The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-14 00:00:00

The defendant's aecouni was that when the IA

lianarcrairm be ed wbowaa Theacoeptor , •
it was the celebrated James Sharpe, the gunpowder run .
facture!, and that it was like gold. Whilst the clef
was at Manchester be learned that the cheque was
honoured, and he telegraphed to the plaintiff, salting for c
explanation by telegraph. He wrote to him lir si
evening's post. He also telegraphed to him a *wood rc,
that it would be his ruin if the money were not pol
his bankers ; but he got no reply to any of these CuttALZ,
cations. When he came to town he milled on the plcnd,
and amused him of conspiring with Pullen to defraud
because Pollen had told him that if the
got mosey for the cheque he (Pollee) ns
have half of it. (This statement had been
nied by Mr. Pullen.) When the defendant -
upon the plaintiff on the Saturday in question he •
dined out, and was excited. The plaintiff was " •
quiet," and persisted in turning his back when del
addressed him. After the action was commenced dela*
offered to apologise, and to advertise " in any or all .f
leading journals his =qualified regret," but the =plop re
not accepted.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages 501.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
SECOND COURT.
Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Baron Martin wirl
Common Jury.)
MAILS V. BOWL&
This was an interpleader issue to try the right to
goods which were seized by the Sheriff of Ifiloes co
21st of August last.
Mr. Day and Mr. Martin were counsel for the olaistif
Mr. Shrew far the defendant.
It appeared that ie December, 1861, a Mr. Wiosten
surgeon, of Carlton-lodge, Kentish-town, borrowed of thil
plaintiff the sum of 180/. on the security of a bill el all
of all his household furniture and effects, to which bill el
rale his wife was a party, she being interested ia the good
under a settlement,
On behalf of the defendant it was objected that the bl
of sale was void as against creditors, first, because the coy
filed in purulence of the act of parliament was not ems
copy of the deed inasmuch as the word " mortgagee" n
written for " m ," and alio that the word .
was omitted from the copy. It wee also cotteodedtsis
the defendant that the signature of the attesting ono
was bad on the ground of a wrong description, boson
the end of the deed he had described himself u Eland
Player." and in the affidavit as " Edwin Player" colt.
Ilia lordship over-ruled the objections, and the lentil
counsel submitted to a verdict for the plaintiff.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
TIDY V. BYLY.—FALSE 1111.1Ut3ONM
This was an action, brought in one of the superior eat
to recover damages for Wee imprisonment.
Mr. Serjeant Parry, with Mr. Joyce. appeared for
plaintiff ; and Mr. J. Thompson was for the defendant
The plaintiff, a young woman of 22, was domestic rem
to a widow lady at Croydon, who was stated to be pow
of considerable mews. In July Mrs. Byam went to Floc
and on return expressed her satisfaction at the mewl
which the plaintiff had kept the place in her atm.. &.1
afterwards Mrs. Byam was taken ill and was att.todee
the girL She accused her of stealing two P7aii
and afterwards said she had taken some
Ou Friday, the sth of September, the p -
left, and on the following morning she gare
young woman into custody for stealing. She so
fined in a cell, and taken before the magistrates
charge was dismissed. The girl afterwards went for
clothes, and Mtn. By= said she was a "thief."
quently the action was brought., and the defendant
judgmeot to go to by default.
Mr. Thompson addressed the court in mitiptin
damages, and complained that it was an attorneys octal
and ought to have been brought in a county court.
Mr. Serjeant Parry said it could not be brotightie
county court, and could not be heard on circuit till in
IMMIDOT.
Mr. Secondary Pottir, in his charge to the jury, midi
was a serious caae.
The jury assessed the damages at 351.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE
Ware the Judge Ordinary.)
RTOSICS V. STONES AND PRICE-- 6ENIENCE
This morning Sir C. Crewmen delivered juJ,,insm
this cue, which was heard yesterday. After a careful rs
mination of the evidence, the learned judge said be WI
rmuou to discredit the witnesses, end there moat
Oen&
be a decree nisi, with wets against the coyespondest

BUSCH V. BUTCH, KEYS, AND HIMPROB.
Dr. Spinka appeared for the petitineer, a miller, at 01
near Taunton. The marriage took plane in 143, and
I
pram lived happily together till 1859, when Char
Keys, a policeman, was placed upon the beat in wN
the petitioner's mill was situated. The respondent ea
became intimate with him ; and evidence was gives
various seta of familiarity between them. A v
nese named William Wright mentiooed to her what hell
seen. At first she denied it, but she afterwards begged t
not to ry anything about it to her hinbsod. Jane L'att
a servant, spoke to visits which Keys bad paid to the to
the absence of her husband. Once the petitionerto
him there, and the respondent rid he had not how
the house five minutes, whereas he had in reality te
above half en.hour. She told the witness that she sea
not have hed her husband catch Keys with her forl
She made flannel shirts for the co-respondent. ow
Mr. Burch left home and was not expected led
following night. After the witness had gone to bed
heard a small knock at the door and lee
that Mr. Burch had let in the co.respoodent.
went the kitchen and witness bead d
co-respondent ask where Jane was. The resp.edeatin
she was In bed ; and then the kitchen door era, iced
Keys did not go away till half.past 12. The cart
tailed many other circumstances of an ellUAllY "Pi*
character. At length • separation ensued, mud then
spondent went to live with Hembrow at Taunton. Tao WI
were put in—one couched in very affectionate mat!
Keys, and reminding him of the plesaant interview theY•
had on the night spoken of by Cottle. This sm. istensoo
at the police-office. The other was an earned repeat
her husband to take her back to his bosom.
The court made a decree nisi with coats spinet lie}
who, it was stated, had been dismissed for the offence