The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings at Nisi Prise et Chdldhell.—(Before the Lord `hid
Justice sad • Special Jury.)
HILL Ot

The wu the Walk sad tit.iiii. day of the hazing g
thi remarhah3e aua. . ...

we Lordship, in summing up, said he cougratuleted the
jury upon the fact that this, protracted case had at a
reached its last stage, and one could not help regrettilgmt
the time of twelve men of 'minus in the City of Lseden
should have been °stupid with such a cue which nu.
doubtedly was far better adapted to the atmosphere of the
Divorce Court than the Court of Queen's Bench sitting at
Guildhall, in the City of Loudon ; but at the same time the
ease being here it was impassible not to cement with what
had been said by the learned counsel on both aides as to he
importanos to the parties concerned. It was impossible to
exaggerate that impatience. To the plaintiff it
afforded the last and onl opportunity of el
his character of the dark stain which rested upon iegiset, sei
of restoring him, morally, socially, and professionally, to
that position which he had so unhappily last. To the de.
feudist the ease wee also of vast importance, because h
was to his cost, and the expense of his professional repair,
Moe. Besides the plaintiff, there were others who, though
not virtue to this action, were, neverthelese, deeply sad
vitally interested in the result of their conduct, and their
characters were involved in the verdict which the jory
would pronounce, for in woks to eitablish his own ease, the
plaintiff charged them tone of them his wife) with as foul
a conspiracy and with treachery as black and bass as evw
formed the subject of • judicial investigation. lie ens
sure he need not press on them the sacred and
solemn duty they had to discharge, sad to ash
them to give the ease (as he knew they would
do) their very best and careful attention, and
consider it in all its beatings cia/mly, dispusionately, and
anxionaly,with • view to do justice between the parties who
wen all so deeply and vitally interested in the result. Me
would also do his best to waist them. The issues wag
complicated, the fade were numerous, and the
dance oonfliotleg, and he would give them his
best aid to enable them to unravel the eatanglel
skein which they bad to deal with. The fin* is.
portent thing they had to look to was to see that
they rightly understood aid appreciated the natant sad
scope of the inquiry, and the plaintiff complained that
whereas in • suit instituted by the wife for a judicisl
separation he had • good defence to the charges which
she preferred, he had lost the opportunity of maids'
I that defence through the default of the defending
who acted as his attorney in that snit, by reason
of the bad and ignorant advice given to him, and
that Brice so specifically complained of was this, a
viz.,
that the defendant advised him that if he would give
written consent for a judicial separation, the decree might
be made by the learned Judge Ordinary upon what was
called some of the minor charges in the wife's peg.
Mon, without any evidence being gives while
would affect his character as an oar iad a
gentleman, and upon the faith of that mew
mutation he alleged that he gave the consul
and withdrew from the ease. The plaintiff said
that the advice was given ignorantly and unprofeesionally,
that it proved to be altogether vain sod delusive, for the
learned Judge Ordinary refused to make • decree seethed
evidence being gone into which in the result affeated hi
character in a fearful degree—that he not being
present and not having his witnesses there to
rebut the charge, the verdict passed against him
as though bis owe was entirely destitute of
defence, and it went forth to the world not only that he
was guilty of the various acts alleged in his wife's petition
but that by consenting to the decree he had acknowledged
the justice of them, and hence had come upon him the mint
vital consequences ; his character had been disgraced in the
eyes of the world, his honour had been tarnished, and hi
military career endangered ; his superior °Moen had treated
him with indignity,his companionrinorms refused him thig
society, and he was threatened with the loss of his commis.
Mon, and that • career begun with distinction would
be brought without a verdict in his favour to an abrupt and
dishonourable termination, and his whole future life and ex*
istence irretrievably destroyed. Now to that complainttbe
defendant made two answers. In the first place, the de.
fendant said he did not give the advice of which the plain.
tiff complained, bat that the advice he gave him was, that
whereas his position in respect of his defence in the
judicial separation snit was one of extraordinary dith.
catty and extreme danger, he advised him that it
was possible to submit to a decree without evidence being
gone into which would attack his character and be dents.
tory to his Imam; but at the same time that he told the
plaintiff that if the learned Judge Ordinary would not assent
to that course the plaintiff mast either refrain from going bite
the witness box, because the evidence he proposed to
give was in his (the Niefendant'a) judgment false, and he
would perjure himself, or he (the defendant) should
entirely withdraw from the defence ; be should there.
fore leave him free to act as he thought best, for
he was not bound to go into court with a
case which he believed was founded oa fraud,
iniquity and falsehood, the plaintiff must find another
attorney to conduct it. The defendant said that be gave the
plaintiff his free option how to act, and that the advice he
gave was honestly and conscientiously given, and that
plaintiff misrepresented it when he put on the
ground alleged in this action,—that he never
gave such advice, and he was not responsible for
it. In the second plus the defendant said Mat
even if he had given it through his default the plait.
tiff's defame was not carried through to its extreme termr
aation, he had not lost anything by it, for having •bad de.
fence the malt must have been the same. They would
therefore see there were two minor breeches of inquiry,
the first, whether the plaintiff had a good defence in the
suit ; and, secondly, whether if he had that good defence,
he had lost it through default of the defendant in gimes
the advice of which the plaintiff complained.
and he (the learned judge) was bound to tell
them that the issue as to the plaintiff having
had • good defence having been raised, It
became the very essence of this inquiry, and they having
now heard all the evidence that could have been adduced
in support of lthe defame, arrived at the conclusion that it
was not truthful and would avail nothing, and that the
result must have been necessarily the same of whet had the
plaintiff to complain? If his attorney bad stood between him
and the guilt of perjury with its consequences here end
hereafter of the result, what the attorney did was
(defeat being certain and inevitable) to render that defeat
less disastrous and leas ignominious, because through the
wickedness of the conduct which was charged rest thi
plaintiff was not added the turpitude, thel wick sad
the disgrace of perjured evidence given on cats ;so
far from having aught to complain, every reasonable mu
would feel that the plaintiff ought to be thankful that ha
was spared the opportunity of giving testimony which
must have been disbelieved by the jury, and adding that dia.
graft to the others which attached to him. An observatios
had been made by the learned consul for the plaintiff
against the defendant raising this issue. Mr. Coleridge
had said that the defendant might have defended the actin
on the ground that he had not given the advice he wee
charged with, or that it was not negligence on his cart, or. if
such, that under the circumstances it was excusable, but not
have railed the question of his client having a good
&fen% in the separation suit. Before they allowed as
observation of that kind to operate to the dein•
dant's prejudice, they ought to look for a moment,
in justice to him, to the circumstances in whiih he
was placed.
[The case was proceeding when our report left.]

COURT OF ARCHES.
(Before the Right Hon. Dr. Lashingtoo.)
=wasps, VILLAIIN V. HATTON.—IMPORTAAT DICIfiIOSS OS