The Express.
London, England, 1855-01-16 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.--Jax.ls.

Mi. mews WA AIM COMM

■RTIIOS AT 11111

MEWL
The business of this wart was transaoted the Mammy
Conti today.

♦aB 9. =COM --ASSAM:C.
This was an action brought to recover compossatica for

s. moult.
Mr. Sae fl. sad hr. Inward appeared for the
pialstiff; arid /spent Wilkins for the defendant.
It appeased fast la August last then were some words
between' tbs gambit who was a tors eheadler, sad the u-
topias% benOmelter, in Holborn, and after a letter frost
the plaintire &fantasy, the differences were settled by the
defendant misstate plaintiff 21. 10e. The defendant also
agreed to stand &sapper, and about fear days otter the
dint met the plaintiff at a publlo-hoitse where the awash for
which this action wee brought, took place, the defendant
striking the plaintiff in the face sad beating his snail
he was inmesible.
Witnesses were celled to prove the plaintiff's ease.
The defeats was that the ant blow was stnick by the
plaintiff, for which the defendant gave him a good beating,
end after that the quarrel was made up and the arrange-
ment about the supper was asin entered into.
Witnesses having been called in support of this view of
the case,
It was finally agreed to withdraw a juror.
MTH V. WIN AND ANOTINA.-ABSAVIM AND YALS3

This was an action for assault sad false imprisoment
upon the plaintiff's wife.
Mr. fierjeant Thomas and Mr. Pigott appeared for the
plaintiff ; and bit% M. Chambers and Mr. Phipson repre-
sented the defendant.
The plaintiff's declaration stated that on the 25th of I
May kat the plaintiff, who kept a shop in Jamee-streats I
Osford•street, and his wife went to a pawnbroker's shop in
Checquer's-walk, Chelsea, kept by the defendant, to redeem ,
various articles for some of their relations ; among these
articles was a Bible,and in the course of the evening a yount I
man named Cole came from the defendant's shop and Gala I
there winsome mistae the Bible. The plaintiff saidi
he would call on the following Saturday, and if there were
I anything wrong he would put it right. On the following I
looming Cole
call d
person named Balls went to thel
plaintiff's, and called a policeman, and gave the plaintiff's ,
wife, In the absence of the plaintiff,into custody for a felony. '1
Us was taken first to Marylebone police station, but the ,1
enumeallialt having occurred in Chelsea, she was taken ;
tab Illso streets to the police court of that district,
when tisamellstrats dismissed the charge.
The IMMO was that the shopman found an error in the
meeenste. est tpresamed that the plaintiff had taken away
drolifigsaillest paying for it, and when he called on the
*lad, Ant the matter, the plaintiff's wife refused to pay
the money.
His lordship having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 301.

COUNT OF COMMON PLBAB.-JAN. 15.
MIDRIB 01 BAMOD4-11.11701.11 CH M neRCE J 11•111,10. nen= IlitllJ,
avence CaIIVIWILL. LSD JILL WILLLUOR

nIATH•LL P. a•COX.—♦CTION ON ♦ Ph
°MAHON OP PORORRY.

-- -
This was an action spinet • tobacconist at Cambridge, to
recover 491.105., the balance due upon • promiuory note for
991. 10e. The trial took place before the Chief Justice at
Gui When, sad a verdict was found for the defendant.
Mr. Wiles now applied for a rule for • new trial, upon
the grounds that the verdict was against:the evidence, and
that a material witness, who was absent at the trial, could
now be produced. Both parties agreed that the defendant
had, on the 24th November, 1853, given a premium note
for 991. 10s. to Mr. Spearman, an auctioneer, and which
note had been given as • premium with the defendant's
son, who was to be apprenticed to Mr. Spearman. Of this
note the defendant had paid 601., and a receipt for that
amount had been endorsed on it. The note now sued upon
corresponded in all respects with the note admitted to have
been given, except that the defendant's ness was that that
note contained &statement that it was to be paid in two in-
stalmeste—one of which, for 491. 10s., was not to be paid
until a day in the present year. The note now sued an
contained no such statement, and the defendant therefore
swore that it was not the trite which be had given; and
his counsel suggested that Mr. Spearman, being ia want of
money, had copied the bill, except in that part which stated
that it WAS to be paid in instalments, and had got this copy
of the bill discounted with the plaintiff. Mr. Spearman had
left his place of husineu and could not be found, and there-
fore he was not called at the trial. The learned counsel
now stated to the court that Mr. 8 an having seen in
the newspapers a report of the , and that forgery bad
been imputed to him, caused his attorney to communicate
to the plaintiff's attorney his denial of the charge, and his
willingness to depose, that the bill sued upon was the one
that the defendant had given. Another fact web, that one
of the jurymen had shortly after the trial shaken hands
with the defendant, and congratulated him on his success.
The statement as to the payment by instalments was men-
tioned in the indenture of apprenticeship, and it was sub-
mitted that the defendant had fallen into the mistake of be-
; ieving that that statement was also in the note, and there-
fore that the note sued on was not his.
The Chief Justice said that he should certainly have
given a verdict the other way, though he did not know that
he would be justified in saying that the jury were wrong.
The Court, after some discussion, determined to grant
the rule.

