The Express.
London, England, 1855-03-01 00:00:00

by the plaintiff, aa Athos's& merchant, with interest ati
the rats of 12 per mint., from the well-ksews Dos Pacifico,
who, it appeared, died in April in the last year, but whose
widow, as his adminietratris, bad been, upon a suggestion,
substituted oa the record for him. The widow pleaded plane

administrailt.
Kr. &rinse Wilkins, luring partly opined hie ease yea
terdsy, resumed his address this moroisg; but after pro-
ceeding tome way into the facts of the case, it became
manifest that the matter could not be brought to its conekt-
Ilion is the day, sod therefore, as it was the last of the
sittings, it was mutually arranged that the trial should be
postponed to the eittinp after Easter Term. The 11th of
May was understood to be the day appointed.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT. -FEB. 28.

BOORS ML 301ITICIL

ATTEMPT TO EXTORT KOSIZT.-11ZATT 141211SHISINT.
Williams Rooky, 25, a respectable looking young man,
described in the calendar as a groom, was indicted for
feloniously endeavouring to extort money front William
Stanley, by threats.
It appeared that the prosecutor carries on the business of a
butcher at Edmonton, and that he is also a collector of
the Queen's taxes for that district. The prisoner was a
'sties of the same neighbourhood, and the prosecutor had
known him from a child, but it seemed that he had been in
the service of a nobleman, and he had lost sight of him for
some time prior to the 26th of December lest, on which day
be met him at Edmonton, and treated him to some liquor,
sad it appeared that he afterwards invited the prisoner to go
to his office, where he showed him some prints of horses,
and again gave him something to drink. As he was
leaving the prosecutor was very much astonished
Ito bear the prisoner say that he should hear
from hint legally on the following cloy, but be-
fore he had time to ask for any explanation the
prisoner went away. A day or two afterwards he met
the prisoner again as he was riding in his cart and asked
him to get up, and, on their arriving at the Angel Inn, at
Edmonton, where the magistrates hold their sitting., the
prisoner got out and said that he wanted to see Mr. Busk,
the magistrate, and, on the prosecutor asking him what he
wanted to see him for, the prisoner replied that he knew
I very well. No farther explanation was given at the time,
bet two or three days afterwards the piosocutor having oc-
casion to go London by the omnibus, be found, upon his
arrival in Bishopsgate-street, that the prisoner had come-by
the some vehicle, and, upon his seeing him, he again
inquired what he had been to the magistrate for. The pri-
soner at first made no answer, but just as they were about
to separate, he addressed the prosecutor, and said—" Well,
I this is a very serious charge. I have been to Mr. Busk, and
he will prosecute me for making such charges, and I must go
I out of the way to Boulogne or elsewhere, and you cannot
expect me to pay the capons'. The prosecutor, who ap-
peared to Si a very nervous and irritable man, and who was
also subject to apoplectic fits, was thrown into a state of
great alarm at what the prisoner said, and he ex-
I claimed that the prisoner might as well take his
I life as make such a charge against him, and he
palled a five pound note from his purse and
eared it to the prisoner. He declined, however, to take it,
sad said that be did not want money, that he could lay his
band upon &thousand pounds, and that he had come up to
London then to sell out some stock, in order to raise money,
ash* said," to prosecute or defend the charge." The
promoutor on his return home war in such a condition of
mina that his friends found it necessary to interfere, and
endeavour to ascertain what had occurred; and on the
prisoner being applied to he made a distinct charge against
the prosecutor of a character that may not be further alluded
to, and at the same time said that the family of the prose-
cutor were rich and respectable, and that five hundred
pounds would be no object to them in such a case.
The prosecutor was examined to prove the above facts,
and he did so in the most distinct manner, denying most
positively that there was the slightest foundation for the
foul charge made by the prisoner against him. At the eon-
elusion of his evidence ho was seised with a fit, end his con-
dition excited the commiseration of everyone in court.
Mr. Busk, the magistrate who was sitting at the time the
prisoner represented that he had made the complaint to
him, negatived his statement in that respect ; but it ap-
peared that he had upon a former occasion made a charge of
a similar kind against another person.
The learned judge having summed up, the jury, without
any hesitation, returned a verdict of Guilty, and they at
the same time expressed their opinion that there was not
the slightest foundation for the charge made by the pri-
soner against the prosecutor.
Mr. Justice Wightmen immediately ordered the prisoner
to be brought up for judgment, and alter commenting in
indignant terms upon the atrocity of the crime of which he
had been convicted, he sentenced him to be transported for
twenty-five years.

