The Express.
London, England, 1861-06-24 00:00:00

XPRESS, MON DAY EV FIS I NG, JUNE 24, 1,351.

Rah) lintekligcnct.
METROPOLITAN COUNTY COURT.
iiittiag days appointed for the prebuilt week.
Wraymnisrut, At. Tuesda3, Juue IS, Wed-
nesday,
thoothetair, Portland.road.—Wednesday, June 98 Thursday,
: Friday, re.
Minnie:Pm Ilarylebone.road.—Thursday, June rt ►'rl-
day, se.
Bannrrna, Whlt.•head's ;move —Thursday, June '27
—Tuenln). June 21.
Otiß[Rllwiu L, Dunc.hinterrace.—Tuesday, Juue 'LS. Wednes-
day, w:.
_ .

itiiimuumen,iidatreet.miul.—Tneaday, June 25. Thursday, !7.
ROW. Faliteld.road.-51,usay, June 24 . Friday. M.
W mmuLPl2l., Great Prescott-west.—Tuesday, J tine 25 • nun-
day. 27 . Friday, 2u.
Mit111112•1111„ B.2a4treet, Borough Tuesday, June 25 .
Thursday, 27 . Friday, M.
LAMM:2II, Camberwell New.road.—Tuesday. June 25,
Kuuttestreet.—Thunula), June 27.
CITT or LuSIDON, luuldimp.—Tuesday, June 25 ;
Friday.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.--Jinca 22.

Bittinp in Banco after Term.—(Balare Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn, and Justices Wig Mann and Blackburn.)

QUEEN V. CHARLEYWORTII.-WAIMIELD ELECTION.
Thia was a prosecution for bribery at the Wakefield elec-
tion, in which thu judge Lad discharged the jury iu conse-
quence of the Solicitor-General stating that, owing to the
refund of a witness named Ferniuides to answer the qua.
tions put to him, he was unable to make out the ease for the
crown. (In the part of the defence it was contended that,
under these circumstances, the judge had no power to dis-
charge the jury, but ought to hale directed a verdict of
acquittal to lie entered ; and that therefore the defendant
could not be tried a locoed time on the same chirp. Ac•
cording to a previous arrangement the point now came on
for argument.
The Solicitor.Coueral, Mr. Overend, Mr. Cleasby, and
Mr. Welaby were beard on the part of the crown. The
counsel on the other side we:o Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Bova!, Mr.
Mellish, and Mr. Mauls.
Sir F. Kelly was addressing the court on behalf of the
defendant when the court rose.

The arguments will be resumed on Monday morning.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Jens Z.Z.
Maim the Judge Ordinary.)
MOO, V,.:10111100P.—IIII WlLtell PROCTOR INTERVEITri

