The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-03 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 3, 1863.

NAVAL AND MILITARY.

ADMIRALTY JAN. 31. --APPOINTMENTS.—COIn-
Menders T. MN:rd, to the Wellesley, for service in the
Active ; and E. Field, to the Trincrenalte, vice Heard, ap-
printed to the Active.
Lieutenant J. 1). Butler, to the Bustard.
Masters J. Kiddie, to be additional to the Fueisrd, for sec.
vice in the Royal Oak ; sod J. J. Hall, additional to
the Fugard, for transport duties at Deptford.

WOOLWICH, FIB. 2.

ROYAL ABTILLZRY.—The following reinorals of
officers have just takes place in this regiment, viz. :—Captain
Carey, from Woolwich to Corfu ; Second Captain de
Noleyns, from Dover to Woolwich ; Second Captain Luis,
from Ireland to Woolwich ; Lieutenant A. J. Saunders,
from Ireland to Woolwich. Captain de Mokpo and
Captain Tupper bare been nppointed gunnery instructors
the former to the 7th and the latter to the tad Brigade.
MANUFAGTURIL or ARMSTRONG Gone. —A report
of the select committee relative to the manufacture of riled
ordnance has just been printed, from which it appeals that
the acieninittee recommend that in future all the ordnance
used in the British service shall be manufactured at Wool-
wich Arsenal ; and that the Muriel branch factory for
Armstrong guns be discontinued. Should this report be
carried out a very large Dumber of extra artisans will be
ilt7ais the rifled gun factories of the Royal Arwood.
ti MILITARY ACADENT.—The gentleman cadent at
this institution recommenced their studies this day after the
Christmas vacation. The 2D cadets just admitted by the
lut competitive examisation will form the second division
of the filth claim lu consequence of the few vacancies for
commissions in the Royal Artillery or Royal Enemas at
present existing, the total number of cadets are reduced to
292, wbo:are thus classified : Lower barracks —Firstolaa, first
division, 24 : second division, 19. Upper barracks—Second
class, first division, 23 ; second division, 25. Third clams,
flref division, 30; second division, 30. Fourth class, first
division, 30 ; second division, 30. Fifth class, first division,
19; second division, 20.

Itab3 Intellignue.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—na. 2.

I After Term Sittings at Nisi Priori at Westminster.—
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said a Special
Jury.)
CLAIM v. FHB QIMIEN.—MTITION OF RIGHT.
This was a petition of right. The suppliant had peti-
tioned, under Mr. Bovill's act, for the alleged inkier*•
ment of a patent by the Lords of the Admiralty, in the
oonstructioo of the Black Prince, the Warrior, Agincourt,
Northumberland, Lc. and for work and labour done. The
petition bad been iiiidorsed, " Let right be done, Vic-
toria R.," and the case came on for trial this morning. The
proceedings appeared to excite great interest among iron
shipbuilders Sir C. Fox, Mr. Scott Burwell, Mr. Sarongs, and
• number of eminent scientific men, were present. The peti-
tioner stated that be was the first true inventor of oar-
' taro machinery of • new manufactere la the riosetruetion of
iron houses, venal', =BM spire, &a, which IMO permuted
in September, 1853 ; and the suppliant complained
that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty bad, with-
out license, Ice., infringed the said patent as was set oat in
the particulars, by wing in the construction of vessels of
war and gunboats for the royal navy "vertical and longi-
tudinal framing." The suppliant further Aided that be
designed and executed sod made outran designs' and
models, drawings, and tracings on paper of vessels of war,
floating batteries, gunboats, end sections of veralls, Attu,
for the said Commirsioners of the Admiralty, upon. the
terms of being paid five per cent. upon the cost price of
all vessels of war, gunboats. Attu, prinment to such models,
Ac., and that the sum of 500,0001. had be-
come due and payable to the suppliant by
the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, yet
they neglect and refuse to pay the raid suppliant the
above-mentioned sum of money or soy part thereof. The
Attorney-General, on behalf of her Majesty, pleaded not
guilty to the infringement ; that the suppliant was not the
inventor ; a want of novelty ; that it was not • new manu-
facture for which letters patent could be granted; that the
specification arid patents had not been filed according to law •
and that there was no grant of the sole privilege to make,
use, exercise, &c., the said invention as alleged. With
regard to the remuneration for work and labour, /cc., the
Attemey-General pleaded that the Lords Commissioners of
the Admiralty did not employ the suppliant to make the
designs, Lc., and that the Lords Commissioners of the
Admiralty did not contract in the manner and form as
alleged.
The Admiralty further relied on tan patents which em-
bodied what was claimed by the suppliant.

