The Express.
London, England, 1861-04-18 00:00:00

LAM INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before Vioe-Chaneellor Sir James Stuart)
ram inegnOn OP AUSTIIA P. DAT.
Sir Hugh Cairns, 9.0. (with him Mr. Cotton), this
morning commenced 1218 wicker to the eoart for the Ai-
peror of Austria in this ease. He submitted that with re.
sped to Mums. DAy their OW depended cm the case of
Louis Kern*. If 'Louis lomoth succeeded they must
succeed; if Lossittk felled, they failed. With regard to
Mmes. Day he mast bean his testimony to the sttaightferward
manner in which they bed acted throughout. They were
highly respectable I/Waimea, and had given all the assist-
anoe in their power to the plaintiff which. in (notice to
Louis Kossuth, they could, and had not attempted to con.
teal anything. He submitted that this court could not
enter into the consideration of who was the actual sore.
reign of any foreign country, but that the court could only
reocignies that sovereign who was diplomatically recognised
by her Majesty's government, and in the present awe the
plaintiff was prepared to prove by treaties, up to a rry
recent date, that the Emperor of Austria was recognised
as the King of Hungary. It had bens contented on „
the other aide that foreign sowereigne could not so, in thia
country in respect of a prerogative right or in respect of
any other right than one of personal private property
That, however, was not the law, but a foreign sovereign
might sue in respect of such right. There was in every
state a jug lantana. (a right of coining), of which he was
endowed by the law of nations ; this was a monopoly, end
therefore a right of property. The contention of the de.
(estimate was that the bill contained untrue statement', but
such was not the fact, end he was prepared to support all
the statement& in the bill. The infringement of a monopoly
waste and no more likely method of promoting revoln.
tines could be conceived than the 17 tone of notes which had
been prepared by. Louis Koseuth, and the court would not
wait until the injury had been done before it interfered. It
was a case in which the defendanta bad failed, and he inked
the court to maintain the isjwietion.
Mr. Cotton followed a the same side.

At the conclusion of their_ arguments,
The Vice-Cbaooeflor said that he understood interroga-
tories had been filed to which the defendants had obteined
time to answer, and be thought it was • litigious .9
course. He bad semi advertisements in the papers fax
subscriptions towards the expenses of this OW% bet
he would not ham the time of the court void ,
in spending money mind by subscription for ilhe
purpose ; and before Yr. Collier replied he triad
to know whether it was desired by the plaintiff that a•.
ewers should be put in to the interrogatories. and awakes
he suggested that the plaintiff should give notice for • de-
wee, so as to make this, so far as this court was concerned.
• final hearing.
Sir Hugh Cairns, for the plaintiff, said they were satisfied
with the defendants' affidavits, and were willing to CODCW
in such an arrangemeet.
In order to enable the defendants to consider the Vim.
Chancellor's saggestioe, the ass wan ordered to steed over
till &turd*, for Wm &Arkin? reply ea that clay • the
dplaintiffs, in the meantime, to serve notice of motion for •
eem.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., Mr. Giffard, Q.C., Mr. C. T. Simpson,
Mr. Too:theist Smith. and Mr. Westlake appeared for the
defendant Louis Eosenth ; and Mr. Bacon, Q.C., and Mr.
Wickens for the defendants Mews. Day.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. -
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
LATOUR V. LATOUR AND RISTON:
Oenceal 'steer, the petitioner, married t►e respondent is
September. 1885, and bed hese by her one daegbter, who
was born in June, 1832. Soon after that time the
parties went to Boulogne, where the general was
imprisoned for debt ; and whilst in gaol be be.
nee acquainted with the 00-respondent, a fellow. •
prisoner. Weston having obtained his discharge,
took advantage of the busbascre being still in confinement
to elope with the reepoodeut. The petitioner dizeote& his
attoreey,• Xr. Poole, to oommenee a suit for crime. atm, and
in Trinity term, 1834, be obtained a verdict • for 1,500 f.
against the co-respondent. Waton was taken in execution
and again imprisoned, but he ultimately paid the money to
Poole, who absconded with it. In June, 1838, Gleased
Latour also obtained a divorce t mama et *aro.

Mr. Chitty, for the petitioner, reed a weber of affidarite
le proof of theme fedi, and
The Court &eared the marriage.
VEICOUITTIBB FORTH V. VIIICOOFT FORTH (THE QUIXVII
PROMOS LITICIVIORNG.)

Mr. Macaulay, Q. 0., sad Mr. Markham appeared for the
petitioner; Mr. asejean* Pigott and Dr. Spine; for the
Queen's proctor. Lord Feeth did not appear.
This was a petition for a dissolutioa on the ground of
erseity and adultery ; and the Queen's proctor (having
iniewened wit► the leave of the court) pleaded that the
ink had been conducted in collusion with the reepoodent„
and that since the Ming of the petition Lady Forth had
proceeded to and from America, and had subsequetly
cohabited with a gentleman other than the viscount but;
wham name was unknown. Thee allegations were denied
by the petitioner.

