The Express.
London, England, 1868-12-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY DOUBT.—Dm 10.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
THE GYMS' DINING COMPANY.
An order for winding up this concern was made last
month, but by inadvertence the order was not duly ad-
vertised in the (leatte.
Mr. Owen now applied on behalf of the petitioner that
the order might be post dated.
His lordship made the order.

COURT OF COMMON PLICAEL-DEC. 10.
Sittings at Nisi Pries is London.--(Before Lord Chief
Justice Bovill and a Special Jury.)
LIDOLIT AND ANOTHIM V. BECIMTAN.
This was an action upon two policies of insurance upon
the ship Charlemagne, on the outward and homeward
voyage to Calcutta. The ship was valued at 20,000!., and
the amount insured was 18,000/.
Sir O. lionyman, Q.C., Mr. W. Williams, and Mr.
Cohen appeared for the plaintiffs; and Sr J. Kerslake,
Mr. Idele-h. QC., and Mr. Matthew for the defendants.
The plaintiffs carried on business under the firm of John
Lidgett and Sons, in Billitersepiare. and they owned the
Charlemagne. This vessel grounded on the 24th October,
ISIS, at the month of the Hooghley, and in consevenee
Retain. ci considerable damage. It was afterwards got off
and taken to the place of discharge and unloaded. On
the 12th November the was placed in the Union dry
slack, for the eurpose of being repaired, and on the ath
December she wee destroyed by tire.
A long diccussion took place this morning between the
lx nch and the bar as to the liabilities of the defendant,
and the lest way of having them a.scertainel. The facts
were of a complicated character, and at length it was
inane. d that a verdict should be formally taken for the
plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the full court upon a
special cat,.
DMiOON r. TUE HONE AND COLONIAL INA:RANCE
00XrANT (UNITED.)
This was an &client* recover the amount of a policy of
insurance for 1.04 W.. effected upon the freight of the ship
Sandringham. The defendants paid 441/. Is. into court,
and denied their liability to any greater extent.
Mr. C. Pollock. Q.C.. and Mr. Cohen appeared for the
plaintiff : and Sr G. Honymtin, Q.C.. and Mr. Matthew
ler the defendants.
The plaintiff was a merchant in Palmerston-buildings,
in the City, and he owned the Sandringham. The cargo
which this vessel obtained coexisted of 12.002 bags of
rice, and there were also placed on board 360 oodles.
Both coolies and rice were to be carried to the
Mauritius; but the vessel ran on to Flat Island, near the
Mauritius, and the rice was lost; but the coolies all swam
ashore, with the exception of twelve, who were drowned.
The freight for the rice was to be 1,412'.. and the
money for the coolies 1,9441., of which latter rua:athe
ge
plaintiff received 1,8791. The question in the came was
whether the insurance applied only to the freight upon
the rice which had been lost, or included within it the
passage money for the coolies, most of which bad been
received.
A verdict was taken formally for the plaintiff, subject
to the opinion the court upon a special case.
HAIMIEON c. THY EAST LNDIAN RAILWAY corresart.
The plaintiff in this case was a merchant at Calcutta,
and be claimed between 20,0004 and 30,000/. damages,
upon the ground that the defendants bad not carried out
their contract to take of him certain boats which they
expected that they would want during the construction of
their line from Calcutta to Anaheim&
In this ease also a verdict was taken for the plaintiff pro
forma, subject to a special case.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Dec. 10.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
(10DRIC11 r. GODRICII, LASH, FORMS, AND ILEIAZT.
This morning Serjeant Ballantine, Serjeant Parry, and
Mr. Edwyn Jones, having addressed the court for the co-
reepondenta Kelsey, Forder, and Lara, Dr. Deane, Q.C.,
replied on behalf of the petitioner.
Sir J. Wilde in eumming up this not very pleasant
case, commented on the numerous topics of prejudice
which bad been introduced in the course of the trial,
and remarked that there was scarcely an olvervation
which had been made as to the one tide that could not
with almost as much propriety be applied to the other.
As to the charge against Mr. Kelsey, the learned judge
expressed his opinion that the evidence failed to support
it. As to Mr. Isis and Mr. Fonder, however, he thought
there was ample evidence, provided that the jury believed
the witnesses. As to the painful countercharge against
the rrepr.ndent's own sister, Sir James pointed out how
treacherous and dangerous was evidence like that of the
wait( r !farmer, or "Archimedes," and also how clear a
discrejancy there was in his story. He also referred to the
ecientittc evidence of Dr. Lee, which was utterly incon-
sistent with Ihrimer's narrative, and after some remarks
on the other me rind' iatory evidence against the petitioner he
procer ded to comment on a letter which had been put
in, observing that either that letter Rai the best possible
evidence aeainst Mr. Oodricb, or else its production as
evidence of adultery was abase and wicked thing on the
part of the respondent. The document contained the fol-
lowing sentence, and he would leave the jury to say
whether that valid refer to an act of the kind suggested:
—" I might plead that ' it' was on account of your
brother having. treated me in a manner that I could not
then endure.

The jury, after deliberating for about half an hour,
found that the respondent had committed adultery with
I.ara and Forder, but not with Kelsey. They also found
that the petitioner bad committed adultery with Mary
Fox, but not with his sister-in-law Fanny Fowler.
The court awarded Mr. Kelsey his cods.