The Express.
London, England, 1857-06-13 00:00:00

♦PPLICATIO\ l'ant_l3:Nl,WAT or AN ATTORNEY'tI

-CEUTI

Sir V. Theeiger applied on behalf of Mr. Emanuel W.
Vette* fora renewal of his certificate to pract ire as UM attorney.
He bad practised fir 29 years in the neighbourhood of
Bristol, but in 1849 he got involved in pieuniary dittieultiee,
and was obliged to avail himself of the Bankruptcy Court.
Hie affairs were there inquired into at conaiderable length,
end the investigation resulted in his being imprisoned by Mr.
COl-11111441i01111. LVA for sixteen months for a breath of treat.
After he obtained his liberty, ho chtered the service of Mr.
Phelps, a reepoctalile solicitor, no managing clerk, and his
conduct bid over since been met exemplary. `the burned
0.11111.C1 then read several idGilivits in support of his appli•
cation, and expressed a hope that the court would think that
Mr. 1, .oht had out!. voi mflieiently G r bin offence, and might
new be permitted to continue his practice as an attorney..
Mr. Berth, part erth, an the pa of the loierporded Law Society,
opposed the appliiiatien. and entered into an recount of seve-
ral diginet breaches of trust of a very *chow nature which
had been proved egainat Mr. Violet in the Bankruptcy
Omit.
Lord Campbell raid it was imporisible in the Lee of tbeee twits
to renew the applicines certificate. The court would be very
much /Awed to extend mercy to hie, but it must likewise
have money for tbu public, and MALIU consideration for the
honourable Moly of attorme4 to whom he wished to be roe
Morel. They meet Balk to the honour of that prat:anion
as well es to the honour of the bar, and ho thought that
an attorney found guilty 41 such fraudulent breaches of
trust miiiht not again to 113V8 an opportunity of deceiving
the pubtio, nail mixing who the honourable members of
the profe-sion which he land tliAgrAcetl.
The other judges expressed the same opinion.
Application refused.
_ _ _

TEL QUEEN (ON THE PIII”ECTTION OE 1060tH srat 0
FIELD) I'. DAItE.—LIIILL.
In thin cur, Mr. Spineleld, • surgeon, tending at
Westurcatmer-Mare, had obtained a rule for a criminal in-
formation against the defendant, who was the publisher of a
newspaper in the same town, for charging him with
unflial
conduct to hie father. The alleged libel was contained in
an article in the newspaper, and stated in substance that the
father came a long way, and in a destitute state, to his sort's
house, and that his sou tefunid to give him any asaistanoe,
and tunic I him fob lit from Lint door penniless.
Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, on the part of Mr. Mare, now con-
tended Unit the prosocutur was disentitled to the interference
of the eourt, in onviequenee of the provocation he had given
the defendant. It amend that in the 9th of May an arti-
cle wee published al the newspoper complimentary to the
inhabitants of the town in having eatablishol what was called
the town band." Mr. Springfield was en advocate for •
German band, and feeling annoyed at this article, be Galled
• placard, in which ho stigmatised the defondont'a journal as
a scurriloua end scandalous publication, and using on Arab
phrase in relit ion to the editor, add, " Cum., like chickens,
generally come Lome to roast." The defendant then wrote
the article compatriot of, in the style of un allegory, depict-
ing tho unnatural swam not of a .11 10 his father. The
Serried enema l now read ollidsvile from cereal parties,
tending to show that the Miaow cos contained in It were
founded on the representations of the father himself.
Mr. Kandake elan showed cause against the rule.
Mr. E. Jame. and Mr. Needham supported the rule.
Lord Campbell said that perhsps no eircunistancee meld
justify the commentary of Mr. Dare, but at the same time
be had toreived touch provocntion from the prosecutor, and
there was fame reason for believing that the representatioun
shout hia lather acre not entirely unfounded. It P •
also, that Mr. Springfield bad dicrivol the court uffehdi
made hi. appliuoion, in not dierlosing that animosity Kid
existed between him and the defendant for a considerable
time, and that he bad given a provocation to the defendant.
Under all the einotinatances, therefore, he was of opinion
that the rule Armlet lodise:terra.
The mat of court being of the same opinion, the rule
as discharged.
This ELI the loot day of Trinity Term.

