The Express.
London, England, 1859-11-15 00:00:00

MORAL

This was ma salon ow a warranty al a mars, to which the
dehadaat pleaded he did sot women her.
Mr. sad Mr. Tap as; wire counsel for the plea-
-116; Mr. Macaulay sad Mr. Beasley were for the de-
. _

All the parties to this eme ats borstodadme, the =
residing is Csmbridgeakire, and the defendant at
Oa the 15th of April the plaintiffs bought a bay mars ai
Union Fair from the defindeat for 124 tbs. The plaintiffs'
case was that the dittundaat hied werneanal her amend, end if
she did not turn oat so, he would fetal her beck. no broke
down at Spalding, 64 miles from the fair, end ft was then
discovered that she bad • large bony tumour ce her pastern
bona, which was, as described by the vstisinary sorgenn,
"as visible as Bt. Pant's from Latishrhill ce a fins day."
The planar( than sue notice to the defendant that the
animal would be sold by auction, and she was sold to a parson
for 61. 10•, end was than bought by the defendant.
Per the deism the defendant and hit 11011, who were present
et the ea* swore no warranty had been given.
Mr. O'Malley, in his aroas-mamination of the defendant,
asked hhn If he had ever been in trouble shout bones.

Wham—Yea ; I bought a mareonee which was warranted
net to kick, and she was always kicking. (Laughter.) I
had witnesses to prom that she kicked a hmdred times, but
I was dose oat of my mosey.
Mr. O')felley—l mesa, have you ever beset in prison ?
Whom—Lord bkies you, my dear sir, I ham never bean
fit prises, thank Clod.
Mr. O'Malley—Have you not bee. tried at the Lincoln-
shire relies far Moillag?
Witmee—Me tried at Lincoln I Ho, sir; I am an honest
men. It's all bother, that's what It la. Ton do aeonme now.
Lord bless you, my dear fellow, no such thing. (Laughter.)
Mr. Usosaley—Have you ever been tried foe steeling at
••=r_phise
efr ; I swear. Osatlectes, continued the
wham, addreetiag *injury, I am no soholarl, bat I tell
yes what gemlamen, I have • hundred pounds in my pocket,
mod if dist parson (Kr. O'Malley) will put kis fil. against it, I
wan pat it into that gratlemaa's (Baron Mullis) heads
=tit it Is proved one way er the ether.
Mr. Baron Martin (laughlag)—You may stand down.
Mr. Macaulay then summed up the defendant's widow"
end

Mt. O'Malley replied on the whole ease, oteerving, with
=t hie crose•examiestkin of the defeedant, whether he
to
been tried for felony, they were queetioes which no
predict counsel would put unless he wee so instructed.
Mr. Berea Martin—l cannot snow you to say ao. There
be no trepanation on you.
lb. O'Malley said he desired to do the delendeat junks.
Aber the mew in which tte defendant bd rose his so-
ma he wee bound to believe that the meow oho had ia.
Waded Idin were mictken.

The ramieenOf Theliiry—We all think that if the charge
11 amid not h• proved the questions should not have he,. put.
Mr. Bane Martin, in summing up, said there was an sat
' el pediment whleh expressly provided that where • wham
was Moil if he had been tried for felony sad dialed It.
Minot amid have ban Wind to contradiction. The qua.
ties Amid net here been asked unless the plaintiffe were
premed to peeve the charge. The (imam was simply, had
there hem • warranty or not ?
The Jery at me found for the defendant.
Mr. Baron Martin—TM is an exceedingly improper
adios to bring here—ouch • pelt:7 sum I. dispute, sad tried
at seek expanse.
Mr. Tapping—l am Instructed to say in exoneration of the
genthease who instructed me. that it was the wish of their
dimes that it should be tried Me.
Mr. Baran Martin—lt was a wish that should not have
beta geatilled.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES.—Nov. 14.
(Haim Ur Jag* Ortllrsary, Mr. Jaatke Williams, sad Mr.
Hama Bramwall)

COOK V. COOL AND OVALLY.
The oar** yam =anted at at. Sepaleltreo, Lambs, is
Wawa 's, 1863. Tim patttiater yr the Nista al a Maas s,

Pyle, between Liverpool and Belfast. The respondent had
bus • perms of profligate life, but the petiticeer had never-
theless married ber in the hope of reclaiming bar from
evil ways. lie was, of course, frequently absent,
sad while he was sway she used to resort to houses of ill-
tame, sad otherwise mu' ossiduct herself, but when he canoe
hones she used to behave in • respectable meaner. There
had been several enistuidermaadings between them, but the
husband did not suspect her of a relspee until he received at
' filltraltar a letter dated the 29th of August, 1867. On
hie return to Liverpool he found another letter dated on
the following day, and in both there ware ample con-
fessions of her guilt. These documents (which were put in)
admitted that elle had not preserved her conjugal fidelity for
more than three months ; end she stated that she thought it
less sinful to leave him altogether than continue curb s life of
dwelt. With these sentiments she sold up her husband's
furniture, and west with Qoayle, the toaster of another
steamer, to Amperage. _ .

Mr. Muggy, Q.C., and Dr. Beabey appeared for the pe-
titioner. Mr. Russell appeared for the 00-respondent, who
pleaded ignorance of the fact that the respondent was a
married woman.

flt7oourt diMolved the marriage, but Weald to condemn
Quayle In the oasts, it not being clear that it wee he who
had seduced the respondent from her duty.

CLILNDLIV. V. CHANDLIk.
The parties, who moved in a very respectable circle, were
married at Toubrtdge Chapel, Easton-road, in No.
Timber, 1849, and had bed two daughters as the
fruit of their onion. Mr. Chandler was a solicitor
at Cheltenham. In 1853 he unfortunately became ac-
quainted with a person named Taylor, whom tt wee proved
that he bad visited several times in London. On the 27th
of January, 1866, he deserted his wile and had never dace
returned to her.

Fr7Fbilirroora, Q.C., and Mr. Macqwen were counael for
the
_petitioner ; but the respondent did not appear.
The court &wired the marriage with costa.
The court also awarded the custody of the children to the
petitioner.

The parties were married in 1845, and they afterwards
kept the Royal Oak, at Barnet; from which they removed to
the Coopers Arms, Union-street, Sontheratk. Ths wile
alleged that her husband's conduct to her was so harsh end
violent, that after two years' cohabitation, she was obliged to
go home to her father. Since then the respondent had lived
with a woman named Bury, ►y wham he bed had a family.
The petitioner bend( had bad one child by him.
Dr. P►iWmors, Q.C., sad Yr. F. Brandt appeared for the
wits.
The wart dissolved the marriage.

Rua. (r.u.sur °ALUM OA ine:tax) v. caen.mistr.
This was a emit of nullity, the alleged marriage having
tikes place in 1884, and the parties ha ring Brat together
for four years.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., with Dr. Spliaka, appeared for the pod-
thimble.

The respondent did not appear.
An am:dud/on wee made to the court to hear the ore in
private.
The Judge Ordinary repeated the opinion he bad already
given In a previous osee, that the mart had no power to
amide to the application.
Theme*r members of the court concurred, but the rase
was ordered to stand over in order to see whether aWs
amain mode of proof might not be resorted to than that
which need to be Maimed on.