The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-22 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittinp in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice and
Justices Mellor, Shee, and Lush.)
EXPARTT SCOTT JCL, r. POPPLEIVELL AND JACKSON.
..

Mr. T. Jones, Q.C., applied, on behalf of Mr. Alexander
Scott. jun., for a rule calling upon Mr. Popplewell and Mr.
Jackson to show cause why a quo warranto should not issue,
recprring them to show by what authority they exerciaed
the ethos of town councillors for the borough of
mouth in Northumberland. At the election the numbers
ware declared to be for Mr. Popplowell, 273 ,• for Mr.
pi Jackson, 240 ; and for Mr. Scott, n., 216. The election
was sought to be set aside on the ground of irregularity.
The affidavits stated that the presiding alderman did not
open the poll until a quarter to 10 o'clock, the act specify-
ing that it shall be taken between 9 and 4 o'clock. That
in consequence of the delay numbers who there was omen
to believe would have voted for the applicant left, and
that when the poll was opened the votes were taken so
fast that the &mason were unable to record them, and bad
to remonstrate several times with the alderman for taking
them so fast. They also stated that many burgesses voted
twice for two qualifications, and that the papers of others
were tampered with, who otherwise there was reason to
believe would have voted for the applicant.
The Lord Chief Justice said the affidavits were exceed-
ingly vague. There was nothing to show that those who
left in the morning might not have returned later in the
day and have voted, and that there was not time to take
all the votes. The affidavits should have shown specific
results necessarily and inevitably flowing from the irregu-
rity at the counuenoement of the poll.
Rule refused. . _

THE uur.EN r. TWISS AND OTHERS—THE ST ALBAN'S CARL
This was a rule granted by the court calling upon Dr.
Twiss and Dr. Robinson to show clime why a writ of ro-
hibition should not issue to restrain them from proceeding
in the suit of "Martin r. Mackonochie," in relation to the
ritualistic practices at St. Alban's, Holborn.
Mr. Prideaux, Q.C., now moved to mate the ride ab-
solute, no muse being shown. The rule was returnable on
Saturday last, and he had reason to know that no cause
would be shown. In fact, he believed that the promoter
of the suit was more anxious to have the rule made abso-
lute th►n the defendant, in order that no time might be
lost in proceeding with thE suit before Dr. Phillimore.
The contention was and both sides. were now satiated, that
Dr. Phillimore had no power to appoint surrogates to hear
the cause.
. .

The Lord Chief Justice—Just so ; and they are going on
with the ease before Dr. Phillimore
Mr. Prideau —Yes.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Jndge Ordinary.)
BAREEi r. BARNES AND CRIMWADE, THE QUEFIVN PROCTOR

INTERVENING.
Dr. Spinks, Q.C., for the petitioner ; the Attorney.
General and Mr. Bunsen for the crown.
In 1%0 the petitioner was • groom in the service of
Captain Brock, at East Burgoe, near Aldershot, and he
had lodged with his wife (whom he had married in Itt:gi) at
the co-respondent's, a baker, in the same place.
The petitioner charged his wife with adultery
with her landlord, and had procured • decree nisi ; but
circumstances had come to the ears of the queen's proctor
which had induced him to interfere in the interests of the
public. Evidence was now given to show that during the
pending of the suit the husband and wife had been on
very good terms ; and that the petitioner had given the
respondent money. It was also shown that previous to
the separation the husband bad allowed great freedom to
Grimy/ode in his conduct towards the respondent.
Dr. Spinka contended that no ease had been made out
for dismiming the petition. As to the gift of money, that
was done every day by the advice of counsel, for it was
well known that the wife had only to file a petition and
she would receive a grant of alimony.
The court was of opinion that the husband had bees
guilty of neglect which had conduced to adultery ; and
while it did not think there had been connivance, it con-
sidered them had been collusion in the prosecution of the
suit. The petition was therefore dismissed, but costs were
not asked for.