BAIL COURT.--Jva 12.
(Sittings in Banco.—Deitna Kr. Justioo Wightman.)
THS QUEEN O. TS, ITDISIXDOM AND CROYDON *LILWAT
COHYSSY.-MANDAXTS.

Mr. Maude moved, on behalf of Mr. Runt, for a rule nisi
or a mandamus 0 the Wimbledon and Croydon Railway
Company, commanding them to issue their warrant to the
sheriff of Surrey to summon a jury to wens the damages
sustained by the applicont. It appeared that Mr. Runt
held a house and tsbout 70 acres of land at Mitcham at •
rant of 2301. a year. Included in Lie hose woo A road lead-
ing from his house to Mitcham-vottunon, et the end of which
was a lodge nud a gate. The company wan incorporated in
1861, and to July in that year served • notice to trent. Mr.
llttnt asked 4121. as compensattnn. In October the company
served notices to take from him this land, and he raised his de-
mend to 005/. 12s. Some negotiation took place. In De-
cember, 1554, the company lodged 1601., and entered into a
bead under the provisions of the Land Claims Aet. In May,
1865, they took possession of the loud, which they still held.
Several applic anon. Mel been made to them to summon a
j but they tefinsod to take any steps for that purpose.
Rule niei grouted.
IN THE MATTER Or JANr.s GREEN,
ltraNioleTlON.
In this case an application had been mode nn Thursday
for an order to the judge of the county court of York, calling
on him to show cause why he should net proceed to Lear and
adjudicate en the petition of the insolvent. The judge de-
clined to do se, as he considered he had no jurisdiction on a
creditor's petition..
fits lordship ma be would grant a rule nisi, returnable
at cbambirs ; but if any cause was shown the molter should
be adjourned to this full court.

-IXSOI.VENCT

COURT OF COIDION PLEAS.—Jortz 12.
Outings fin Daneo.—llefore Chief Justice Cockburn, and
Justices Ceessuell, Williams, and Wallas.)

ATKiNd C. rZAIICC.-11USRAND AND Wire.
The pinintiff in this wee is edic man, end he 1214
'tweeted a venliet against fleedefendant for 71. odd, for
medicine and attendances upon three of the defendant's
children. The defence wee that at the time the medicine
and attendances were funiebod, the defendant's wife wee
living in adultery, and the jury toured that during that time
the defendant allowed his wife a flufffeient allowance. A rule
had been granted, purmant to the have of the Secondary who
tried the cense, to enter a verdiet for the defendant, and to-
day cause wee shown against thin rule being made abeelute.
Mr. Iteymond, in showing muse, stated that in 18.52 the
defendant left England for Auetrelii, leaving hie wife in
charge of bit three children in England. In 1A56 the plain-
tiff was called in to attend the defendant's three children, at
which time the defendant's wife was living with a men
mimed French, but who posed by the name of Pearce. The
plaintiff bad no idea that Mts. Pearce was living in adultery,
but the fact was that abe hid had two children by French.
The defendant, when he returned from Ameralie, went to his
wife's house, and having become aware of the misconduct of
bin wife, he took away his children, and had nut cohabited
with his wife since. When the present action woe brought
the defendant offered to give a bill at three months for the
amount of the plaintiff's claim, but the plaintiff would not
accept it, and brought the parent aetron. The learned
connect submitted that a wife was agent for her husband, to
do ell nets neeettary for the management of his family,
aid thin her misconduct would not deprive her of Beth
authority, to fee as these parties were concerned; that the
wife woo ut the position of a Fervent who had been left ea
agent under eimiler eircumstanees.
The Chief Justice was of opinion that the rule to enter a
verdict for the defendant should be inside absolute. It oc-
curred to him that there wee no authority on the part of the
wife to bind her husband in the case. It was clear that she
could net have bound hint in napect of anything etipplied to
herself; for, ereording to all the authorities, adultery de-
prived her of all power to bind hint width awes out of the
I marital relation. But it was ingeniously, put that the was
In this case vested with authority, as agent for her ;idland,
In referents, to his children. If it was put that ohs was agent,
net ea wife, but an a person who had committed to her the
one of the children, there wee this °betide to that view of
the case, thot there ewes a euflicient ellotence, and the
ji authority would be limited to the extent of that allowanct.
• Mule absolute.
the