The Express.
London, England, 1868-12-05 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Ni.i Prins in ldiddlesex.—(Before Lord Chief
Justice Borill and a Special Jury.)

HARRIS r. ISAAC AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiff has been for many years engaged in trade
upon the %e,t Coast of Africa, and for the last seven
years be bas bad business transactions with the defend-
ants, Meurs. Isaac Campbell and Co. In September,
1867. be came to England, and two months afterwards he
was arrested upon a ca. sa., at the suit of the defendants,
for 6,886 g. The affidavit upon which the judge issued the
espial' stated that there was reason to believe that the
plaintiff was about to return to Africa. The present action
was to recover damages upon the ground that the
defendants bad maliciously caused the plaintiff to be
arrested ; the plaintiff's care be lug that he had no pre wnt
intention of returning to Africa.
Mr. D. Keane, Q.C., and Mr. If. Jams appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Cohen for
the defendants. _ _

In the course of the case it appeared that there were
proceedings in the Court of Chancery, in which the
accounts between the parties were to be investigated, and
further that the present case must depend to a great extent
upon the result of the accounts.
Under there circumstances his lordship interposed, and
it was agreed that the whole of the matters in difference
should be referred to the arbitration of Mr. J. J.
Powell, Q.C.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
(ionizes V. OODIUCH, LANA, PONDZIA AND INAIINT.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., Mr. Giffard, QC., and Dr. Swabey
for the petitioner; Serjeent Ballantine, Dr. Spinks, Q.C.,
Mr. Inderwick, and Mr. Youher for the respondent ; Ser-
jeant Parry and Dr. Tristram for Forder; Serjeant Bal.
lantise and Mr. Willis for Kegley ; and Mr. Joyce for
Lars
This remarkable case was resumed this moiling, when
Elizabeth Williams, a charwoman, who had worked for
the parties in May and Jane, 1866, was called to corrobo-
rate the evidence already given respecting the visits of the
corespondents to Mrs. Godrich. This witness spoke to a
positive act of adultery with Forder. Afterwards told her
that she was a disgrace to her "sect," and that her hus-
band would not allow her to work for her again. Went
the next day to the house, but did not do any work. Had
verr often seen her tipsy.
trees-examined—Had never been charged by the res-
pondent with takilg things out of the house.
Eliza Stephens, another servant, said that she had been
in the respondent's servi te sixteen days. On one OCCas
s.on her mistress charged her with a too great intimacy
with the doctor; but she afterwards asked her to loot
over her conduct. Witness agreed to do so. but one
evening she came Lome, slapped witness's face, spat on
her, and tore her dress off her back. The police came in,
and recommended witness to go to bed. Told them tended
their own business. (Laughter.) Summoned Mrs. Go-
drich for the as,ault, and the char.'s, was compromised by
the payment of W., which was brought witness by her
maeter's brother.
Crean-examined—The police thought that witness was
drunk, too, but they were quite wrong. (Laughter.)
After come further evidence,
Serjeent Ballantine addresee the jury for his respec-
tive clients, remarking that he had been instructed by
two different solicitors. Severely criticising the conduct
of Mr. Godrich, sea., he suggested that that gentleman
would not have given such reckless evidence respecting
his son's character if he had any idea that his daughter-
in-law had possession of his own letters. It was, how-
ever, pretty obvious that the petitioner was a very
worthless fellow, and that if his wife had gone wrong
he had nu one to thank for it but himself.
Utterly miserable, the respondent had at last loft her
home, audited commenced a suit against him for a divorce
on the grounds of adultery and cruelty, and it was
not until six mouths afterwards that the present
petition had been filed. It was clear that the
respondent was a person of a very unpleasant
temper, and that when her husband came home drunk
she bad very likely expre-sed her opinion in by no meant
that gentle manner in which the jury would agree she
ought to have done. (A laugh.) It was also clear that
she was an uncomfortable mistress to live with;
and all the witnesses that had b ren called
against her were servants who admitted that they had
quitted her service hating her with all their hrti and
souls. But was their evidence eatiafacto.7 or probable
On this point the learned gentleman dwelt at some len,;;
and submitted. in conclusion, that it was not crediiile.
As to Mr. Kelsey, who was now Mayor of Win-
chester, and was about us respectable a man
as any in England, there was absolutely no case what-
ever. Mr. Kelsey had, in fact, been yeti hardly used.
Ile had been charged with having paid visits on Sundays
and Mondays; whereas he should be perfectly able
to account for all the former days during the
period laid in the petition. As to the, recnimivatory
charges, and especially that which Dr. Deane ha 1 eo
indignantly commented upon, he was afraid that he
should be aide to prove it by the most conclusive evidence.
The learned gentleman read of letter from the petitioner
to bin wife, praying her orgiveness for what he
termed to
a fatal occurrence," and admitting that
he had wronged her to such an extent that
to expect Ler entirely to obliterate it from her mind
be a a sure would be an absurdity. It was signed " your

...