-
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Lopes appeared for the
petitioner; Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Keene for the
reepondest ; Mr. Serjaant Pigott and Pr. Spiuka for the
Queues Procter..
This writhe petition of Mrs. Maria Lacy Jimmy for a
dia.oluties et her marriage an the ground of her husband's
enmity, adultery, and desertion. She was married on the
7th of &Somber, 1544, at St. George's, Hanoversqmire,
being at dot time Mims Coplend, • young lady about 17
hran of age, and of considerable personal attractions. The
usband was just of age, and was Mr. John Thomas Jess pop,
of Mount Jessup, county Loogford, Inland, a gentleman
possessed of property estimated at 3,0001 • year. He
settled upon her • sum of 100/. • year as pimmoney, with •
jointure of 5001. a year. The lady's fortune, which con-
sisted of 8,3321., was also tied upon her, and she had
thus • separate become of 3441. a year. From the
tint the union proved • singularly unhappy one. The te-
spoodent became addicted to drinking, gambling and dissi-
pation ; and in • very short time be ran completely through
his property. He treated his wife with the grossest
neglect; lie kept late hours; he left her by herself at
heals ; he surrounded her by his male friends, whom he
said he would not desert for the sake of his wife's respects.
bility. On one occasion when she wee dossing for dinner,
he went into her room and told her attendant to make her
look her best, fora young gentleman with plenty of money
wan caning, and be hoped to make a good thing of it.
Evidence of abusive language and violent conduct was
given ; and it was proved that three weeks after marriage
he slapped the petitioner's face. He had also thrown things
at her two or three times, but it was not shown that she
had been at all injured by than. This was the evidence of
cruelty. In October, 1547, he left her one night at Mount
Jessop, stating that he wae coming back in the morning;
but he raver returned ; end an execution was
immediately put in under which everything was
sold up. She then went to her mother, no.
• widow, and had lived with her ever since. She had
had so hildren. After the respondent had left her, be
sloped with • young girl (roma boarding-house at Boulogne,
▪ ample evidence was given to show that he had cohab-
ited with her, and had had a family by her. The respondent
denied all the pleas of the wife, bat called no evidence.
The pound upon which the Queen's Proctor had inter-
vened was that the suit lad been commenced and conducted
in collusion between the parties. The facts upon which
this allegation was based wen as folic's. Afilleitlioing his
wife the respondent fell into abject penury, and he wrote
to her imploring her to afford him some sesistance. She
accordingly directed her solicitor, Mr. Tylry, to hand over
to him half her pimmooey. last year she amsetdied Mr. Tyley
on the subject of obtaining a di ,voree • and Mr. Tyley intro-
duced her to his proctor, Mr. Brooks, of Doeten'dommoes.
She then told Mr. Brooks that if she procured the divorce
ehe should think it right to give up the remainder of her
pin-money.
Mr. iisejeant Pigott, after albumen had pew
addressed the jury fur the crown. He adnub"Z
that Mrs. Jessop had been grossly ill treated, and
that though Kr. Jearop might wear the human form he
wee hardly entitled to be called • man. Still the jury mad
net let their feeling' run away with their judgment. The
legislature in its wisdom had directed a public officer to
take care that there should be nosham suits.-that was suits
where the parties pretended to contest the issues they
relied, but where in reality they were acting in collusion
to obtain divorces which ought not to be granted. In the
present case it had been clearly proved that there had been
a bargain between the petitioner and the respoodent, the
petitioner agreeing to give up to the respondent 501. a year
if she obtained • divorce. The obtaining of • divorce was
thus made a condition precedent to surrendering the re-
maisder of the pin-money ; and coosideriog the state in
which the respondent was living there wee no doubt that
it bad been • very tempting order. Aocordingly, thoh
teas of deM al had been placed on the record by Mr.
be=;and though counsel bad been instructed on his
hie learned friends had not made the slightest effort
to shake the dewier evidence which had been given of
cruelty or desertion He submitted, therefore, that the
jury ought to and the issue of collusion in favour of the
grown.

--Dr. Phillium* denounced in the strongest terms the
madelome abuse of the act of parliament which it would be
to interfere ones& a flimsy pretext in a just and righteous
cause as this was admitted to be, augmenting the cost of the
suit and injuring the character of the petitioner. All that
this unfortuarde lady had done wee simply to my that eh*
would out ceatinue to receive the 50i. which she derived
from her husband's property after she had ceased to be his
wife. Her conduct had really been marked with the
utmost propriety, and he trusted that the jury would by its
verdict declare that the intervention of the Queen's Proctor
had not beta justified.
Mr. O'Malley also protested against the course which the
Queen's Proctor had taken in usterveunig, and which hie
learned friend hod adopted, in blaming him for not erase-
examining the witnesses. Fallen, and wretched. mid
degraded as his client was, he would not add to his mimeo-
duct the additional wrong of suggesting that what a high-
minded and honourable woman had sworn to be true was
false or perjured testimony.
The jury. after • few moments' deliberation, found •
verdict fur the petitioner, ou the pounds of desertion and
adultery ; and negatived also the plea of collusion.
Sir C. Cromwell thereupon made a decree nisi.
Dr. Thillimare, Q.C., asked whether the court did not
think thin was a ass for costs as against the Queen's
Proctor.

- Sir o: Cromwell—l think not. The course taken by the
petitioner was a very imprudent 006.
Tho probate mom el " Burrow v. Barrow " is postponed
till Thursday.

