The Express.
London, England, 1857-11-11 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEF2FB BENCH.

(Stamp liile;o7o.-:ieden fArTi d hellos
Coleridge, and Wigignea.)

M■ {ILIA)! (011 T 7■ Pit;.TCOTIOP or TYi OVIZSMII OP

ainuorirtamortni) v. sioratiant .
.. .

In thee era wire wee ireed =der the provider el ea
net of Parliament pried hist awoke kir the eyries of this
court, Jame Ifiennagir the welled wee convicted by two
justices el Blenennee mar the 6 Clem IV.
clap. f 1.3 as se Mb aril dinenliedy rms. Br met leWnd
his wife, mad irinted w one neirlee Inytimment In the
Durham Roue d Cavielles. TM remilen marred
to the court wise whear the ecnviellan ter riC
in point of law. It emend that
screed to allow his wife a week, but seri=spegr It,
tarry she had become chargeable to tle pare an- di re-
aired a rifling from the overseers by way d reliaL
tleanagan offe to repay the umbra., and to take her
Moe with him, bat eh* cared to go, cm the
gruel of Meow 01.tisagm Upon three facts the junco
Lid that the charge agatost lust bed been proved, end con-
victed hint accordingly.
Mr. Bbr was now heerd in support of the criviction.
Iliz. Jerre Coltrelp obereed that tree sensed to be
an attempt to attract a 'operate 'maintenance from the

Lord &siphon mid the,, did not appear to be any actual
rater! on the part of Plannagsa to support his wife. On
the contrary, be offered to take her home.
Mr. Blies contended that hie promises for the Mum did
notpurge his bad conduct in the past-
LordGmpbeil, in delivering judgment, said this case was
an illustration of the bandleial nature of the recent act
of to:Baum ; because, without it, the court had
no power to noise the decision of junior in
soy summary proceeding _ within their jurisdiction,
and the party conviatad would bars had no right to appeal.
The question now raised was whether Planner& was guilty
of wilfully refusing to maintain his wife. He (Lord Camp-
bell) was clearly of opinion that be had not committed that
offence, and that he had been manfully convicted. A moat
ealuutry art pawed last menu, provided an my mods by
which, on ill-trumeant, a judicial separation, tantamount
to a divorce a menu et therm might be pronounced and the
husband might In compelled to make a
allowance lu the nature of alimony to Cenueritf"a,
and than was a remedy against the husband If be refused to •
pay that allowance. But when this cue mom there was no
ouch enactment, end the Divorce sod Matrimonial
Cause Act would not come Into operation until
en
order in council was Mud by the Crown. Nor
wie there at that time such a thing known ma ajadicial se-
paration, and until a divorce • menu & time had been ob-
=eli the rights and liabilities of the marriage tie re-
In MI force. notwithstanding any cruelty of which
the husband might hare been guilty. Ths magistrates sup-
posed that because the woman had rinionable rounds for
refusing to go home with her husband when ha
caned to take her he was guilty of the offence
of wilfully refusing to maintain her. That ma
wrong In point of law, and howev groom the
cruelty might have been, sad however groom
however much she might be
justified on account of it In not returning home, yet maho
had Mind to restore bar to her conjugal rights the husband

shoal ate lave boa essekted. - ____
The efterjedipe eseeeriag, the oonrietica eras qaeshed.