The Express.
London, England, 1862-06-30 00:00:00

Sittings in Banoo.—(Bofore Justices ylightmsn, Crompton,

and Blackburn.)

Their lordships sat in bsooo this rooming in the Vico-
Chuneellor's Court, Westminster-hall.

SZLIIICO V. IIIANNAITT.-BARTON V. SUM

This was an appeal from the conviction of magistrates
affecting the mglit-bouses in the Haymarket, Leicester-
square, and other pans of the metropolis and elsewhere.
Ms. Field appeared for the respondents in see& casein
support of the conviction. Mr. Huddleston, Q. 0., and Mr.
Gifford were counsel for the appellants in the first ease, and
Mr. Berjeant Pigott for the appellants in the second came.
The appellanto had been convicted for supplying
to to prostitutes, knowing them to be such. l'he fans
of the case an well known, and the law applicable to them
was broadly and comprehensively laid down by the late Lord
Campbell, expressing the unanimous opinion of the court in
a similar appeal from the conviction of magistrates in the
north of England. The facts and the applicability of the
law to the vomit cease will be found fully given in the
following judgment.
Mr. Justice Wightman delivered the judgment of the
court. The questions for the consideration of the court
were, not whether the magistrate was bound to convict, but
whether it was in his discretion to do so, and whether under
all the circumstances be was warranted in doing so in these
cues. There was no doubt these unfortunate women,
as had been argued, were entitled to be supplied with re-
freshments, for were it not so it would be a great enmity.
That, however, wan not the question here ; it was whether,
under colour of keeping a house of refreshment, which this
was admitted to be, the appellants did not make it a kind
of house of call for prostitutes, because then such houses as
these would be a great encouragement to prostitution.
When a landlord knew that the women assembled in hie
house were prostitutes the magistrate were led to draw the
inference that the landlord knew for what object they same,
namely, for the purpose of prostitution. That wan • ques-
tion for the magistrate to decide. The only question, there-
fore, for thin court to decide wee whether there was cult-
cient to justify the magistrate in the conviction, and the
court was of opinion there was, and that the convictions
must be affirmed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Tows 28.
This morning Barons Mart* asininell, and Wilde aim
into court and delivered judgment is the following case.

SWAN V. THB NORTH BRITISH AI

COMPANY.

---
This was a s ial cue for the opinion of the court The
case has alrady been upon two moisions before the Court
of Common Pleas, and came before this court upon a manda-
mus spinet the defendants for the wrongful removal of the
plaintiff's name from the register of shareholders. The
plaintiff was the holder of 1,000 shares in the company, and
employed a broker, named Oliver, to sell some shares in
the Scottish Australasian Investment Company, who repre-
seated to the plaintiff that for that purpose it was maces-
ary for him to execute 10 blank forms of transfer,
which he accordingly did, and it turned out that
only eight were necessary, and that Oliver had filled up
the remaining two with WO shares each in the defendants'
company. Oliver then stole the certificates of the shares,
and by that means caused the plaintiff's name to be removed
from the register of shareholders. Oliver was tried, con-
victed of the robbery, and sentenced to 20 years' penal
servitude.
The question was, whether the transfer of the shares by
Oliver, which were admitted to be forgeries, was valid as
spinet the plaintiff.
The Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Baron Wilde were of that
opinion ; Mr. Baron Martin and Mr. Baron Channell were
of • contrary opinion.