Mr. Diaby Seymour. Q.C., Mr. bentoaa, Q.C., Mr. Hind-
marsh, Mr. J. A. Russell, and Mr. Beet were counsel for
the suppliant the Attorney-General, Mr. Collier, Q.C.,
Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. West, and Mr. M'Rory appeared for
the crown. _ _ _ _ .

-Tlieri;Ppliant's case rested upon, first, the validity of the
patent., and, secondly, the contract by which he proposed to
make the government liable for the amount claimed.
Mr. Digby Seymour, in stating the ens to the j expa-
tiated on the great advantage of the invention in the epos-
traction of vends of war. He then referred to the come-
vondence that had taken place between the suppliant and
the Admiralty on the subject, and read a number of letters
bearing upon it. From these it appeared that the
suppliant, on the 31st December, 1863, wrote to Mr.
Bernal Osborne, the then Seadary to the Admiralty,
stating that ships °mistreated on his priociples would
almost defy the power of wind and water, and when
sheathed with cork plank, shot would have far kin effect
upon them that on an oak ship. On the 22nd June, 185 t,
he wrote to Admiral Berkeley, stating that he was induced
to address him from having read in • publication • f=
ago that there were building iron gunboats planked ex
with timber. He drew the attention of the Admiralty to
its advantages, informed them of the patent, and
that he would forward in a few days models
and plans illustrative of the invention. To that
letter Admiral Berkeley briefly replietri—" I am
not aware of any gunboats now building on the plan you
allude to." On the 24th June, 1854, he wrote to Sir Bald-
win Walker, stating that, observing in one of the Loudon
publications that they were Wilding gunboats of iron,
pheiked with timber, he would be obliged if Sr B. Walker
would inform him if it were true ; and on the 29th be re.
(vivid an answer that there were no vessels building for her
Majesty's service of the description referred to by him. viz.,
of iron planked with wood. The suppliant afterwards wrote
to Lord Pawners, sod by his request to the Secretary of
the Admiralty, on the 7th June, 1855, which was replied to
by Mr. Phino, on the 22nd, as follows—" I am com-
manded by my lords to acquaint you that
if you have anything` new on this subject to ruggest, if you
forward it to this office it will be maddened." Some farther
communication took place between him and the Admiralty,
and mad* 30th July, 1856, he received a letter from Mr.
Boreal Osborne, nesting that the Admiralty could not en-
' Sartain his suggedions. After that he wrote several letters
to Sir C. Wood, and on the 7th January, 1856, to disaffect
that the French floating batteries, so highly reported upon
at the Crimea and Milburn, from their repelling 6416. shot
without being injured, were built from the same plans as
were furnished to the Admiralty at their request on a
former day. A correspondence then took plus on
the infringment of the patent, and on the 21st of Feb-
ruary,
1856, Mr. B. Osborne wrote, "No infringement
of your patent right, has taken place in the construction of
iron floating batteries, and their lordships cannot admit your
claim to remuneration." It might be that their lordships
bad not infringed the patent, but they certainly adopted the
suppliant's advice, and it was for the jury to ray, after hear-
ing the evidence, whether or not there had been a contract
entered into between the parties. Nothing particular cc-
tarred between 1856 and 1859, except as incidentally bearing I
upon the suppliant's knowledge of the best method of con-
structing ships. They all, no doubt, had a vivid recol-
lection of the loss of the Royal Charter and the
lamentable lose of life consequent thereon. In 1858 the
suppliant had, in a letter to the Herald, pointed out the
defects in the these system of naval architecture in connexion
with ircn shipbuilding, and in that letter be instanced the
construction of the Royal Charter, and prophesied at no
very great distant time her break up, and an end to the
glory and renown she had earned. A threat of an action
for libel followed, bat as all parties stood firm it was aban-
doned, but there was this significant fact connected with it,
that twelve months from the day Mr. Clare propheUed she
would break up, she went down with all on board, and to
use the phrase of • sailor who was on board at the time,
"She shut up like a bandbox," and went to pieta in • very
abort time. On 26th February, 1869, Mr. Clare wrote te
Sir John Pakington, the then First Lord of the Admi-
ralty, stating that he found from reading Sir
John's speech on the naval estimates, allusion was
leads to the craft the Emperor of the French was construct-
ing with iron-cased sides, and that it was the intention of
the British government to follow suit. Mr. Clare, in that
letter, went on to say, " It is not for me at present to go
into retails on this question, nor would it be, with what I
know of the Emperor of the French's mechanical ignorance,
to offer an opinion epos bow the moat efficient fire and
shot proof craft ought to be constructed. You say in your
speech that you have called upon the most competent
parties in different parts of England, connected with the
private trade, to give us their designs and counsel. May I
respectfully request that the form of application to which
your lordship alludes may be furnished to nie ostensibly that
I may obtain the exact points to be conformed to." To
that letter Mr. Corp, the Secretary to the Admiralty,
wrote on the 24th March that "their lordships bad limited
their applications to their own officers and those persons
who are in a position to undertake the building of such
vessels, and could not comply with his request.'
The Lord Chief Justice—What on earth have we to do
with that?

