The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-22 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice, and
Justices Jlelh and Lush.)
•

At the sitting of the court this morning the Right Hon.
S. H. Walpole took the oath of allegiance as one of Her
Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and the RightHou.
Mr. Waddington also took the same oath on his becoming
'member of the Privy Council.
•

This was the first of the last four days of term, and the
wart was occupied a considerable time iu disposing of rules,
sad hearing of motions relative to points of practice, and
the taxation of costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Wings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erle, and

Justices Willes and Keating.)
SMITH r. THE. GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This ease was argued yesterday. The plaintiff, a young
*moan, was bitten by a dog when getting into a train at
la-bridge station on the night of last Whit Monday, and
Ilte sued for damages and recovered a verdict for 50f. The
esedion now was whether a rule to enter a nonsuit should
le made absolute.

The Lord Chief Justice said ho was of opinion that such
/vie should be made absolute. The plaintiff charged the de-
fendants with negligence. and alleged that they had
104 taken sufficient care to keep their station
free from a dog that it was known would bite. It an-
Peered that the dog hail shown signs of a dangerous
rotare at 9 on the same evening, and a servant of the corn-
PutY turned it off the premises. What then became of
the dog was unknown, but at half-past 10 it suddenly re-
Waxed and flew at a cat in the signal-house, and the
Porter kicked it out, and it ran among the crowd of people
a the platform and bit the plaintiff. The question was
Whether the defendants left undone anything that persona
exercising reasonable care could have done ; and he thought
that they had not. They turned the dog off as soon as
he showed aims of bitimr, and the station had a public way
through it, mot the return of the dog could not have been
Presented without au amount of exclusion and of watching
that would he an unreasonable burden upon the company.
Ur. Justice Keating said that if the company had not
taken proper means to get rid of the clog he should have
held that there was evidence to support the verdict, but
they had done all that they could be required to do.
Rule absolute for a nonsuit.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before the Judge Ordinury.l
3ARC}.tSr v. MARCHANT.

Mr. Searle for the petitioner ; Dr. Wambey for the re-
opeadent.

This was rtther a aingular case. The petitioner, who was
the wife of a dieainker, prayed for a judicial separation
01 the ground of cruelty. According to her evidence
sad that of her mother, the respondent had
introduced himself to theta as " a Christian young man,"
sad a preacher. After a courtship of four years, the
"'Mint took place in May, ; but on the eleventh
Sight t ere was a violent quarrel, and in seven weeks
tiers was a separation. The petitioner alleged that
her husband had A habit of mingling his caresses
tad his curses in a most perplexing manner, and that
Eiss.gh he had never struck liter, his threats were so fre-
(Peat and so violent, that her health was greatly affected,
and she was obliged to leave. On one occasion he told her
to read a chapter of Isaiah to him. She did so, but he
aid she had omitted n verse. She read it a second time
sad he nude a similar complaint. She read it a
third time ; and then he got on swore at her
tearfully, kissed his mother, and left the house,
ds4sting that he would drown himself. After the separa-
tion a considerable correspondence took place, in the
acne of which the petitioner expressed a doubt whether
the would live, and a hope that if she did not, her spirit
atight be permitted to haunt him. She told him that he