The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-16 00:00:00

[STAMPED, Id. ADDEITOIAL]

Ohio House of Representatives have refused to
strike the word white from the State constitution.
The New York Assembly has rejected the bill for
allowing negroes to vote for delegates to the con-
stitutional convention. Illinois has abolished
capital punishment. Great destitution is reported
in Alabama, Georgia, and North and South
Carolina.

CANADA.
MONTREAL, MARCH 1.

It is stated that the first meeting of the Canadian
representatives will declare the united provinces
to be a kingdom, under the rule of Prince Arthur•

(BY ATLANTIC TILBORAPIL)
COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE.

NEW YORK, M►acu 15, Noox.

Opening prices :—Gold, 134. Sterling exchange
on London, 109/. Five-Twenty United States
Bonds, losi ; Illinois, 113/ ; Erie, 5911.
Missouri Sixes are quoted at 97, the rise being
due to action taken by the legislature fur the pay-
ment of the overdue coupons.
The Inman steamship City of Cork arrived out
yesterday.

IL alu EntelltplUt.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—MARca 15.
APPEAL.

The law lords present to-day were the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Cranworth, Lord Westbury, and Lord Coloamy.

HIDNEY r. MIDNET.
This was an appeal raising a question as to the power of
the Judge Ordinary of the Divorce Court to make a cer-
tain order for an allowance by a husband to a wife who
had obtained a divorce.

Mr. D. D. Keane, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. F. H.
Lewis) were for the appellant, and Dr. Spirits, Q.C., and
Mr. Montague Williams for the pondent.
On the 7th March, 1864, • th Ann Sidney filed
a petition in the Court for Divorce and Matrimo-
nial Causes for a dissolution of her marriage
with the appellant, Algernon Sidney, on the ground
of adultery coupled with cruelty. InMarch of the follow-
ing year the jury found • verdict for the 4itioner, and the
Judge Onlinary pronounced a decree nisi dissolving the
marriage on that ground. The petitioner then sought for
a permanent provision fur her maintenance and supped,
admitting that she possessed a separate income of 120 f. per
annum, and alleging that the income of the appellsnt
amounted to 2,0001. per annum. The appellant, in his
answer, said that her net income was 1661., while his own,
after certain deductions, did not exceed 340 f. per annum.
On the 25th July, 1365, the Judge Ordinary pronounced a
decree absolute, dissolving the marriage, and further or-
dered that the appellant should, by deed, secure
to Elizabeth Ann Sidney per annum, to
be be paid to her for her life, or so long
as she should remain chaste and unmarried. The appellant
subsequently appealed to tire full court, consisting of the
Judge Ordinary, Mr. Baron Pigott, and Mr. Justice Smith,
against the decree respecting the allowance, but that court
held that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine an
appeal from the final decree of the Judge Ordinary, and
said that, in their opinion, the appeal lay to the House of
Lords. The grounds of the preseet appeal aere—first, list
a wife whose marriage was dissolved was not entitled to
the same proportion of her late husband's income as a wife
who was judicially, separated from her husband ; and,
secondly, that a wife who had a sufficient separate income
for her maintenance was not entitled to an part of her
husband's income after her marriage with him was dis-
solved. The case was, however, disposed of on the pre-
liminary question whether the House of Lords had pins-
diction to hear such an appeal.
Mr. Keane was beard on behalf of the appellant. The
56th section of the act establishing the Divorce Court gave
to a person dissatisfied with a decree on a petition for a
dissolution of marriage the right of an appeal to the
House of Lords, and the learned counsel contended that
the order for a permaneil provision for the wife and the
dissolution of the marriage formed hart of one and the
same decree, and that consequentl y if the lunbaild was
dissatisfied with either part of it, he egad appeal to their
lordships.
The Lord Chancellor said be was clearly of opinion that
the legislature intended that there should be no appeal to
the House of Lords from the Divorce Court except strictly
on the question of the dissolution of marriage, and that if
there was an appeal in this matter, which was auxiliary
and supplementary to the decree annulling the marriage,
and within the discretionary power of the judge, it must
be to the full court.

The other noble and learned lords expressed a similar
opinion, and on the question being put the appeal was dia-
missed with costs.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES.—Kaacg 15.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
WIGHT r. WIGHT AND FIELD.
The whole of the day was occupied with the speeches
of counsel and with the summing up of the learned judge.
At its close,
The special jury, after a brief deliberation, found for the
respondents.