The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
sis Basco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice, aad
Justices Blackburn. Mello; sad Ohm)

VALENTIN V. HALL.
This was an action arising out of the interminable case of
Bouillon v. Valentin, to recover certain coupons. A few
days sinee Mr. Coleridge obtained a role nisi for a oom-
misrioe to be addressed to the judges of the court for the
oommune of the Seine to examine certain witnesses in Paris
on behalf of Mr. Hall, the defendant.
Mr. Quoin to-day showed cane against the ride princi-
pally on the ground that Mr. Bertrand, one of the witnesses
proposed to be examined, was one of the deputy presidents
of the court to which it wee proposed to send the commission.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., appeared in support of the rule. The
commission was necessary because many of the witnesses
declined to give evidence except under the pretectioo of
one of the French courts. He bad no objection to Mr.
Bertrand's name being omitted, an intimation being given to
the court why the name had been omitted.
Rule absolute accordingly.
IN NZ AN ATTORNEY.
Mr. Serjeant Pollen moved for a rule calling upon an
attorney to show canoe why he should not be ordered to
pay over the sum of 501. which he bad reoeived as attorney
for Mr. Way, the applicant.
Mr. Justice Blacks—Why not go to chambers and
take out a summons against the attorney to bring in his
bill of costa, if any. and the money he haa in hand? It is a
less costly and more speedy proceeding than by a rule. The
former can be done for a few shillings, whereas a rule will
cost between 101. and 121.
Mr. Serjeant Pollen said he thought it would be found
that in the end a rule would be a lees costly and more
expeditions mode of obtaining the payment of the money.
Rule refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
ittinp io Banoo.—(Before the Lord Chid Baron Pollock,
and Baroos Martin, Cherwell, and Pigott.)

ALLEN V. GREAT wirsizarr EALLIVAT coirairr.
This was an action, under Lord Campbell's Act, to recover
damages for the death of the plaintiff's son. The plaintiff
was a harness maker, renting a mom, at 4s. a week,
on the second floor of a house in Soho, and was 62
years of age. The son, who was twenty-eight years of
age at the time of hie death, wss, along with
his wife and child, killed in an accident on the defeadmite
railway. The pecuniary interest which the plaintiff alleged
he had in his eon's life was this :—The plaintiff's deceased
wifet a skilful seal engraver, taught her business to the moo,
and in consideration of this, and of the plaintiff giving him
her implements of trade, the sou agreed to allow his father
a certain portion of the profit., which it was said amounted
to about 301. a year. It appeared that the son lived apart
from the father, and paid 6.. a week for his lodgings. At
the trial before Mr. Baron Martin at sittings here after
last term, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 1501. Subsequently Mr. Kerslake, Q. 0., obtained
a rule to enter a verdict for the defendants, or a noun%
or for a new triaL
Sir George Honyman now showed cause against the rule.
The question was whether this sort of interest of a father
in the earnings of a son could be compensated for under
Lord Campbell's act.
Mr. Baron Martin said he thought the damages were too
much.
Mr. Kerslake said the case involved as important
question, which the defendants were deffirous to take to
court of appeal, viz., whether an allowance by a sou to •
father, which wee perfectly gratuitous, could be made the
subject of an action of this niter..
The Lord Chief Baron said it had been decided over and
over again that a gratuity allowed by one person for an-
other, standing in that degree of relationship, might be
recovered.
Mr. Karslake—Those are the decisions we wish to have
reviewed by the House of Lords.
'Sir Geo. Ilonymen said the point had been decided
the cues of Franklin v. South Eastern Railway Comeau',
Duckworth v. Johnson, and Pym v. the Great Northern
bei
Railway, the damages awarded in the latterbeing 1,3001.
The Lord Chief Baron—l suppose Mr. Kerslake does
not deny that those cues are agaiost him?
Mr. Karslake—l do not ; but I think they scarcely spell
to the facts in this cue.
Ultimately, at the suggestion of the court, the case was
postponed, to see whether the parties could agree to
r reduction, of the damages, and whether an arranger°,
could be made to avoid an appeal.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
1024111COTT e. ILENNICOTT (CLERK).
Mr. Hannon for the petitioner; Mr. Harrison for the
respondent.
This was emit for • judicial separation on the ground
cruelty. The marriage took place in 1846, and there had
been 12 children, of whom five were living. The petitioner
had been a Mies Emma Hodson, the daughter of the Rev.
