The Express.
London, England, 1862-12-03 00:00:00

about it. In the sense of applying for it or getting it, I did
not speak to anyone.
Nil you not speak to one of the Secretaries of the Tressory
about it before you got it ?—1 won't undertake to say that
before 1 ant him my standing and spoke to Mr. Attlettoll,
that one of the secretaries to the Treasury might not have
spoken to me on the matter.
Don't von know he did cannot say that he did. I
think it is very likely, as I had made application to the
Home-office. I don't recollect any such 000versation, but I
think it was very likely under the state of thine.
Which of the secretaries Perhaps I had better ask
which of the whippers Baylis., Lord
Mulgisve, or Mr. Berkeley T—l think it was Mr. Berkeley.
Did you tell him that you would like to have it 7—l did
not apply to him for it. I remember on one oxisaion when
the conversation arose in the house about the Attorney-
General's having the appointment. We had some converse-
tion about it. I don't recollect telling him that I should like
to have the recorderahip. I won't say I did not. I had no
conversation with him with a view to induce him to give it
to me, or to ask him to give it tome.
Or intimate that you would like to get it 7—That is dif-
ferent. Your question is put in such general terms. Except
my speaking about Mr. Atherton's having it was intimating
I should like to have it, I did not.
The Lord Chief Justice—As I understand you, Mr.
Berkeley came to you.
Plaintiff—l have no recollection whatever of making any
application to any person in the government, or connected
with the government, about the office.
Mr. Serjeant Shee—Dil be ask you if you would like to
have it?—He did not, nor any words to that effect. The con-
versation was principally on Mr. Atherton's return for
Durham. I believed at the time he was likely to get the
tecordenhip. I don't recollect spmiking to Sir W. Hayter
about it. He distinctly states in his letter that I
did not.

The Lord Chief Justice interrupted. The plaintiff must
know that he had no right to refer to the contents of such
a letter.

_
Plaintiff—l never applied to Sir W. Hayter to
exert his influence to obtain the appointment for
me. I don't recollect his apeaking to me about it.
I did not tell him that I should like to have
it. Sir W. Hayter, or any barrister in or
out of the house must have known that I should like to
have IL I have no recollection of conversing with him
about it. I spoke on the Foreign Enlistment Bill on the
13th December, and again on the and. 1 said on the latter
occasion that I was not swayed by any consideration in
supporting the measure, and that I voted for it as an inde-
pendent member of the house.
Was not the writ for the borough of Sunderland moved
the next day ?—lt was, but I never understood it was a re-
tainer for my political adhesion to the government.
Did you know when you made that speech that it was to
be moved for the following day can't recollect now.
When I made that speech I have no doubt
I must have known it. Connecting the facts; I
did know it. I did not know it long before I made
that speech. When I addressed my constituents at
Sunderland a day or two before, I did not know 1 was to
have the appointment. lam not aware that it is unusual
to give to barristers practising at the sessions
when the vacancy occurs in the recordership. There
are two instances that it is not so in the appoint-
ment of Mr. Maule and Mr. West, and the same with regard
to the last Liverpool appointment. There were many men
my senior on the circuit, but I had a better criminal
and civil practice. There are many now attending
session practice who were on the circuit before
I was born, and may remain there for some
years to conic for aught 1 know. Several members of the
bar have been raised since my time to the bench. I had
been engaged in Westminster-hall and on circuit in many
important caaea, and before committees, before I re-
ceived the appointment. I got my "rod bag" at
the close of my first circuit. In parliament I took
such • prominent part in support of the Mer-
chant Shippers Bill that I received Mr. Cardwell's
written acknowledgements for my support of that measure.
Mr. Serjeant Shee was a member of the house at the time.
The Bills of Exchange and Promissory Note Act was
actively supported by me. I introduced a measure of the
same kind which was amalgamated with another bill
and carried. I undertake to my that I was worthy
of the reoordership on account of my professional
eminence. No doubt my being in parliament may have
had something to do with the matter being considered in my
favour, c.cteris paribus with others. lam confident that
I did not get it bemuse of my supporting the Foreign Enlist-
ment Bill. The government knew my intentions with regard
to the measure before the vacancy occurred. No doubt my
being in pArliament, and there being a liberal government
in Mike had something to do with the appointment. No
government could have given me the appointment if I had
not been qualified for it. I have discharged the duties of
the office to the satisfaction of all concerned. Before I was
made Q.C., I applied for the coif. The promotion was pon-
pone&
Is not that the way it is refused f—l am not aware of it.
My application was not then granted. It was well known
at the time that Lord Campbell refused all the applications
for the ooif. I have lately heard there were objections to
my receiving the coif. I referred to the matter complained
of in my Southampton speech as a certificate of character.
All I meant to convey was that in receiving silk the late
Lord Campbell knew of nothing that would militate against
my claim. . . .

[The trial waa proceediog when our report left.]

