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

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-JuNE 4.

Siti in Banco in Term.—(Before Lord Chief Justice
Cockbburn.urn,
)and Justices Wiglitman, Crompton, and
Black
QUM( V. OIELUOTAMTO OF !LIZIGHTON.—MAIIRLILGE MTH A

Inn's inert.

This wee an order of quarter sessions for the removal of •
pauper, raising the question whether • man's marriage with
the daughter of the illegitimate sister of his deceased wife
was legal. The justices had made the order on the assump-
tion that the marriage wu valid.
Mr. Metcalfe, with whom was Mr. Poland, wee heard in
support of the order.
The Lord Chief Justice--There are two daughters by the
same mother, one legitimate and the other illegitimate,
and the man marries first the legitimate daughter, and
afterwards the daughter of the illegitimate daughter. The
atiie2!imi, therefore, is whether the second marriage is
71letealfe—The tint question is, whether the prohi-
bited degrees in Leviticus extend to marriage with a de-
ceased wife's sister's daughter ; and the second is whether,
if it does, it also extends to a, wife's sister's daughter the
sister being illegitimate.
The Lord Chief Justice, after some discussion, said it
would be • great public scandal if it west forth for a mo-
ment that where • marriage between persons of legitimate
relations was prohibited as being within the prohibited
degrees the court bad the slightest doubt in holding that
such a marriage was equally prohibited and illegal where
the parties were only related by the natural tie of cousin-
goioity, and not by legitimate relationship.
Mr. Metcalfe' who appeared on the other side, addressed
himself to the other point—namely, whether a marriage
with a deceased wife's moos was within the prohibited
degrees. He contended, up= reference to various authori-
ties, that such marriages were illegal and void.
At the rising of the court the arguments had not con-
cluded, sad they will be mooed on Saturday next.

COURT OF COMMON PLZAIL—Jose 5.

Sittings in Bence—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and
Justices Wasaa, Willie, and Byles.)

ILLIFNIOLKAN O. WHIT, AND OTHERS. —GALS OF HOPS.
The plaintiff wee sa Weenie hop power in Kent, and
the defendants were bap mereluints in London. The action
was to recover 6,380/., thine. of 8,3501., the moiety of the
price of some hops sold to the defendants by the plaintiff in
October Lek leader the following circumstances :—The
tiff and hi dowsed, and the defendants and their factor,
fair samples of the hops, and the defendants
having asked whether any sulphur had been used in the
treatment of the hops claim the powth, was answered—
" There was no occasion for it, as we had no mould this
year." Sulphur was objectionable in this way, that it
spoiled the beer in whir it was used ; and sulphur had
been used in this sense, that the whole of the hops were
grown upon 300 acres, and of these five acres only had
been treated with sulphur, for the purpose of testing some
process, but the produce of the whole 300 acne was mined
together so that the whole b• 011120 tainted. The hops were
dahvered to the defendants, and they kept them without
objection from October until December, when, in noose-
queues of some rumours, their attention was attracted, and
they, after certain inquiries, sought to repudiate the lar-
vae upon the ground that sulphur had been used with the
hope. The trial took place before the Lord Chief Justice
at Maidstone. when the jury found that there was no fraud
on the part of the plaintiff, and a verdict was entered for
the defendants, but the question was reserved for the court
whether there was any breath of warranty which entitled
the defendants to repudiate the bargain. A rule wee th-
ooribegly granted to setae a verdict for the plaintiff, and to-
day this rule came on for argument.
Mr. Bovill, Mr. Hawkins, and Mr. Kay appeared to show
canes, sod Mr. Lush and Mr. Mennen to support the rule.
The wart took tuns to consider the matter.