The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-03 00:00:00

BROWN AND ANOTHER V. ACIEROYD.

Mr. Knowles, Q.C., said this action was tried at the
last York assizes, before Mr. Baron Platt, and was an
action for work and labour done and money paid, to
which the defendant pleaded he was not indebted. The
plaintiffs were proctors at York, and brought this action
to recover of the defendant the amount of their bill in-
curred in taking proceedings against the defendant in
the Ecclesiastical Court at the suit of his wife for a
divorce. The plaintiffs were retained in the early part
of 1854, and instituted the suit to which the defendant
appeared by his proctor. In the course of the proceed-
ings it was agreed the defendant should allow his wife
2001. a year alimony, and paid the plaintiffs' costs up to
November of that year. After that it was found neces-
sary to take from the examinations, and the expenses
sought to be recovered were chiefly made up of costs
attending that examination. The wife died in the Fe-
loruary following, and the defendant having for some
time previous ceased to pay the alimony, said he was not
liable for the costs incurred between November and
February, and bad refused to pay them. The learned
judge who tried the action nonsuited the plaintiffs, on
the ground that they had not shown that the circum-
stances attending the wife's leaving her husband's house
was such as would give her a right to pledge her hus-
band's credit ; and a question arose here whether the
expenses incurred were in point of law necessary, and
the learned judge nonsuited the plaintiffs, with liberty
to move to eater the verdict for the plaintiffs. The
wife being dead he was unable at the trial to produce
such strong evidence of the husband's oruelty as be
could have done had she been alive. He had to fall
back on the best evidence that could be found to prove
the fact, and he had shown by the evidence of a medical
man that the plaintiff the day before his wife left him
threatened to place her in a lunatic asylum because she
would not sign a deed of separation, and by the evi-
dence of the housemaid that he had pushed her out of
the room, and said he should be a happy man if he could
get rid of her. The learned judge who tried the case
remarked on the latter evidence that that was not a suf-
cient cause for the wife to leave her husband, for there
v. ere many families who, no doubt, went on comfortably
where such circumstances might occur. The learned
counsel said he contended that that was a question which
the learned Judge should have left for the decision of
the jury. After some other observations bearing on the

case,

Lord Campbell said the learned counsel might take a
rule. His lordship complained of the members of the
bar not being instructed in motions, that the Court
might proceed with them, and dispose of them, without
interfering with the other business of the Court set
down for certain days, and had, in consequence, to ad-
journ the Court at 12 o'clock.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron, Baron Parke, Baron
Alderson, and Baron Martin.)
COLE V. SHERRARD.

Mr. Lush moved for a rule to set aside a writ with
costs. The writ was one which was served in Jersey,
and, being so served, was out of the jurisdiction. It was
sealed as a concurrent writ, and was dated the 9th of
April ; and it further appeared that it was sued out on
the 16th of June in the present year, and was therefore
dated before the passing of the Common Law Procedure
Act had passed. Under these circumstances the learned
counsel submitted he was entitled to the rut prayed for.
Rule granted.