The Express.
London, England, 1861-04-20 00:00:00

COURT OF RBOREQUIR.—Arsn. 19.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lcmil Chief Baron Pollock,
and Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Wilde.)
QUUN V. FRILIANDIB.—THE WAIEVULD ILIC7IOII.
Mr. Bovill, Mr Price, and Mr. T. Xmas appeared as counsel
on behalf of the defendant ; Mr. Edward James, Mr. Moak,
and Mr. Clemby watched the cam oa behalf of the crown.
Mr. Borill moved for • writ of habeas aortae tobringup the
body of Jape Luis Fernandes, Ins., of Wakefield, now •
pdsamir la the Cud. of York, under the following Mr-

It appeared that es the 12th of November, 1859, the de-
/Mast was examised by the commissioners appointed
to inquire into certain corrupt at the ela-
tion' which took place for thepraction borough of Willes-
den es the 30th of April preceding. The &deadest
in 10ce majesties admitted that he had previously to the
elective mooched bees Jahn Bard Charlasworth a sum of
mousy to be sapand I. bribery and that be had so ex-
panded it, and he received from the commissioners a certs -
Me to that effect. On the 22nd of May, 1860, an informs-
ties was tiled by the Attorney-General against Mr. Charles-
worth for bribery, and it came on for trial on the 18th of
Muth, 1861, at the York Assizes, before Mr. Justice Hill,
when the defendant was called by the Solicitor-Gsseral as a
Meer on behalf of the prosecution. On his aka asked if
he bad received the money to be expended is bribery, the
defendant refused to answer the question, or the ground
that be would criminate himself, sad his answer
would be admissible in evidence agaiMst him if
be should be impeached by the House of Commons,
and also that he was protected by the commissioners' certifi-
cate. The learned judge, however, informed the defendant
that he was bound to answer the question, and on his per-
sisting in la Waal adjudged himl= of contempt of
court, and senteseed him to be lin for six calendar
sainzaeand to pay a fine to her May of 5001. He was ac-
• y taken into custody and tam to York Castle on
the 'a warrant which est forth the fate. The learned
counsel now submitted, first that the judge's mama was
bed inasmuch as it did not show that the wittiest was bound
to answer the question, and @madly, that according to the
eoestruction of the Corrupt Practices Act, the witness was
sot protected from an impeachment by the HOMO of Com-
mons, and was therefore not bound to answer.

During the argument,
The Lord Chief Baron referred to the general impression
that there was no authority. for the execution of a criminal
except the sentence of the judge.
Mr. Baron Martin—l believe that no sheriff in England
would execute a criminal, unless he had the calendar signed
by the'
The Lord Chief Baron—The only legal authority is the
seatenee, which, because the sheriff is always supposed to
be is emit, he is bound to hear. In former days executions
took place before the wises were over.
Mr. Baron Martin—At the Old Bailey, the pleasure of
the Sovereign used to be taken, but at the commencement of
the Queen's reign her Majesty was relieved from that.
The Lord Chief flace—Tbe Chancellor, the Chief Justine
el the Queen's Bench, and the Sovereign assembled, and the
whole of the evidence wee reed over before the Sovereign,
but there was no warrant.

Mr. Bovill, in conclusion, submitted that the warrant was
bad, and that the writ of habeas corpus should be issued in
order that the matter might be solemnly dimmed.
The Lord Chief Harty—We are not prepared now to
deal with an argument evincing so much ability and re.
search, and we must take time before we deliver the edema,
and I trust, the unanimous judgment of the court. The
delay will be no prejudice to your client, Mr. Bovill, because
It nk that if we• deliver jedgineet now it w3cdd be to
refuse tbs vele. We will therefore take tints to eonekler.
The judgment wen accordingly reserved.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
APRIL 19.
(Before tho Judge Ordinary.)
HARRIS V. HARRIS AHD HIDOLIT.
The petitioner, Mr. Thomas Philippe Hank, of Great
Reiman-street, optician, wed for • divorce from his wife o
account of her adultery with the oo.rsepsodeot, who was
formerly a clerk at Mawr. Lewis and Allenby's, No. 195,
ftegentetreet.
Dr, phantom, 9,C., and Dr. 8008 appeared for the,
petitioner ; Dr. Tnstram and Mr. Butler Rigby for the
respondent and Mr. West for the co-reapondent.
TM manage of the petitioner with the respondent, Miss
Ann Theresa :Smart, took place on the 16th of November,
1843, at Trinity church, Gray's-inn-road. There had been
so lime. It, was alleged that the partite lived happey
together tnt 1857, when the respondent formed sa
acquaintance with Mickley at Scarborough. Thiaafterwac*
into en adulterous iatimaey, and evidence was
, to show that the turaadeat wva la the hebil el