The Express.
London, England, 1860-12-06 00:00:00

BEO*D COURT.

Sittings ►t Nisi Prins at Weistailtrater.—(Bdoro Mr.
Nam Martin sad ► Common Jury.)
POOCH AND HUN r. MU AND WII2.—GLANDLE.

Tbfe,;iraiTretio;lsOnirriTie- plaintiffs ;Z:-;;;oo,
compensation in damages for as alkged slander spoke. of
the female plaintiff by the ingiale defeediud. The defend
eats pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Barjeuat Parry and Mr. Telfourd Baiter were counsel
for the plaintiffs. Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Griffita repre-
sented the defendants.
Mr. Serjeant Parrgeopening the case said the plaintiffs,
who kept the • Head Tavern, Edgware-road
brought this action, against the defendant., of the Fulham.
=,..Tavero, Brampton, to recover damages for
words uttered by the female defendant to it
persoo named Sumo Kellick, who, it appeared, had been
placed by her mother with the plaintiff as barmaid. 0*
Sunday, October 1, Mrs. Kellick paid a visit to the de-
fendants and told them what she had done, when Mrs. Bell
said," What, that house, above all others! why, you
blow what Rm. Gooch was." Mrs. Kellick replied, " No,
Upset ; bee she fallen, or is she a kept woman r The
female defendant replied, "Oh, a great deal wenn ; though
elm was a kept woman ;" and in the course of conversation
she went on to state that Mrs. Gooch had had an ine
=intimacy with the late Marquis of Waterford. The
counsel then called

Mrs. Hemet Hooch, the female plaintiff, who deposed
she was the daughter of a farmer in Kent, and was married
in 1838, until which time she had lived with her father.
She had one child by her husband, who had formerly kept
• public-house in the Borough before they entered on their
moat house. She bad never bad any improper conduit
with the late Marquis of Waterford, whom she had 11•111,
haws, sad the slander was totally unfounded.
Mr. Henry Gooch deposed that he and his wife had lived
comfortably up to the time of the dander.
Mr. Hawkins here sail be was happy to say that an
arrangement had been come to between the parties, and
the mime was at an end. His clients had instructed him to
say that they were ready to go into the box and swear they
had never used the words complained of. They hod sat
pleaded a justification, nor had he croas-examined the
plaintiffs as to the troth of the statements. He wag now
Crarto withdraw • juror. the defendants statingolzhe
neveder, as far as they knew, used the worda corn
of, and believed there was no truth in the allegations.
Mr. Serjeant Parry, on the part of his clients, accepted
that acknowledgment.
Mr. Baron Martin said both parties had acted very wisely.
A juror was then by consent withdrawn.
COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

Dec. 5.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
EDINTHOUT N. TOMLIN AND MIXES.

This was a suit respecting the validity of the will of the
late Miss Isabella Banks, propounded by Dr. Smethurst,
aad opposed by her Dust of kin. It now came before the
court upon an application for the amendment of a plea.
Dr. Swabey appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. fdereww
thew for the defendants.
ills loidahip granted the application.

GRIMM V. GURNEY AND TAYLOR.
This case came Wore the court upon an application to
strike off the Ills a document purporting to be an answer to
a petition presented by Mr. Gurney, for a settlement of the
eeparate property of the respondent, Mrs. Gurney, amount-
inUto tha dividends upon 30,0001.
The 9olicitor•Genenl (with Dr. Waddilo►e and Mr.
Couch for the petitioner) said that the respondent merely
denied that the petitioner had any right to present such a
petition. . . .

The court granted a rule nisi to strike the answer off the