The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-07 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
_ . _

Sittinp in Balm attar Tama.—(l34dore Lord Chid Baron
Pollock, aad Barons Martin, Chaooell, and Pigott.)
WILSON V. JOHNS.-JUDGMINT.

Mr. Baran Martin delivered to-day the judgment of the
court in this ease, which involved an important question as
to polities of Overawe on the Atlantic Cable. The
plaintiff, a shareholder in the company, incorporated for
the purpose of laying the cable, effected a policy with the
defendant, an underwriter, which was "to cover
every risk and contingency attending the conveyance
and the sneoessful laying of the cable until WO
words were transmitted from Ireland to Newfousdland
and vice versa.* and it was agreed that such transmission of
words should be an "essential condition of the policy."
The Great Hatters was employed in laying the cable, and
after about half of it bad been laid the cable parted, and
efforts to recover the end by fishing it up from the bottom
of the sea, at the depth of several miles, proved ultimately
unsuccessful. The vessel was consequently brought, with
the remaining half os board,toValeerna, from which she had
started. Under theeecircumstancestbe plaintiff hroughthis
motion and at the trial before Mr. Baron Martin, at Lifer-
pool, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, damages
MI" This was the amount for which the plaintiff had in-
sured, and he had paid 501. to the defendant for the risk.
Subsequently a rule was obtained to enter a verdict for the
defendant, or to reduce the damages ; and on the part of
the defendant it was contended—first, that the cable had
Dot been lost by the perils of the sea, to which it said the
policy only applied, sad secondly, that it if had been so lost,
there was not a total, but a partial loss, inasmuch
as the company bad not only half of the cable in their pos-
session, but intended, if possible, to utilise the portion at the
bottom of the sea, when they renewed their efforts to lay
an electric cable between Ireland end Newfound'and. At
the conolusion of the argument the court took time to con-
sider the points, and Mr. Baron Martin now gave judgment
upon them in favour of the plaintiff, observing that the
policy was merely a contract whereby the defendant under.
took is coesideration of receivieg 501. to pay 2001. to the
plaintiff if the venture of laying the cable was not success-
fully carried out.
Bede discharged accordingly.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

veirrr v. nevrri AND

This was a petition by the husband for dissolution of mar-
riage, on the ground of adultery. The cue was partly
heard on Friday.
Mr. Cooke, Q. 0., and Dr. Wambey appeared for the
petitioner ; Mr. Day for the respondent ; Dr. Bpinks for
the 00-respondent.
The marriage took place about 14 years ago, and the
petitioner, who was a journeyman confectioner, lived with
his wife for some years at Newport, in Moemo•thsbire,
and there were four children, of whom three are now living.
They then removed to Manchester, and disagree-
ments then took place between them. The husband
complained of her alatterely habits, and the house and
children were always in so filthy a state teat it was hardly
habitable. After a time they agreed to separate, and the
wife went to live at Holston. in CornwalL Whilst there
the husband did not supply her with a maintenance,
and she obtained a situation as housekeeper to
an ironmonger, in a large way of business at
Newport, in Moismouthabire, named Meredith, the
co-respondent. He was unmarried, and there
was no other woman in the house. No evidence of Impro-
priety of conduct was adduced. or of any familiarities
between respondent and co-respondent, but eventually re-
spondent left and went into lodgings, where a child was
born. The evidence against the co-respondent was chiefly
that be was sent to for money on account of the expenses of
the confinement and maintenance of the child ; but in reply
it was alleged that Meredith gave the money on account of
. _

His lordship held the adultery of the respondent and co-
respondent clearly proved, and that the latter knew that the
former was &married woman ; also that the petitioner was
not living apart from his wifebrithout sufficient cause, and
that he had not been guilty of cruelty. There must
be, therefore, a decree nisi for the dissolution of the mar-
riage with the emits of the snit against the co-respondent.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Efolroyd.)
IN RE GOODY AND JOs.

The bankrupts were military tailors, of Clifford-street,
Bond-street. The accounts, prepared by Mews. Hart
Brothers show debts of 47291., with 'stele returned at
1,220/.
This was the sitting for examination and discharge. It
Intl stated that Jones bad absconded ; the examination of
the other bankrupt Ivo adjourned for investigation of the
accounts.
Accmirr TO YR. COMMISSION= COOLSEION.

It was stated in wart this morning that bin Honour was
suffering from the effected a fall is crossing the Strand yes-
terday, and will be unable to attend in tout for some days
A long list of canes awaited his deoisioo. The unopposed
ones were disposed of by Mr. Registrar Haslitt, and the re-
mainder were taken by Mr. Commissioner Hohoyd.
(Before Mr. Registrar Roche.)
EN NV J. O. DALTON.