Mr. Digby Seymour—Allow me to come to the next psi-
sap of the letter.
The Lord Chief Justice—You are about to comment on
what wee no doubt matter for observation in the Houle of
Commons or comment in the public newspapers, but it
appean to me that we have nothing to do with IL The
question for us to decide is, aye or no a coutract, and not
what Mr. Clore ought to have been furnished with by the
Lords of the Admiralty.
Mr. Digby Seymour—l will not say more, my lord.
It was tempting matter for an observation. Mr. Clare
still continued to correspond with the Admiralty re-
lative to his claim of 5 per cent. upon lbw- prime
cost et the vessel he alleged had been built upon his
plea, sod as the 22nd December, 1859, he received a letter
from Mr. Romaine, stating " that their vessel, were de-
gated by the Surveyor of the Navy, Pitbout reference to
the plans of any other permit." Is December. 18/4). Mr.
Clare wrote to the Duke of Somerset and asked to be ap-
pointed naval mechanical constructor to the navy ; but he
was told such as officer wee oot required. The govern-
meat however had pirated that idea, and bad appointed
Mr. Reed chief constructor to the navy. The leaned gen•
deans asked the jury to give the suppliant the damages
he was entitled to. He called

Mr. John Clare, the suppliant, who resides at Liverpool.
The suppliant was examined at 000siderable length rola-
tire to the discreparcies between the complete and prori.
sioual specifications, with • view to show that the crown
had a gooddefenos as against the patent.
The Lord Chid Justice having to attend a commission
relative to papal servitude at three o'clock. the further
erne-examinatiou of the suppliant was adjourned till to•
day (Tuesday).

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Fen. 2.
Sittings at Mid Prius in Middlesex.—Motors Mr. Justice
Myles Asti a Comma Jury.)
_ _

This wits the Brit day of the sittings after term, and the
list oontaineel only 29 entries, eight of the causes being ap•
pointed for trial by special juries• In the course of the day
only two causes were disposed of, and they were actioos to
recover the price of goods sold, and were of no interest to
anybody but the parties.

with the main drainage of the The Waldman
pleaded not guilty; and =ry, that they were
justified in constructing the hoarding under the Metro-
politan Board of Works Aot.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Quei were counsel
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Webby,
for the defendants.
The plaintiff was a clothier, carrying on • retail Innings
in Shoreditch, at the corner of Churchatrest, and the de-
fendants were the well-known contractors who had con-
tracted to make a main sewer from Clerkenwell to Old
Ford. In May but the defendants coommenced excavating
the ground in Church-street, opposite the plaintiff's shop,
and for the purpose of the works put up a hoarding which
extended 14 feet into Shoreditch. It was six feet high, and
extended over the footpath, leaving only • ewe of three
feet six bstweem it and the shop front for passengers.
Within the boards there was • steam engine, • tramway,
barrows, planks, and the usual plant of • sewer °De-
tractor. There was also • large heap of paving
states, fifteen feet in length and five or stx
feet high, immediately before the shop, and it
covered • part of the pavement. In oinsequence of the
hoarding being so near the shop, the plaintiff saitritereons
could not stop to look at the window when the were
exhibited without being run against and jostled y
by, and thus being compelled to walk on. The plain=
alleged that the boarding was unnecessary, negligently and
improperly constructed, and lutd been kept up an un-
removable time, viz., till September. He also said that
during the Exhibition of 18M his retail trade greatly in.
creased, owing to the number of country people who came
to town by the Eastern Counties Railway, and that he an-
ticipated a similar increase last year, but in consequence of
these obstructions the Waiting fell off, and he bad sustained
• heavy loss, which he estimated at more than 1,0001.
Mr. Coleridge, on the part of the defendants, character-
Ind the action as unprecedented, and said if contrarian
carrying on works of this kind under the powers of an act of
parliament were to be liable to an action by every single
shopkeeper or householder in front of whose house it was
necessary to erect a hoarding, all gnat public improvements
would be impossible. He contended that the works oppo-
site the plaintiff's shop were conducted in the proper man-
ner and as speedily as pomible, and that all unnecessary ob.
detections were avoided.

