which referred to a report which bad
been published of the plaintiff having, "accompanied by
two medical gentlemen, attended before Mr. Ingham, the
Polio, magistrate, to compla,n of Mr. Lovett, the eaoitsry
inspector, for having made him return the money for a
piece of meat which be (Lovett) declared was unfit for
human food, one of the medical gentlemen stating that the
meat was most wholesome, sod that opinion was endirsed
by two inspectors of Newgate-msrket." The letter then
went on to state the eiicurostanoes which had occurred, the
sabidasos of the statement being that the meat was, in fact,
stinking, maggotty, and unfit for food. and that the plain-
tiff had substituted another piece of beef when he procure d
the opinion of the doctors and the inspectors of Nswgate-
market.

• t' The pI ain ars case was that imbed been obliged, in conse-
quence of the statements, to part with his bus; oess, which
was a small one, and a great deal of evidence was given on
each aide upon the question whether the statements in the
*ter were or were not true.
_ .

Mr. Justice Ryles, io summing up, expressed hie regret
that two actions should have t Jen brought when one
would have been sufficient ; he went in detail through the
evidence, and left it to the jury to say whether or not they
thought that the statements is the letter were true.
The jury found for the defendants upon the plea of justi-
fication.

COURT OF DIVORCE.—Fas. 2,
(Before Sir J. P. Wilds.)
CONRADIN /. CONRADIN AND /LANDMAN.
After our report left yesterday,
Boma Golder deposed to having been closely intima'e
with Mrs. Conradin, sod to various acts of drnekeneeits and
lewdness committed by her in the presence of Flashman,
Elisabeth Frost, and witness. It was elicited in cross-
examination that the witness at the time she was speaking
to was upon the streets.
Mrs. Knowles. a lodging-house keeper, deposed to Mrs.
Conradin being at her house with a man whom she could
not identify.
Berjeant Atkinson said the evidence of the last witness
was so coeclusive as to the adultery of the respondent that
he should no leoger contest the point.
The Queen's Advocate then called evidence in support of
the charge of adultery against the petitioner with "Limy
Frost," and eventually, after disclosing circumstances sur-
rounding the case of the grossest immorality,
Rio Lordship said that the adultery of Mrs. Conradin
with Fischman was proved, but that the adultery of Mr.
Conradin with "Lissy Froet"was also prayed: the petition,
therefore, must be dismissed. With regard to costa. Flash-
man must pay all the coats incurred in proving his adultery.
EATS 0, KATE AND KELLY.
The hearing of this case bad proceeded for some time
when his lordship said he had to attend a meeting of the
Royal Commission on the Laws of Marriage. The taint
must therefore be adjourned till to-morrow.