COURT OF
was IN 110100,411:1

16.
MI LOU. MIT 1610$ MID 11110/16
?AM. ALDII3OOX, AND turns.
GARRILIIII IP. CANVAS( MID OTHIIIII—TROVIIIL
This was an action of trove? against the defendants as
assignees done Anderson, a merchant, who had been found
pulity and convicted of forgery. The goodies wu, whe-
ther 1,102 bags of rice had become the property of the
plaintiffs, being portion of a larger quantity of 2,920
My which Anderson bad been in treaty with them for the
of. Anderson, it appeared, had offered the plain-
bags of rice, which offer wu accepted bye them,
Weft tpientity did not exceed 2,920 bags, of his be
W Ilk paid his vendor for 1,102 bags, which be had
Pa board the Wilhelm for the plaintiffs,
yd- wNs aocordiag to their contract, empowered
Andene• 10 draw at ones one-half the purchase-money
of the whole quantity on their bankers at Hamburg, who,
on receipt of the bills of lading, would accept his drafts.
Anderson had, however, offered a forged bill of lading to
the bankers. and on that hie drafts were accepted, and the
molt was the plaintiffs were finally forced to pay the
bankers. In the interim, and on the day the Wilhelm wu
going toes% other forgeries were traced to Anderson, and
hie ashrams seised the cargo on board of the ship. The
LeM Chief Baron, under these circumstances, directed the
,thryM fad a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion
of this wart; but the jury thought that a verdict ought te
be given for the defendants, which was accordingly done,
with leave to move.
Mr. Bramwell now moved to enter verdict for the
plaintiff.
The court, after considerable discussion, granted a rule
'alai.

nisi
Eels accordingly.
lIIIITIRS, AT VIII PUILIP AT

•11170111 742. LAOS PLATT

MOD COMMON 11:11111.

—.........___. _ ____
The court was crocupied the entire day in disposing of onl
cause, which was only of interest to the pasties concerned.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—.Iex. 15.
11110113 NI. OCKIIIMAOXER MUM.
IN 11 WILLIAM 'MARC& _

This insolvent, a voealtat, applied to be discharged from
Wpenon.hitecrose-street prison. Mr. Skinner, a creditor, opposed
in
The case was before the court on Saturday. The insol-
vent rented a house of Mr. Skinner, at 31, Old-street-road,
which was converted into a beer shop and a concert room.
The insolvent had been a concert singer; at taverns at the
rate of 10s. and upwards a night, and believed he could
increase his income by the house in question. The parties
disagreed. There had been disturbances, and the insolvent
was held to bail for an assault, which was to be tried at the
Middlesex Sessions.
Mr. Skinner complained that the insolvent told him he
had SW. in the benk when he took the house. The allega-
tion was denied, bat it turned out that 38/. had been paid.
Zack party contradicted the other in their evidence on
nearly every point.
Mr. Commissional Phillips listened to the cue five times
longer, he said, that it ought to have occupied. There was
nothing under the set of parliamest for him to deal with ;
and ea to the assault Mr. &tient Adams would be celled
upon to try it. He ordered the insolvent's discharge.
115
Ibis was a protection case, and the insolvent proposed to
pay his creditors 201. a year by quarterly instalments.
The court accepted the offer, and protection wurenswed
until after the first quarter's payment.