The Express.
London, England, 1855-03-05 00:00:00

London District School, Norwood, to recover a 'UM of 3001.
for repairs required in its rectory house at Newnham.
Mr. 3.1. Chamber', Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins were enamel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. T. Chambers (ia the abets°. of his
loader, Mr. Sanwa Quantal, hem illness) coadacted the
wee for the defendant.
Mr. Chamber, in opening the to the jury, eaplained
she nature of ihs action, sad it appeared that in August,
1863, the plaiatiff, who then filled tMi olio@ of chaplain to
the above school at Norwood, was desirous to esebange for
15 ether benefice, sad with that view he inserted an ad-
venhement in the'Ecetssiaatioal Ossette, which was re-
we/Wed to by the defendant, who then bold the livings at
Wanton) and Newnham, and an interview subteqsently
took Oar" at Norwood, which malted in an arrangement
for the exchange of the living' and the chaplaincy. Shortly
afterwards, Mr. Goldhaas and his wife went down to Newn-
an's and were introduced to the family of the attendant,
sod eventually the exchange was completed. In such a
we, by the rammon law of the lased, tne outgoing inetrur
bent of a benefice was bound to make good all dilapidation%
and he said there erald be no doubt that, in the present
instance, the defendant would have been clearly liable
to do so, but it appeared that he refused, on the
ground that an agreement had been intend into
shaybally between him and the plaintiff, that he
ld not pay for the dilspidations ; and that was the de-
files, that wield be sat up to the present tenon. He
siesta, however, he believed, satisfy the jury that no suck
ligefrement had been catered into by. the plaintiff, and h
at
M bad never waived his legal rights with regard to the
fairsits.
The Her. Richard Goldbern' the plaintiff, was called se
s whets', and he proved the facts with regard to the pro-
/mood exchange in the manner stated by the learned counsel,
led he stated that during this interview he had with the
fielleadant, he impressed his iatention t, paint the vicarage-
been inside and out, and whitewash the chancel of the
church. He raid that be asked the defendant whether this
did not come within the scope of dilapidation', and be re-
plied, " Certainly not," and this was all that took place
Ws the subject. Hs deelared most positively that be
serer made any agreement that the defendant was not In
pay for dilapidation.
In cross-examination the plaintiff said there was no holm
attached to the chaplaincy. He admitted that something,
was said by the defendant of hie having laid out 1,2001. upon
the house at Nevrithant, and that consequently triers could
not be any dilapidation.. The defendant talked very
I fast, and be would not swear that be might net have said
that as witness had no residence no claim could be made
upon him for dilapidation. He remembered ha
l..ncheon at Newnham with the defendant and his wife sad
daughter, and some ether persons, bat he did not reseliset
scything being said upon that occasion about dilapidation&
A great number of letters that had passed between die
plaintiff and defendant were then put to, and ponies of
them read. The only material facts that were elicited from
the correspondence appeared to he that some considerable
time elapsed after the plaintiff had taken pcssession of the
benefice before he said aerating on the subject of the
dation% and that the defendant at once repudiated his
liability. Nearly a month appeared to have elapsed after
this before the plaintiff renewed the subject, and the rely
explanation given for the delay was that the :cholera bail
broken out in the school, and he did not wish to es ado
rational annoyence to the defendant by peening his. *he
et tech a moment.
Mr. T. Chambers, in his address to the jury for the de.
Indent, said that the answer he was instructed to make he
the claim that hod been set up was, that the plaintiff bad
uttered into a dig Wit agreement with the defendant that I
so demand should be made for dilapidation. He referred
M the correspondence, and said it was clear that the defend-
ant had, from the 'very first moment the claim was made,
i denied his liability, and he observed that it was very r. mark.
able that when the plaintiff was distinctly reminded of the
agreement that no claim should be made for dilapidation.,
that he did not at once declare that be had been no party
to any such agreement. The learned counsel also mid that
the value of tha livings at Ne am was about 2001. • year,'
end the chaplaincy produced about 3001, bet Unite was no
reeldeace attached to i;, and as the defendant, therefore,
could not have any claim for dilapidation., be said it was
not likely that be would render himself Uhl* to pay for
them to the plaintiff.
The Rev. Mr. Edwards, the defendant, was then ex-
amined, sad he stated most positively that upon the first
interview with the plaintiff, he made the non-liability for
dilapidation@ the basis of IMP whole arriutgemen, and his
reason for doing so was that be had expended 1,2001 upon
the house, and the former incumbent having been insolvent,
sad the living aequestrated, he had himself received
sciebing for delapidations when he came to the preferment
The defendant also stated that upon the occasion of the party
Whig luatraeon at Newnham, he stated in the presence of
the pielatiff, his wife, and his own wife and daughter, the
stare el tie arrangement that had been made, and ex-
penny &dared that be was not to incur any responsibility
ie respells ell dilapidation,.
Mrs Edwards was likewise examined, and she confirmed
the evidence of her husband with regard to what took place
at Nowak.= ; and a deposition of the daughter of the de•
firaciant, who it appeared was unable from illness to attend,'
M the like offset was also put in.
Mr. Justice Mauls, in summing up the ewe, said that in
law the plaintiff under the circumstances would be entitled
to the amount of the necessary expenses, unless he bad
agreed to waive that right; and the only question for the
jury was, whether such an agreement had been proved to
their satisfaction in the present case. He then referred to
the evidence, and said it was clear that their must have
been soma misapprehension on one .ids or the other ; but,
be could not help remarking that it was rather extraordi-
nary when the defendant, upon his being applied to, at
ewe repudiated his liability and referred to the agreement
that had been made, that the plaintiff should not have
immediately have denied having entered into any such

