The Express.
London, England, 1860-11-20 00:00:00

. • - ~:iltAb),:Anwiffign4. • "1 1
--:_4,—.--
~..
00ti7asigb "MN% BENCH.—Nee. 19.
ft:: Abiolxvi-gbilest the Leed Chid Justice. L.
.;".• ‘;, flaelise WI, ind Yflieties Blarliburn.) • .
•
11t 1144399A1t ll4lloirfik—antEla r.C11•11,91p
1I • n ' 7 . •f: 19rinfl•
Ola. urge . will be remembered. RN
man' kto be anted dbeited to Mrk•
Ora
wltave
. .
....rdouicissi is
polio,
..
the bils4 Caleglotte ord
bet tate :41.1b• swill-
, Itlrritti=frated to hip by thaimatA!=
had now to beam the court that their At &d-
-ie 1 Crawford had been properly served, and
she node • return to it—(the rtottun war then)....ead in
it Otawhed surly reiterated what bad beam already
tit..
itailinctletergirl had mired at her house on
the Gem , the 14th inat , and that the left
at onto& ou the ollowing evening with a perm
the
Gilbert, who had brought to her (Km Crowd=
if introduction from Mn. Hopkins, and
that the girPshould be entrusted to Gilbert.
Kr. Sleigh egad. as regarded that return, three who in-
droned him they had the most perfect co
stuns
ile tzu therefore he led nothing more to woe
sephd to the part played by Mrs. Crawford. With raped
however, to Mrs. Hopkins, although every effort bad been
made to serve her, it had been freed unpoesible to do ao.
When the officer alled at her house on ••,• da sight he
was told she was out shopping in the neigh Ne-
vertheless, although he called again a little Lear, he was
still unable-to see her. Upon that he explaned to her
mother the nature of the writ, and informed bee that be.
would call again on Monday morning, whithhe dill, het
without effect. Mrs. Barford, on the other head ted told
the officer that Mrs. Hopkins had gone to Larkin
day (Saturday), by thetwo &dock train, and that.
not return until nice o'clock at night Aad she .
told him that she thought ems 'Mb( was up. sad that
Bache' Hopkins would ant he tettbeetain for Use or four
drays. The affidavit of Mr. Himpem, app_licant's attorney,
sat out that he had been info=rd. by
.• M 4: 'Rachel
Ropkins's attorney, that she nava= oSt et way by
bis directim and iambi that wall now
la Norfolk, Allying with some Madam
Idle limed Conind mid hi bid new to
Itsaw Ant appli. l'
cation that Jabs Howse be,..Ateebed. ma raft 1
claw theni wail a eaminey lostiesen Howes sad
trin the yenta girl frem the lawful custody 2:::
IM Lord Ottid Jardse—lf you= establish a conspiracy
between these people to carryout an immoral purpose, yon
now as well sa nib the remedy that ia open to you. Hat
the di/acuity is mkt* me that Howse may only be a mere
instrument in the hen& of the two aunts who are Mai-
miring to annoy the father.
Mr. D. Seymour—The young lady slept at Bt. Alines in
110aradanzi.t.
Mr. —Nee ; and Mrs. Barford, Mrs. Hopkins, lied
th.
Dan—Zidw'
who
il
t"
Furirt."....—.;:-...
fa. is nylon to protect hie , e -
@Won together re Friday t ; and cm Um same night
Pis Belford left,in company with a Mr. Collis, Mrs. Bar-
ford's brother-in-law, for Norio&
Kr. Jumbos kisll—Wky. is it act Stated in the affidavits
the parson to whase the gad bat pm ?
Mr. 8/moat—Why Me has a greet number of relatives
in Norfolkand it may sot be pea nsMi to say with which of
them she is. At the mass time he ought to dig* es hear-
ing out the alleptioa al candy charged against Mr. Bar-
ford, that in October het he was bound over to keep the
peace towards his wife..
It wu ultimately agreed that the matter should shad
over fora few days to allow of the preeactina d Min l
ford, the Chief Justice expreesiag a hap that Ihnongli the
intervention of the respectable solicitors sopped is the me
the affair might be peaceably adjusted.
