The Express.
London, England, 1861-07-02 00:00:00

COURT OF EXOHKQUICIL-JULY 1.

flattop at Nisi Priuss.r—iteiere Mr. Baron Martin and
Juries.)
SALMON O. 111 Z LONDON AID NORTH WINTERS RAILWAY
COMPANY—ACCIDENT.
Mr. Powell, Mr. Henry Jam., and Mr. Patchett were
eseuoael for the plaintiff ; Mr. Bova Mr. Denman, and
Mr. Phipeon represented the defendant.
Thu wee an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Barnett
Ilishoon, a dealer in cigars, to recover damagee for injuries
enstained by reason of the negligence of the defendants' sar.
vents. The company did not deny the negligence, and the
only question was as to the amount of damages to whieh
the plaintiff was entitled. It appeared that on the 18th of
January last the plaintiff was a passenger on the defend-
ants' line between the Huston and Camden `Stations, when
the accident took place. The plaintiff was seriously in-
jured, and had bean unable to attend to buainess. He
estimated his profits on the side of cigars on commission at
1001., lost by being unable to perform two journeys, while
his profits from the sale of cigars on his own account had
been, from 1860 to 1861, 4871. 6s. 10d. He had paid in
'medical charges about 75/., had had to employ a nurse for
three months, and remained at hotels at Brighton and
Portsmouth for a fortnight.
Medical evidence having been adduced on both sides,
The jury found for the plaintiff ; damages, 3001.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JULY 1.
(Wore do hides Ordinary.)
HARM IA DAMS AID PAUL.
(Concluded from yeetuday's ass.)
Sir C. Creswell, in summing op, observed that the caws
was ems al the most singular that had ever °owe Wore
the jury, after deliberating for nearly an hour, found
that NM Barris had not buss guilty of adultery with the
sorespostlent, or al cruelty towards the petitioner. They
frond. moreover. that the ;maim ad s? had committed d-
tory with Wright, and that the respondent had not eon-
amid the cisme&

CLAZIM V. CLAIM& MID WINDOW.
The Mr. Josiah Latimer Clarke, married the
t, than: Margaret Helen Preece, in Leedom, on the
of September, 1864, aid had had two children by her.
He was a idyll engineer ; aid the co-rcepondent, a friend of
hie, yea of the same prefeniem tin behalf of the bulkhead
it was matesded that the wake had been a pettedly
happy 400 until the rammailsat had become intimate with
'Madre. Towards Mae aid of Magnet, MO, Mrs.
Clarke went to Hailfge ter the geed ef her health ;
land she wrote hem Hienee two batten to the petitioner,

thanking him for the outward kindness which he had
shown to her, and admitting that it had always been his
wish to make her happy, but stating that from the first he
had never been capable of any real sympathy with hes.
She added that she bad so great • dislike for her home that
she had made an engagement with a family to go out to
Australia. The petitioner then instituted an inquiry as to
her conduct, and found that she had cohabited for two or
three days, at the Hyds-park Hotel, Oxfonletreet, with the
co-respondent, who had since left the country and gone to
Rio de Janeiro. The respondent pleaded • denial of the
charge, and also condonation. This latter allegation was
founded upon a visit which she hail paid, uninvited, to her
husband on the 18th of April last, when she had spent an
hour alone with him. After that be had taken her
up to see the children in their nursery, and had finally sent
his servant with her to her mother's.
Dr. Spinlus and Mr. Searle appeared for the petitioner;
Dr. Pliillimore, Q.C., for the respondent.
The jury found the issues for the husband, and the Court
made • decree nisi.