Evidence was then given to show that the hoarding was
erected on the 17th of May, and cleared away on the 12th
of July, when the roadway was reinstated ; that the ex-
cavation was made in the proper way by means of " stages
and the and withitrit.ed unsisteet with safety.
Mr. Joseph W. the engineer.in-ehret of the
Metropolitan Baud of orks, said he designed and super-
intended these draairnnaagges works, and that they bad been
executed entirely aooading to his plane The excavation in
Church-street wee a very difficult piece of work in conse-
quence of the nature of the soil and the narrowness of the
street, where the house were badly built and the traffic
very considerable. The hoarding was put up at the expense
of the contractors, and they were required to construct it,
on account of thelcramped nature of the street, for the pro-
tection of the public. If there had been no hoarding the
paving stones and earth would have got on to the pavement
and prevented persons passing freely. He added that the
works wen conducted in a proper manner and with
proper speed, and that in such works it was mummery
that the contractors should have all their materials on

the ground.
The J ury, without calling upon the learned judge to go
over the evidence, found a verdict for the defendants.
The learned Baron (Aliened that the plaintiff maimed to
have a very fastidious eat of customers. (Laughter.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—FEB. 2.
Wore Mr. Commissioner Goa'burs.)
EN HZ J. W. PHILLIP& -CAM Or ♦ EPICCILATII BeILDn.
The bankrupt, a builder, of Northumberland-grove, Bays-
water, applied for his order of discharge. He was opposed
by Mr. E. Read, on behalf of a creditor, and supported by
Kr. C. E. Lewis.

Ills Hoisour said the bankrupt had involved himself to
the amount of 22,0001. in a very short time, to meet which
there were only suets of 9001. The case was • remarkable
exemplification of some of the offenoes in the 159th section
—that of ash and !wardens speculation, and earryiog on
business by meats of fictitious capital, and cootract-
ins debts; without probable means of payment. There
could be no doubt that the bankrupt bad been
guilty of those offences. The bankrupt had formerly been
• clerk of the works nader Yr. Wyatt, the architect, at •
salary of 1001. a year. He at once plunged into the build-
ing trade, having about 1001. of his own. He built no less
than 33 houses at one time, at an expense of 30,0001., and
raised money on the bowies as they were built. As soon
mese house was roofed in he mortgaged it, to raise money
far the next. He bad solicitors constantly looking out for
loans for him, and his law coats were 1,0cA1., Wades pay-
ment to surveyors of 6351. Through his system of con-
stantly mortgaging his houses be bad contrived to
keep himself in funds ; but the expense of the
lawyers and surveyors, and his own personal ex-
penses (about LOOW. • year) soon brought him to a
stand-still. He now mine to court for • discharge, probably
to enable him to recommence the same course. He was
not opposed by the assignees, who were, in fact, represented
by the same solicitor as the bankrupt was. This would
have been a serious objection under the old system, where
the primary object of the bankrupt law was the distributiou
of meets. Now that the leading object was the discharge of
the bankrupt only (a change which the court much re-
), it was of lees consequence. The bankrupt was,
rater, opposed by Mr. Atherton, • creditor, whose debt
had been contracted at • time when he was hopelessly in-
solvent, though, by means of raising money from time to
time, be appeared to the world to be in a
state of affluence. This was trading on fictitious
capital ; and it was equally clear that the failure weer the
result of rash and haaardous speculation. The Lord Chan-
cellor himself had given as au instance of trading on fiats-
tious capital the case of a man who had lived by continually
renewing bills ; and this was a precise)y similar ass, the
bankrupt having kept himself afloat by pledging his houses
as they were finished. The charge of contnicting debts
without probable means of payment was also clearly estab-
lished. Taking into consideration that the bankrupt had
hitherto borne a good character, and bad never failed be•
fore, the court would not inflict the sentence of imprison-
ment, which had been asked for by the opposing creditor,
but would suspend the order of discharge for nine mouths
—three months for each offence—with protection for three
months, renewable.
IN Y LIWIS.—APTLICATION TO STAY PROCUDINGB IS