THE POLICE COURTS.

MANSION-ROUSE.

Mr. Bohai Finch, of No. 12, Queen.street, Cheapside,
appeared before the Lord Mayor upon a summons at the
instance of the City Commissioners of Sewers—" That he, on
the 24th day of February instant, after a certain notice,
bearing date the 18th day of January last, stating that he,
having made or placed against, or in front of, the house
situate No. 12, Queen-street, Cheapside, a certain sign-
board or reflector, which the Commissioners of Sewers of
the City of London consider to be as annoyance, in conse-
quence of the same projecting into, or being made in, or en-
dangering or rendering less commodious the passage along
the said street, and requiring him to remove or alter the said
do-board end reflector, so that it should be at least 7 feet
high from the level of the pavement, and project
cot more than 18 inches; also to remove the writing from
the outer side thereof, so that it be used only for the pur-
pose of reflecting light within the said premises, within 14
days from the date thereof, had been duly given him by
the said commissioners, neglected or refused, within the
time aforesaid, to remove or alter the said sign-board or re-
flector in the manner required by the said notice, whereby
he had become liable to a penalty not exceeding 51."
Mr. T. Tyrrell, Solicitor to the COOIMMOiOI3, appeared in
support of the complaint.
Mr. Orridge, barrister, attended on behalf of the defend-
ant, who pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Tyrrell, in opening the ease, calledt the attention of
the court to the 154th section of the City Sewers Act of
1848, which enacted, " That if the Commissioners shall con-
sider say porch, shed, projecting window, steps, cellar door
or window,or steps leading into any cellar or otherwise, lamp,
lamp post, lamp iron, sign, sign post, sign iron, show board,
window shutter, wall, gate, fence, or opening, or any other
projection or obstruction that hereafter may be placed or
made against, or in front of, any house or building, to be
an annoyance in consequence of the same projecting out,
or being made in, or endangering or rendering less commo•
dious the passage .along any street, it shall be lawful for
them to give notice, in writing, to the owner or
occupier of any such house or building to re•
move such projection or obstruction," and so forth.
The defendant had an inscription on the back of a
reflector, which led to inconvenience and annoyance,
as persons were in the habit of stopping in the street to read
ft. The refusal of the defendant to remove the reflector
had been reported to the commissioners, who directed appli-
cation to be made for a summons against him. The com-
missioners alone had the discretionary power of determining
whether or not the reflector was a projection or obstruction,
or endangered or rendered less commodious the passage
along the street.
Mr Daw, the chief clerk to the commission, produced the
minute of the commissioners, stating that, after hearing the
complaint, they had determined to call upon the defendant
to remove the reflector.
Mr. G. Davis, clerk to Mr. Tyrrell, proved the delivery of
the notice at the defendant's house.
Mr. Orridge, at very considerable length, contended that
the reflector was neither an obstruction nor an annoyance,
and that the commission having given permission fur its
being placed in its present position, they bad no right after-
wards to requireits removal. It merely had inscribed on
" Removed from Ludgate-bill."
Mr. Tyrrell submitted that the legislature bad confided to
the commission the power of determining the question of
tebetruction and annoyance, and he celled upon the Lord
Mayor to act upon their decision. At the same time he was
perfectly prepared to prove the fact ever again if the ma-
gistrate thought the adoption of that course necessary.
The Lord Mayor said he did not see how the reflector
could be considered either an obstruction or an annoyance to
passengers, and should certainly like to hear some evidence
upon this point.
The further hearing of the summons was then adjourned
to a future day.
fbe Lord Mayor requested that the prate would acknow-
ledge the receipt of 101. for the poor-box, as a further do-
nation from the Goldsmiths' Company.