The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-17 00:00:00

eke .rin*,oo.

_ILLYMAICULT..

Tats Ihrmann, BROTHER SAM. Mesars. Sothern, Bock-
done, and Compton: Misses Nelly Moore, Snowdon, dc
ORPHEUS IN THE HAY MAB.KIT. Messrs Yemen & D. Fisher ;
Misses Keeley, Howard ,t Wright.—MY HUSBAND'S GHOST.

PERiCESTS.

THH Immo, QtrlNTlo66ll4o9.—After which IT IS
NEVER TOO LATE TO KIND. Deem Vhiing. G. Melville,
T. Mad, D. Dump, b. Callum, F. Villiers, J. O. Shore, G. Mur-
ray, and E. Ciaihneri: Manes L. Moon and K. Rodgers.

LIMZUM.

TIM ErtairO, THE ILLUSTRIOUS snuoroza. Mr. H.
Widdicomb.—THE MASTER OF RAVENSWOOD. Mecum
Pechter. lord in, Vain. Emery, Widdicomb, Fitzpatrick, Evans;
Mesdames Taman, %Acworth), Lavaca, C. Locieroq.

aßrrarrmi:

THIS MINIM, OLD DAtifilitaiiCizes AND SIR REGENT
CIRCUS; OR, THE RACE FOR THZ GOLDEN APPLES.—
M. and Mdme. Stertzenbsch.--Slemor Bevank—Olmar.-Bhower
of Golden Bain.—And JESSIE, Tali MORMON'S DAUGHTER.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE.
Tin DAT Month& 2b. Afternoon, 2h. •"_es.
To-BORROW -• Morning, 36. la.....ADernooo, 3n. win.

LONDON. WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 17.

Arm a sitting of nine days, during which the
leading counsel on both sides prayed for a respite
to recruit their exhausted strength, the tedious
and loathsome case of HILL v. Finney has been
brought to a close. If the only question determined
at the trial had been the character of Captain Hitt
or the conduct of his wife, there would be no need to
say anything on the subject. But the cue involved
other and more important questions. The action
was brought by Captain HILL against his attorney,
Mr. FINNEY, on the ground of negligence, and the
extent of an attorney's liability was therefore
directly involved. Besides which, the conduct of
the jury has been so extraordinary, that they can
scarcely be surprised if they are stigmatised as
wanting in principle or in common sense.
More than five years ago Mrs. HILL had brought I
• suit for judicial separation from her husband,
Captain HILL, on the ground of cruelty. To this
the Captain replied that his wife had been guilty
of adultery. In this state of matters Captain
HILL, instead of attempting to defend himself,
consented to a decree of separation, which he
hoped might not necessitate the production of
any evidence. In this the Captain was mistaken.
The evidence was required by the Judge of the
Divorce Court ; and so scandalous did it turn out
to be, that Captain HILL, when he returned to
India, found himself disgraced in the eyes of the
world, and even threatened with the loss
of hie commission. Such being the concl:tion of
things, Captain HILL determined, if possible,
to re-establish his character. The manner in
which he proposed to do so was to bring an action
against Mr. FINNEY, the attorney who had acted
for him in the suit before Sir C answ ELL CRESSWEV
" Who," said the Capta;i, "is responsible for
" the disasters which have befallen me f It
"is you, Mr. FINNEY. And how ? You told
"me that if I would consent to the de-
cree for a judicial separation from my
" wife no evidence would be taken, and that
" a decree might be obtained without, at
" all events, eliciting any facts which could
" affect my character as an officer and a gentle-
" man. Acting upon this idea! did give my con-
" sent, and then went abroad. But I
" find that yeti were mistaken. Evidence was
" called for and was produced, and that at a time
" when I was absent, and could not produce evi-
" dente to contradict it. The result was that that
" evidence went unchallenged, and that my chi
" rector is well nigh ruined." To all this Mr.
FINNEY replied : " In the first place, I never gave
" you the advice alleged. I never told you that
" the audge would not call for any evidence.
" But, in the second place, I told you that if
" evidence were produced by your wife in support
" of her petition, it was impossible for you to get
" into the witness-box and deny that evidence,
" and I added that, if you insisted upon doing so,
" I should withdraw altogether from the cue. I
" could be no piny to your committing perjury."
Such were the questions which were debated be-
fore the Loin CHIEF JUSTIcE and a special jury
during nine days. It would serve no useful pur-
pose to attempt to weigh the conflicting state-
ments on either side, and to attempt to determine
whether the Captain or his wife has been guilty
of perjury, or has committed the various crimes
which each laid to the charge of the other. Bat it
was admitted by both sides that, so far as Mr.
FINNEY was concerned, he acted in the most per-
fect good faith, and that if he made a mistake in
law, it was with the desire of doing the beat
for his client. But, as the CHIEF JUSTICE
said, good intentions cannot discharge an
attorney from liability, and therefore it was
necessary for the jury to determine whether Cap-
taM HILL had a good defence to his wife's peti-
tion, and whether he lost the benefit of that de-
fence by the bad advice of Mr. FINNEY. There
seems to have been no doubt in the mind of
the Judge how the verdict ought to go, and there
was probably no doubt in the minds of those who
heard the case. At first the jury declared that
Captain HILL could not have proved the charge
of adultery against his wife, and that Mr. FINNEY did
not give such advice as that alleged by Captain H Lt.
Whether the advice was good or bad, it seems clear
that Mr. FINNEY could not be responsible. If Cap-
tain HILL's character was ruined in consequence of
the evidence produced before Sir CRE.ssWELL CRESS-
WELL, it was ro fault of Mr. FINNEY. He had
never told the Captain that if he consented to the
decree. of separation no evidence against his cha-
racter would be produced, but as the negligence im-
puted was the giving of this opinion, and asking Cap-
tain HELL to act upon it, it seems impossible to
deny that Mr. FINNEY was entitled to a verdict.
Not so thought the jury. They seem to have
thought that the character of Captain HELL was of
more value than justice to a respectable atter-
nay. They could not understand that the simple