Tito bankrupt was a solicitor, of George-yard, Lombard-
street. This was the first sitting. There is no preliminary
statement, bat the liabilities are estimated at 20.0301. Mr.
T. Turner, newspaper proprietor, of Approach-road,
Victoria-park, waa chosen asa4,oee. Mr. Jar. Cooper (of
the firm of Johnstone and Co., accountants), was ap-
pointed manager. Messrs. Lumley are the solicitors under
the proceedings.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)

(Beton Mr. Bodkin, Molokai Jodie.)

THE EXTILAORDINABT AND WILFUL DAMAGE OF VALUABLE
PICTURES IN BURRELL-KIJAILL

Elizabeth Fitzgerald. 32, was indieted for maliciously
damaging five pictures, a clock-face, and other article.,
the property of George Mew Aston. The prisoner pleaded
guilty.
Mr. Serjeent Ballantine and Mr. W. J. Payne appeared
for the prosecution • Mr. F. H. Lewis for the defence.
Mr. F. H. Lewis said the prisoner bad pleaded guilty
to the charge of damsging some valuable pictures, but as
the prosecutor was not in attendance be thought it most
desirable for the interests of his client that the case should
be postponed in order to give him (Mr. Lewis) an opportunity
of putting such questions to the prosecutor as would place
in a true light before the curt the history of this
unfortunate connection, and enable the court there-
upon to act justly. The learned serjeant (Ballantine)
who appeared on the on the other aide consented to the
postponement, as he was informed that Mr. Aston, the
prosecutor, could not attend for a month. Under these air-
cumstances, of course, he (Mr. Lewis) must consent to the
cue standing over for a month.
The Assistant-Judge said he supposed that thereat object
of the prosecution was to ensure protection to the prose-
cutor.

Yr. Setleant Bellantine said that wan so.
Mr. F. R. Lewis said the woman was is • position to
provide substantial sureties, and in the end, after some
further di=cussion, and after a proper admonition by the
learned judge of the conaequences that would attach to her
in the event of her misoonducting herself again, she was
admitted to bail in two sureties of 1001. each, and herself in
500/., to come up for judgment when called upon, and
to give 24 boars' notice of bail.
The ptisoner was thee removed.

SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Payne.)
ROBBING ONI OF TIM SURVIVORS OF SRN LONDON.

199
VS
100
109
WS

Prank Turner, 19. • sesame, was indicted for stesliog a
coat, value 11., the property of Edward Quio, a seaman.
From the absorbing interest which the melancholy lose of
the unfortunate ship London has created in the public mind,
and the deep sympathy felt for all who survived, it was
scarcely ever expected that any one of them would have
been selected as an object of plunder. The prosecutor in
the above ease is, however, one of the crew of the London.
Mr. Payne (to the witness, Edwin Quin)—Were you one
of those that amine in the boat ?
Witness -I was, my lord. When I came back home, I
went to the Bailors' Home, in Well-street, on the 23rd
of January. The prisoner was not there at that time. I
bad been out, and whoa I returned I pulled off my coat and
went to sleep. I put my coat across my knees. The door-
keeper awoke me, sad asked me if I bad lost anything. I
said " Yea, I have lost my coat." The prisoner. who was
standing by, had it on. I had been driakly freely.
Mr. Payne—l suppose your friends were very anxious to
treat you and to congratulate you upon your lucky escape.
I em very glad you are here safe.
Witaess—Thank you, my lord. I met a lot of shipmates,
and you know what shipmates are, my lord. They treated
me, and I went to a music-hall, and was not quite sober.
Mr. Payee—Well, 'tie excusable.
William Bird, night watchman at the Bailors' Home,
proved letting the prisoner out of the Sailors' Homo ;he
went after him and asked him where he was going. The
prisoner said " One of my shipmates has been robbed and
I am going to find the thieves," Witness said that he
should take him hack to the Home. The prisoner then
said, " I suppose it is the coat belonging to my ship-
wrecked mate.' Wittman said "yes," anktook him back to
the Home, when the prosecutor gave him in charge for
stealing his coat.
Mr. Payne enquired whether the prisoner wee one of the
crew of the Leedom
The witnees maid that he wu not.
Polies-coostable 196 H sass called by the watchman, and
took the prisoner into custody. When told the alumna be
said the prosecutor sent him out to buy some coffee.
The mitoses, when called upon by Kr. Hodgkinsos (the
clerk of the court) for his defence, said that name one told
him ha might take Use coat. He aid not knew that it
belonged to riresemster.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.