The Express.
London, England, 1863-04-06 00:00:00

Lau ihntiltgesct.

METROPOLITAN COUNTY 0017ET8.
SEEM dap appointed ke the mesa{ week.
WIMIIOIIIAPEL, Wrest Prinoot-eldast.Wednesday, ADM 8;
'ursday, 9.
SturrawAili, Stranttreet.—Thureday, Apra 9; Friday, 10.
WORM, Camberwell New.reed.—ThesUy, Awn 7; Wediala-
day, S.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—Hsarroansataz, Aram 2.
(Before the Deputy Under-Sheriff and • Common Jury.)
WALT'S e. MR EDWARD =LW'S LITTON, MART.
The plaintiff in this action is a contractor, who, for many
years, has been in the habit of taking contracts for the con-
struction of ornamental lakes, ponds, and undertakings of
that description. The defendant is the member for Hert-
fordshire, and this Adam was brought to recover a sum of
101.6 E 6d. for the hire era quantity of engineering imple-
ments used for about 18 weeks in the construction of an
ornamental pond in the defendant's park at Knebworth, and
for the carriage of the sense by railway from King's-cross
station to the station at Welwyn.
Mr. 0. B. Harrison (instructed by Kr Dillon Webb) was
counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Knight (of the firm of Mama
Atheist and Knight) appeared for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff, that in Sep-
tember, 1861, in consequence of an application made to him
by the defendant's steward, he went down to Knebworth,
and planned two ponds, one a large one, the cost of which
would be 3601. ; the other a smaller one - that at an inter-
view which he then bad with Sir Edward and his steward,
the former expressed his unwillingness to lay out so
much as 3601., and said that he would prefer employing the
plaintiff to superintend only ; and that if the plain-
tiff would be satisfied to receive M. for euperintend-
Vilintighe construction of the smaller pond, be was
to pay that sum. The plaintiff further
stated that, after pointing out the expense which he would
have to incur in going from London to Knebworth and
beck (which he had done no lees than 18 times, and the ex-
penes of which, in fact, amounted to about 151.), he weed
to undertake the superintendence for the sum offers& and
that Sir Edward then went away ; that afterwards the
steward said that he should want Unrest and other imple-
ments necessary for the execution of the work, and 'eked
the plaintiff whether he could furnish them • that henreed
to do Do ; that it was agreed that the steward should-
ad
for the carnage, and that, although nothing was said
at the time as to the charge for the hire, he
did not intend to supply the things without remuneration.
The implement& in question, which tilled two carte, were
accordingly sent to Knebworth in the October following,
and were used there for more than four months, when they
were returned to the plaintiff. The steward had paid the
plaintiff the 251. and a sum for carriage, but nothing for the
hire, and the plaintiff stated that the sum paid for carriage
was for the cartage from Beckenham, where the implements
were kept, to King's-man and back, and not for their car-
riage on the railway.
The defame set up wee that the plaintiff had agreed to
superintend the work' and 'apply the implements in qua-
, Sion for the MM., which had been paid, and that the charge
for carriage had been paid ; that the claim was altogether
apungterthontrii this action not having been commenced
1862, and after another action bad been
commenced by the baronet against the plaintiff, by which
the baronet sought to recover 2501. for alleged negli-
tent, in supenutending the construction of the pond.
The defendant was not called. It appeared that for seve-
red months he had been on the Continent, and that he had
not returned. Mr. Penniman, the defendant's steward,
admitted that he bad applied to the plaintiff, and that the
plaintiff bad, in consequence of that application, had •
meeting with the baronet and himself at Knebworth, for
the purpose of arranging about the formation of the
pond, but stated that the defendant had left the
I whole of the arrangements to be made with
the plaintiff to the witness ; that he (the witness)
had made the contract with the plaintiff ; that it wee the
plaintiff who had expressed his wish to superintend the
work rather than undertake the job entirely, end that he
had contracted with him (the wither) to do so for the 251.,
which was to include the him in question. With regard to
the carriage, he produced a receipt, the body of which was
in the witness's handwriting, snood by the plaintiff, by
which the latter acknowledged that he bad received the
2.51., and a further sum for carriage: It appeared. however,
upon the receipt that the sum received for carriage was not
for the carriage by the railway, bat for the carnage of the
goods to and from the railway.
The plaintiff's counsel, is reply, suggested that, as the
defendant bad been abroad so keg, in all probability he
knew little or nothing about the action, or that, if he had
known of it, he would not have sanctioned any resistance of
the claim, and that the evidence on the part of the plaintiff
was more worthy of belief than that given on behalf of the
defendant.