Mr. Wootner—Who introduced you
Witaess—A lady.
Mr. Winitusr—Whai was the lady's name
Mr. Lewis objected to the name of a third party being
beought in.
Mr. Woetner—We have got out already that he was not
such an old friend of the family as Mr. Lewis would have us
think.
Mr. Corrie—lt is one of the unfortunate results of a too
highly-coloured statement. But is it worth while going into
all this! It would be no justificatioe for an assault if you
weie to show what you allege.
Mr. Wootner—We do not deny the assault. Mr. M'Gregor
heard for the first time on Friday—io court—of the intimacy
of this old man with his wife, so that the suit having gone
on for a year has nothing to do with it. Having only heard
on Friday that the complainant had seduced his wife while
he was abroad, he certainly did go and chastise him. But
if the Me is to go ou, and if it must go to the sesaioea, we
may as well have the facts out. We should be delighted
to Sad that we had been misinformed.
Mr. Lewis said it was perhaps best for Sir Raymond
Jarvis's own vindication that it should be allowed to pro-
ceed.

The cross-examination of Sir R. Jarvis was continued by
Mr. Wooter--I don't recolle.S at the moment what was the
name of the lady who introduced me to the Poolee. I
bare seen Mrs. M•Gregor at Suffolk.street. She stayed
there a week. I have made her presents, and so I have to
all her family.
Mr. Wontner—Did you travel with her at all!
Sir R. Jarvis—Yee. From Teigemouth to London and
Lock. She was placed in my charge by her mother Ana
family.
Mr. Wontner—She was pat in your charge, and you took
her to your lodgings
Witnem—She had apartments in the same house in which
my lodgings are.
Mr. Wontner—You know a woman named Baker, a
servant?

Witneaa (with an air of aatonisattoent)—Baker? a servant ?
I don't know her.

Re-examined by Mr. Lewis—l was on terms of intimacy
with the family at the time we were at Teignmouth. I
was passing the winter there. I knew Mies Poole or rather
Mrs. Nrilregor was married. I was introduced to her as a
married lady. Her mother *eked me to bring her to Lon-
don to her uncle, which I did ; bat es he would not allow
her to remain, ;Lad it was necessary for her to have medical
advice, it occurred to me immediately that as the drawing.
rooms in Suffolk-street were vacant it would be beat
to take bar there. I gave her ia charge of the person who
keeps the house, a most respectable woman. Mrs. M'Cregor
went from Suffolk-street to her husband's relations, and
then to Australia. I have given presents to all the family,
and received presents from them. This snuff-box (holding
up an elegant silver box) was given to me by her father.
We made such presents to each other as friends ordinarily
do. I gave Mrs. M'Oregor such things as would be useful
to her on her journey. There are no rounds whatever
for imputing to me any improper intimacy with Mrs.
WOregor.
Mr. Wontner, holding up a broken piece of a very light
thin walking-cane, asked Sir R. Jarvis if that was what de-
fendant struck him with?
Sir R. Jarvis—l don't know whether it was a stick or a
whip but I am told that was it.
Nt illiam Haines, porter at the Union Club, Trafalgar-
square, said that ou Friday evening defendant called there,
and inquired for " • pinion named Jarvis." Witness sent for
Sir Raymond Jarvis, and presently saw him io the hall, and
beard the " slapping" of a stick. Saw the cane broken in
defendant's hand, and Sir R. Jarvis lying on the ground.
The stick was not broken when defendant came in. Heard
tte blows with the stick three or four times in quick succes-
sion. and saw " Mr. Jarvis" fall. Heard defendant call Sir
R. Jervis name.
Newman, A 115, the officer who ann•-' -
predated the portion ~r-• '
it free, .1-- •

Newman, A 115, the officer who apprehended the prisoner,
?roduced the portion of stick already mentioned. He took
I. from the defendant, who acknowledged the assault, and
Wang willingly to the station.
Mr. Wouther submitted that it wu within the power of
the magistrate's authority to do ample justice in this case.
Mr. Cowie said, if the parties could agree to that course
he might do so, but otherwise ho could not dispose of the
case himself.

Mr. Woniner—No ;we can't make that concession. It
is DOW as plain as daylight what this
_person's conduct has
been ; there is no disguise about it. We make no apologr.
Mr. Conk— That would be the only condition on which
the cse could have ended here. I must commit the de-
fendant for trial

Mr. M'Grezor wee bound over in his own recognisance
for 1001., end two sureties of MC, to appear at the sessions.