agreement.
The jury, after deliberating about half an hour, returned
a verdict for the defendant.

CROWS ODITSC -IWO= ICS. BMWS CLAM
MUSSON Bahian& Simpson. 40 solicitor ; Caroline How
tree, 46 ; John Hopkins, ; Rakers( Hentree, 17 ; Caro-
line Woodgeto; Dinah Drayton, ; and Francis Johnson,
50, baker, were indicted far eenspirecy.
lir. Parry and U. Clark prosecuted. Mr. Hawkins de-
feaded Hopkins ; Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Charnock ap-
peared for Simpson ; and Serjeant Thomas was specially
retained with Mr. Codd for the other defendant,.
This cam occupied the court for a great many hones, and
was not brought to a conclusion until nine o'clock at
night. The charge arose out of the indictments that were
dawned of on the first day of the msises, imputing
a series of eztensive corn robberies to different parties,
Mr. Clements, a baker and flour factor at St. Alban's, being
the prosecutor. The offence imputed to the present dei•
Madams was, that they hal conspired together to defeat the
gads of justice, by getting a material witness in support of
the origins' charge et.t of the way. The first-named de-
fender'', Mr. Simpson, is a solicitor at St. Albin's, who had,
it appeared, acted in that capacity for some of the persons
accused of the corn robberies yd the others were con
aexions of those prisoners. The evidence adduced pin-
, eipany consisted cf the testimony of the men who admitted
they were guilty of robbing ldr. Clements; and as re-
; girded Mr. Simpson, the only way in which it was sought
to connect him with the affair was that he was represented
to have said something to one of the parties under
mention and was admitted to give evidence. There was
little or no corroboration of any of the offences, and in cross-
ezamination, the admissions they made rendered it apparent
that they were persoas of most infamous character.
The jury, without any hesitation, returned a verdict of
Not Ginty, and at the same time expreseed their opinion
that there was not the slightest foundation for the charge
made against Mr. Simpsoa
The learned judge said that now the case was concluded,
he had no hesitation in saying that he entirely concurred in
the opinion expressed by UM jury, and that gentleman
would leave the court without the slighest imputation upon
his character.
This concluded the business of the Huts mazes.