Yr. Marafahry begged to draw the attention of the court
to the dated the pleadings. He submitted that under
the 9th realm of the ace of last aseiloo, the Queen's proctor
ought sot to have pleaded more than the allegation of
collueiou.

Sir C. Croswell—Then you amid have demurred to the
piss. As the respondent has Unversed the Queen's prat.
tor's alteptions. I shall try them. Though it may not be
quite a strict used the term, there could hew doubt that
it a husband has a right to recriminate and does not choose
to do so, it is really collusion.

Mr. Macaulay wished to draw attention to the oppressive
conduct of the public °Meer who had intervened ; for be
(the Queen's proctor) did sot pretend testy that the alleged
misoooduct el Lady Forth was known to her husband.

fair C. Croswell did not see how that mattered. If Lord
Forth knew, then it was collusion. If he did not, he (the
leareed judge) had a strong opinion that a lady who coin.
mitred adultery had no right to a dissolution of her mar-
riage on account of say misconduct ou the part of her
husband.
Mr. Macaulay—trader these circumstances we abandon

the charge of adultery, and go only for a judicial ceparatiou,
on the ground of cruelty. Ho then called the following
evidence:

Mrs. Charlotte Mary Card, mother of the petitioner
daughter was married oo the Roth of October, 1855, at
U. Peter's Church, Pimlico, to Viscount Forth, sou of the
Earl of Perth. .

iii..ae7jZat Pigott then proposed to most-examine the
epitome.

Mr. Macauley objected to the learned serjeant's further
interference, the prayer fora dissolution hawing been &bale
doped._

The Judge ruled that the Queen's proctor had a right to
make out his case. _ .

Mr. Macaulay also applied for leave to amend the prayer
of the petition.
The Judge said he could not allow it to be done after the
intervention of the Queen's proctor.
Witness (erees-examined)—li, Octolwr last my daughter
resided at No. 70, Park•treet, Grosvenorlquare.I
don't remember whether it was at a Mrs. Clarke a. I treat
with her to take the lodgings. I can't remember whether
my daughter said that they were for Mr. and Mrs. Derive.
I (sabot say whether they were asked for for a lady Awl
gentleman. To the best of my recollection I cannot
whether I specified whom they were for. Cannot say
whether my daughter stated that they were for a lady sad
gentleman, and a man servant. Forget whether Mr&
Clarks Raged her for her name. I hare a very led memory
and will het answer what I do not remember. She did
not call herself Lady Forth. I can only say I forget. a
that is true. I was not called Mrs. Edwards. I doe% re-
member if I was. My daughter took the kelgings, 001
freqoantly visited her there. She stayed there ten weeks,
with her child. Saw a gentleman there sometimes.
Mr. fietjeant Pigott—Who wu he?
Witness—l decline to telL

111;1.dgeji;;;;;W--
Witoess—Must I? It wits Mr. Dering. Be took his
meals there sometimes. I have sometimes left him there
when I went away at nine o'clock. I may have gone then
at breakfast time. She breakfasted at one o'clock a
the day. Have seen Mr. Dewing breakfasting with her.
The bedroom was not on the same door as the sitting-room.
Have not seen Mr. Dering coming downstairs.
The Judge—Dn you know from your daughter that be
was living with her as her busbeod?
Witness—Well, I should say so, but I cannot tell.
They went from there to Mrs. Farell's, 52, South
Andley-street, Gromenor.square. They lived them •
very short time, end I did not visit her after I
knew from my daughter that she had been to America with
Mr. Dering. That was the beiinuing of it. They welt
there without m knowledge. It was in the spring of Vol
My daughter is living with me at Hampstead. Mr. Denali
is not living with her there, but he has visited her.
se-examined—Lord Forth lived with me and in 7
daughter, after a visit to from the time of hw
marriage till he took himself off. I have another dsughta
who Is married, end three sone, one of whom is in halm
Till Lady Forth went to America she lived with we.
Her father and I were ooastantiv watching over her sU
the time, and I fluky se that till then her cooduct wee
most unimpeachable. Mr. being was introduced toter
a visitor at Dieppe ; and we had known him mum room
before he went away with my daughter. I can pledge mr
oath that till then there had lama sit impropriety of taw
duet between them.
Irlesomatess Forth—l ceased to live with my b..
baud about the and of lANS. At fret we w°4
to Brersolo ; and on our return I visited 01
father at Maidetime. After that we paid • visit of ~.tr
months to Mr. Obarisahonae, a friend of Lonl ?colt
Atter that we tech up our abode at ney father's. Ire"