The jury, after a few mieutee deliberatioo, found their
verdict for the plaintiff foe the full amount.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHMAN OlROUlT.—Lrvaroor., APRIL 3.
Nisi Pima COVlLT.—(Before Mr. Justice &satin.)

ACFION FOR LIBEL A Oil2lBT THE NA NC HEST= =AND=
AND MU& -RZA 13NONF AND ANOTHER F. PAULSON AND
ANOTHIN.
This was an action (part) tried yesterday) brought by
breinn at Btalybridge (Messrs. Beaumont and White)
against the proprietors of the dfaneAester Examiner and
Times, to recover damages for an alleged libel published by
the defendants in their paper in February bat The libel
was an advertisement to this effect :—" Besrbouaee to let.
Persons wanting beerhouses must be aware of Beaumont
and White, the surat brewers of Stalybridge." It was
stated by the plaintiffs both yesterday and to-day, that since
the pubikatii of the advertisement, the houses which they
lewd and sub. let had suffered a daubse of business, and
that the plaintiffs themselves had been ridiculed publicly and
!cleanly in consequence of the obnoxious announcement, as
'suet" was understood to mean something adulterated or
. .

of an interior description. la crossexarainaZion, however, of
the plaintiffs witnesses, admission waa obtained that loot
before the publication of the advertieemeut Means Beau-
moot and White had brewed a bad batch of beer, which they
bed distributed to various Imams leased and supplied by
theta with beer. This bad batch of beer had been described
in gaming placards as " good old ale at 2d. per quart,"
" dingo," and under other attractive titles, but it appeared
that the mixture had gone wider the name of " aunt," and
that customers had been in the habit of calling for " mural"
at various houses which Messrs. Beaumont and White had
supplied with beer.
For the defence, Mr. James urged that the advertisemost
had been inserted without malice or grass negligence, and
that 40a. had bees paid into court, which was ample com-
pensation for any damage or annoyance which had been sus-
tained by the plaintiff., whose business Mr. Jllll2llB sub-
mitted had not been injured by the advertisement, bat by
the general depression of trade, and the bad batch of beer
previously alluded to.
The learned Judge, in summing up, after pointing out
the bearing of the act of 1843 upon the ease, said that an
expression which would not be actionable if applied to a
person without &erase to his business would be actionable
it applied with retaliate to hie binaries If the jury be-
lieved the evidence for the plaintitls it would be difficult to
conceives use in which a slander could have circulated with
more lightning-like rapidity to the injury of a person's bud.
Dan. The jury moat consider whether the advertisement
was inserted through negligence and malice, and if so,
whether 40a. was sufficient compensation.
The j
ury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict far
the defeWante.

THE POLICE COURTS.

LAMBETH.

A young man of respectable appearance, a draper's amis.
tont, and whose friends are of the highest respectability,
wee charged before the Hoe. G. C. Norton with attempting
to pick pockets at the Crystal Palace on Friday.
Police-constable White, 427 P, said, that on the preceding
afternoon, while on duty at the Crystal Palace, the prisoner
was pointed out to him by two gentlemen, whose names
were on the charge-sheet, who represented they had seen
him attempt to pick the pockets of ►t least a dozen nervous.
At that moment witimes himself saw the accused numbing
between two ladies and use his hands io so suspicious a man-
ner that he requested him to accompany him to the station-
house, and, the gentlemen having repeated their statement,
the charge of attempting to pick pockets was taken. The
primmer re ted at the time that be was assistant to •
draper, a this witness found to be correct, and further,
from the character be received of him from his employer,
he (witness) believed him to be wholly innocent of the
charge.
The accused, in reply to the charge, said that it being a
holiday be went, as many others did, to the Crystal Palace,
and had not the slightest idea of picking pockets. At the
time the Officer saw him he was endeavouring to pass be-
tween two ladies to get to a better position to hear the
music, and the crinolines of both were no ample that be was
obliged to use his hands to push them on one side.
His master gave him a high character for honesty and
respectability, and
Mr. Norton, after expressing his regret at the inconve-
nience and annoyance he had been put to, at once ordered
hie discharge.