J. Hodson, of Newcastle. The Rev. Benjamin Ken.
nicott war the incumbent of AU Sainte, Monkwear•
mouth. She stated that at first he had treated her tolerate'
well, but he was sometimes latozioated, and thea
behaved harshly to her. One Sunday, about ten years ago,
being angry because she had let the nurse go out, he came
to the petitioner while she was nursing a child and kicks
her. His foot struck her chair, and she fell down with
child in her arms. The servant came in lets, and
t.
respondent was again angry. He refused to let bee steel
in his room, and she at first went to her dressing-room,
bat after being there for some time she became alarmed and
went to the servants' room. Her husband met her on a'
landing and kicked her, telling her that she should
poison the servants' minds against him. She spent the rest
of the night in the nurser►. Recollected one day in Jur-
-1861. his throwing a chamber utensil at his daughter, bra
mild not remember any more about it, though there
might have been • good deal of fighting in the house that
day. He was often scolding and throwing things labour
A short time after that he came out of his room and sat
his shirt on the floor with the poker in his hand, dee...Uri
that he would murder the children if they came out of 1
nursery. He thought that they had been listening to hi
They locked themselves in the nursery—they were
afraid. On another occasion when he was in bed he want
some brandy. Told him that the doctor had said
should not have it, and the respondent then
her dress. Once in 1863 when the baby
very ill, in fact, dying—witness wanted to stay up all
night with it, but the respondent said he wished her to sit
up by the side of his bed and wait on him. She lay down
on a small bed in his room, and he threw • large dinner bell
at her. It fell on her pillow, but it just missed her. One
Sunda► morning in 1864, be came downstairs and broke
the children's breakfast cups. Then he got wit-
ness into a corner and struck her on the breast.
The blow broke an ivory brooch she had on. In the July
of that year he came into the kitchen and threw her down.
On another occasion he dragged the youngest girl along the
passage by the hair. On the same day he had streak her in
the garden, that was about some currant bushes. Was in a
state of constant dread ; she did not consider her life oafs ;
and her health suffered from the life she was obliged to
lead. in 1864 she was compelled to leave her home.
Cross-examined—The respondent's living was an endow-
ment of 1751. a year, and the fees would be considerable if
proper attention were paid to the district. Had frequently
applied to his father for protection. Never consulted
doctor in eousequence of any personal injury received from
the respondent's violence. Tried to overlook the reapon.
dent's faults. Before witness left her home she bad
• disagreement with hies about her boy Arthur. She
thought he might to go into her brother's office.
at Newcastle. A. railway pass would have cost 141. • year,
and the salary offered was only 201. The respondent was
pressed for money, but he ought not have been. In 1863
he was made all clear by witome's friends and started again.
(A letter of July, 1861, of an affectionate character. ad-
dressed to the respondent by the petitioner, was pot in.)
He could not ill-treat witness when he wee from home.
When he threatened to murder the children, witness be-
lieved that he meant it ; but made no application to any
magistrate. It was not a pleasant thing for a lady to go to
a police-offioe. The child died about two days after the
respondent threw the bell at witness. Could not deny that
she had called the petitioner " • liar and • scoundrel."
That was in the presence of his little boy, but the child was
then only three or four years old. Might have used such
language on more occasions than ones, when the respondent
has been drank. Had told the children not to mind
what he said, but had only done so when he
was drunk. Might have often struck him to protect her-
self. Hal ones struck him with a chair, but that was
when he had tossed • large portmanteau at her. Had
once heard her eldest daughter cell her father
" a scoundrel ;" but had reproved her for
doing so. Had never told him that she would
have stopped the =it if it had not for her brother,
who thought it only right that she should have some
allotropes. The respondent had offered witness 10e., but
as he had 751. in his pocket at the time,
witness thought it an insult. Believed that complaint had
been male to the bishop about the respondent's conduakbat
that had not been done with her knowledge or by her
direction, for *be did not think herein the proper person to
take such a step. Witness's brother was very well to do in
business.
Re-examined—Had lately heard that proceedings had been
taken against the respondent before the bishop. The re-
spondent frequently took too much drink, but witness had
done all is be: power to wean him of his bad habits.
The petitioner was corroborated by her eldest daughter,
Emma Sophia Kennloott, aged 16. The occasion on which
she used violent language to her father was when be bid
knocked her down as she was attempting to defend her
mother.
(The ease was proceeding when we went to press.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Kr. Registrar Papp.)
IN NJI a. V. DRUCIL
Tim bankrupt wen a solkitor. Is St. ftwithin'a-lama, The
mesa waa before the court a few days age, OR the aloha of
attidemw. when a large proof for 10,M., tendered by a
Mr. Thorpe, timber-meralmat and of Leeds,
was disputed by Yr. C. B. Lewis. on behalf at creditors.
Wa Mao= now pre judgment. admitting the proof.
He was of opinion that the bankrupt having. es a seater
of fact, accepted the bill drawn by Shield and dinareetedby