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BARNYARD V. BURROUGHS AND VTR

The Queen's Advocate appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram for the defenibinta.
The testatrix was Mies Jemima Bradley, an old lady, who
died on the 9th of January, 1861, at lodgings
in Canterbury-tad, Newington Butte, leaving • property
valued at 7071. In the year 1854; she had made • will and
codicil distributing the money amongst her nephews and
nieces. She afterwards became displeased (as was
by the defendants) with some of them, and expre=
wish to see them no more. To 1859 she went to live with the
Burroughs, to whom she at first paid 42/. a year for her
board and lodging. Afterwards she had a severe attack of
paralysis, and an arrangement was made to the effect that
she should be attended night and day by Mrs. Burroughs
or her daughter, Ann Smith. They paid her every
attention, and she became exceedingly attached to
them. She determined, in fact, to male a new will
in their favour. For that purpose she sent to Mr. Cheater,
• solicitor in the neighbourhood, who placed the matter in
the bands of Mr. Thomas William Roffey, his managing
clerk. Mr. Roffey being perfectly unacquainted with her
and seeing the state she was in requested Dr. Miff to
call upon her and examine her, so as to satisfy
himself of her testamentary capacity. Dr. Iliff having
acconlingly reported that she was perfectly competent to
carry out her wishes, Mr. Roffey made the will, and by that
instrument she left 21.101. to Mrs. Burroughs, IW. to
Mrs. Smith, and the residue to her only surviving
brother, Mr. Edward Bradley, of Petersfield, Hamp-
shire. She subsequently expressed a desire to add to
• codicil largely increasing Mrs. Burroughs's legacy. When
that paper was prepared, however, she said she wished to
give her brother • life interest in her Turkish Bonds; where-
upon Mr. Roffey suggested that there should be a new
will. The testatrix assented, and this last instrument
was duly executed on the Ist of September. Before
that, however, Dr. Iliff had seen her again,
and had asked her to tell him what it was that she wished
to do*: She then, without assistance, recited all her wishes
as they were set forth in the document. She afterwards
put her mark upon it, and it was attested by Mr. Roffey
and Dr. MS. Probate in common form had been taken
out, and it was now called in by the plaintiff, •
niece of the deceased, who impeached its validity, on the
ground, first, that it had not been duly executed ; secondly,
that the testatrix at the time of its execution was not of
sound mind, memory, and understanding ; and, thirdly, that
it had been procured from time to time by the undue
influence and control of Mrs. Burroughs and Ann Smith.
Mr. Motley, Dr. lliff, Mrs. Burroughs, and Mrs. Smith,
were examined in support of the will.
The case was prooeediog when we went to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Gounum)
IN RE GEORCE STIFF.

The bankrupt was late the proprietor of the London
Journal, Morning Chronicle, and other journals. This
was the sitting for order of discharge. The accounts have
already appeared in detail ; the unsecured debts are
34,000/. ; as yet there has been no dividend, but one is
expected next month, when the accounts of Mr. Hart, the
manager, will be submitted, and the amount then in hand
will be divided.

Mr. Linklater appeared for the usignees ; Mr. Lawranoe
for the creditors ; and Mr. C. E. Lewis for the bankrupt.
Mr. Linklater said the assignees did not oppose the grant-
ing of the order. The only circumstance that could have
been urged against it was the personal expenditure, but
considering the sanguine temperament of the bankrupt,
and the character of the property, they did not think that
be could be charged with extravagance. The bankrupt had
now been nine months before the court.

The Commissioner —Let me understand ; are the assig-
nees, for whom you appear, friendly assignees?
Mr. Linklater—Oh, no. In fact they have opposed the
bankrupt—l might say violently, at former stages.
Mr. Law: axe said that the creditors for whom he ap-
peared also consented to the bankrupt having his order.
Mr. Lewia— Under those circumstances my dative me
•ery light
The Comminioner—Then let him take his order of dis-
charge.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)

(Before the Assistant Judge.)
AN OUTRAGEOUS RUITIAN AND MET.
Jo4n Cake, 32, engine-Htter, was indicted for stealing
two rolls of flannel, value 61., the property of George Eve.
Hr. Dighy prosecuted; kr, F. H. Lewis defended the
prisoner.

The prosecutor is a linendrapert residing in Howling•
Fleet, Weatminster, and on the of November he had
two rolls in the doorway of his shop. AI a Perim, earned
Foley was passing by he saw the prim:oer and another man
removing the roils of flannel, with wh;eir they made off.
yr• File) called the attention of a p.'fig.,cenetable to

and the coadable went in pursuit of the pri-
s
lowed the tioMs companion and secured him. Mr. Filmyby fol-
primer and laid hold of him the
collar, and endeavoured to bring him back to the
I shop but he resisted, and in a ferocious manner exclaimed,
" Will you let me go? Lot me go ;" at the same moment
he observed that be bad a large open knife in his hand. He
still held the prisoner by his right hand, upon which he
made a eat et him with the knife, and the thumb of hi
left hand was nearly cut through. Fearing further violence
and the pain of the thumb being very great, he was com-
pelled to let go his hold, and succeeded in making his
escape. The other man was tried at the last amnions, and
sentenced to three years' penal servitude. The prisoner was
subsequently apprehended.
Mr. F. H. Lewis made an able address on behalf of the
prisoner, bat the jury found him Guilty.
The Assistant-Judge said that with a view of ascertaining
the antecedents of the prisoner he should defer passing
sentence until the bait session.

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)