Sittings at Nisi Prins at Guildhall. —(Befrete Mr. Jostles
Crompton and Common Juries.)
WOOD r. DMIANQUIT.—..IiLLIGED MIDLIGENCI.
This was an action brought to moover ammo for in-
tones sustained by reason of the alleged negligence of the
defendant's servants.
Mr. Elerjeant Elm and Mr. Ham were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Hamm, and Mr. Lyeley
represented the defendant.
.2hkeilittiff is • labolidag with his wife at
where abe ism The defeudant wee
s;";:ll7sWiepreeentative of the Commercial Dock Com.
m. It
war =d that in November,b. 18.79, the pia/ion/1
down byl,large gatethe =l's premises, ttes, which war am
open, and by which on
was- to mash injured that it was
depondlo by a medical man who attended her that eke
muldiewer eosin get well.
The defence was that there was no negligees, ea thepat
of the sidendantould that lbe gate was tattier Hie
of a perm who had contracted to remove ember from—lft;
• =.lThis contrector proved that the company had
10 do with the pas, and it wee his duty to hared
' locked after it bad been need.
The jury found a verdict fir the plaintiff•—dameges SOL
M the husband, 41/. At for the sum he 'would have topsy
the surgeon. arid 2101. for the wife—making a total of
2811. Gs. ) the learned judge rewarrieg • point of law.
--,----
COURT OF COMMON PULAR —Now. 19',.
Satiny in liaaeo.—(Before Lard Chief Justice Fr* and
Janine Bytes and Matieg)
/MALI V. MB DOME ISM CM etelPellt.---10131, ell=
caimans' consume.
The &aeration in this me was fesuitled_ upon au twee
ment, d
ated
the Mk el Julm, Ink kr Mash the Min-
dents agreed to mr Um piing. two ems. of 9,800 L
end 2,0001. foe j down gat. The plaintiff sued
to enfons thiengreetnant, aid to mover a =abrr of
ram advanced to the company tartan term. The
defendants pleaded a great nutty plem and one set of
them raised the cluitable Mace that the imuttacts were
void under the Joint Stook Conspaans Ast, the 7th sad
Bth Vic., cap. 110, sec. 29, which said that my sash m-
ead made with a director Mould set " have form," until
it had been approved by tie shareholders. The pleas
alleged that the plaintiff ma • director of the eompayy,
and that he voted and acted as • director in Menace to
oontracts in question. A sewed defence raised was
that the company had entered into the egresmantta Mer-
anoe to the pipes upon the terms that the plat ilff Maid
Etee the stuu eholden a dividend of 6 par out, and
ls had failed to do this. The pleas gain time do-
wers demurred to.
Mr. Temple (with him Mr. Mimed) for the plaintif .
submitted that the first set of pleas were no answer Mahe
declaration, inasmuch as the atiatute did net asy QM aem
tract steered into as His bad been should be seN edema's..
Further that the deelanitioa alleged all that was
10 put the mead fa lone, and that at WY lei 41417:110
tam to
.ailliSt it had oat been impeeld by
thia 11' ma the duty ust of the *N-
W, but of the OP the directors, to ham submitted the
matter to the eharehelden ; sad it was not equitable that
the company. should ham the hewed of the plaintiff's work
without mangler it. As to the mood set of plead it was
argued that the egreemest to gee tee 6 per cent.
was not • " °seditious preeedemt " to the agree-
ment sued on, sod could not be plaided in answer to it.
Asotber set of pleas alleged that the ddeadanta had handed
to the plaintiff cartel' sum of raiser sad Mere deeds,
securities, and
ai in satialleeties of his domed. The
* Miff to this that He deeds and sesurities were
sot valid own, one questioa was abetter this replica-
tion wearied.
Mr. fierjeant Petendorff and Mr. Kelly appeared for the
defendants.
The court pre judgment for the defendants upon the first
set of pleas, and for the plaiutiff upon the mound, and fur
the plaintiff upon the replimition.