In this case a petition for adjudication had been Bled on
the 19th ult. On the same day the alleged bankrupt had
executed a deed under the 192nd section, which wu made
the act of bankruptcy. la the 28 days allowed for re-
gistering the deed tad not expired, application was now
made to stay the proirediugs under the bankruptcy.
Mr. Doria supported the application, which he rested on
the provisions of the 199th section. The adjudication had
been made, but was disputed, on the ground that the exe-
cution of the deed was not ►n act of bankruptcy. The
act allowed 28 days for ,completely registering the deed and
making it binding on the creditors. It waa then a complete
protection, and the court would be bound to dismiss the
petition for adjudica*.ios.
Mr. E. Reed, on behalf of the petitioning creditor, urged
that the stay of proceedings was a matter entirely in the
&secretion of the court, and that any such order would be
prejudicial to the interests of the creditors.
His Honour said the learned counsel wbo supported the
application had altogether f■ilcd to satisfy him that this was
a cue in which the court ought to stay the proceediep in
bankruptcy ; he must therefore dismiss the application.

I attached to the Mint, and engaged in the detection of
offences whist the coin, that the prisoner has for a gnat
many years been most actively
.employed in ocenerlon with
leech offences, and be was convicted in 1848 of an offence of
this description, and sentenced to ten years' transportation.
He, however, obtained kis liberty in about five years and a
half, and it appeared that he immediately recommend hie
old occupation, bat him proceedings were conducted with
so conch caution and Ingenuity that it was not until very '
recently that the police were enabled to get bold of him,
and u Brennen somewhat naively observed, He had never
had so much trouble with a man in his life," as he had
bad with the prisoner. When be was taken into custody a
great number of lettess were found in his possession that
bed been sent from different parts of the country, applyidg
for counterfeit money, mid there appeared to be no doubt
that the prisoner was an active agent in disseminating coun-
terfeit coin throughout all parte of the kingdom. In the
room where the prisoner was taken into custody there were
found several mould', made of much better materials, and
capableof fabricating counterfeit coin of a superior character,
than those ordinarily made use of by coiner., and other
articles which showed clearly that the primmer was an adept
at his nefarious calling. It was also suited that the
prisoner had been charged, with one of the men who
was tried last session for being concerned in the robbery
of the Bank of England note paper, with uttering forged
notes.

The Common Serjeant observed that it would be merely •
waits of time to addrces any remarks to • man like the
Cr. It was clear that he was determined to break the
s,"r and although he had evaded detection for some time,
be had at bet found, as was always the case, that the
law was too strong for him. He then sentenced the pri-
soner to be kept in penal servitude for twenty yam.

- -
Sarah Aisne Barren, 43, pleaded guilty to two indictments
charging her with stealing property belonging to her em-
ployer'.
The prisoner was convicted of an offence of the same class
in 1860 at this court, bat in consequence of a very artful.
and piteous appeal made by her for mercy only • slight
sentence was passed upon bor. At this time, it appeared
that she had • sum of about 301. in a savings hank, which,
2i: conviction, was forfeited, but after her die-
she made such representations to Use Home Sacra
taxi dis-
charge, he consented to the mousy being restored
to her and on her being taken into custody upon the pre-
sent charges it was discovered that she bad jimmied the
amount to over 701. ; and Si her wsges were only 181. •
year, the natural inference derived from this fact was that
this money must have been the produce of the various fah.-
Mae committed by the prisoner. It was incidentally stated
in the course of the narrative given by the learned counsel
that one of the officials in the gaol where the prisoner
bad been confined after her conviction had assisted her to
make out • deed of gift to her sister of all the property
of which she was pawned. by which mesas it escaped for-
feiture, and the rights of the crown were defeated ' • but as
it did not appear by what means the information bad been
obtained, and the parties, of mune, bad no opportunity of
giving any explanation, it is obvious that it would be unfair
to mention the name of the person who was alleged to have
acted in the manner described.
The Common Serjeant, in passing sentence upon the pri-
soner, said that be considered her offence one of a very as•
smelted character, and sentenced her to be kept iu penal
servitude for six years.

William Ballard, 56, and SU:a Ballard, 36, man and
wife, were charged with being feloniously in pcsweesion
of a galvanic battery for the purpose of making counterfeit
coin.

The jury Acquitted the woman on the ground that she had
acted under the influence of her husband, and found the
former Guilty.
Brennan stated that be bad known the prisoner thirty
yearn, and be had no doubt that during the whole of that
long period he had been engaged in making counterfeit coin,
but his proceedings were conducted with so much art that
he had been unable to get a case against him until the pre-
sent oo:sdon.

—The Common Serjeant sentenced the prisoner to ten
years' penal servitude.
WAikhead, Z 3, a post-office letter carrier,
pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a letter containing
two 'Uproots and twelve postage stamps, the property of
the Postmaster-General.
fleateace was deferred.