The Express.
London, England, 1863-11-09 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MORAY EVENING,

tab intelligent&

SUROPOLITAN COUNTY COURTS.
Sitting days appointed for the prvaent week.
Wasninurraa, St Martta's-lane.—tiondio, Nov. 0 , Tuesday,
10: Wednesday, 11 : Thursday, 12.
ItRuIPTuA, Whitelsesativardve.—Tuesda), Nov. 10; Wed.
nesday, 11.
til:ENTFulta—Friday, Nov. 11
CLZRUENWILL, Duncan-terraos. —Tuesday, Nov. 10; Wed-
Deval7. 11; Frid 11.
Oayld., streetrroad.—Tuesday. Nov. 10. Thnisdal. IL
110 W, lloss,road.—Yrlday, Nov. 13.
—Great Prvseetatreet. —Wednesday, Nov. 11 ;
Monday, 12; 1. May, 13
8011TH% Aka, Swan-street.—Thursday, Nov. 12; Friday, 13.
LAMBlTH.—Camberwell New-rued.—Tuesday, Nov. 10; Wed-
nest*, 11 ; Thursday, 12
CRT or LONDON, Isdklings. Tuesday, Nov. 10 ;
Thursday, 12 Friday, 13 eaturday, 11

EQUITY COURTS.—Nov. 7.
(Bdcee the Lord Chancellor.)
PLOT= r. WILE&

In this case, which was fully reported in this journal on
Friday last, the question was whether certain annuities
to the widow of the Right Hon. George Bank's, charged on
an Ain estates, were liable to succession duty ; and the Lord
Chancellor haring decided that the duty was payable, the
point remained by whom the duty was to be paid. It was
argued this morning, and
The Lord Chancellor was of opir ion that it was the in-
tention of the framers of the marriage settlement that the
joietreas should enjoy her jointure free from all taxes. The
form in which the rent charge was framed was by way of
use, and must be construed according to the intention, and
he had no difficulty in holding that all taxes, which must be
taken to include the succession duty, were payable oat of
the land on which the jointure was charged, and that it was
enjoyable free of all abatement.

incompetent man. The deputation communicated with and
sated under the directions of Neil, who was the president
f ti.. club. The obj ctiouabl, roan was a competent
workman but not a member of the club.

Mr. Lush said Neill did not sanction at authorise the
statements made by the deputation. It ws• a man named
Galbraith and two other member., who went subsequently
without Neill's knowledge, and made use of the throat.
The deputation in communication with Neill only in-
formed Krugers foreman of resolution of ' f the f t club.

Mr. Holl7for Galbraith, said he did not go to the I;aster
to intimidate or noires him. but to inform him (he baring
applied ta the club for men) none of the men would work
for Lim so long as the obj,ctionable man remained in his em.
ploy. They undertook to get him a competent man.
Mr. Justice Mellor said Galbraith told Mr. Kruger that
clone of the club men would work so long as the objection-
able MAO was allowed to work for him and do a particular
kind of work.

Mr. HoHasid yes; but they went to the muter as nego-
tiators, and for the purpose of settling the dispute between
the master and the men. It was an intimation to the
master that by the society's resolution the club men would
not work.

Mr. T. Atkinson contended it was not a negotiation. The
object was to make Norton, the objectionable man,' leave
off angle beading, which was au interference with Mr.
Kruger's mods of carryieg on his business.
The Lord Chief Justice mid Were was no case spinet
Neill. and with regard to Galbraith be went to the master
as negotiator rather than to intimidate and coerce bite. At
all evade. there was so much doubt about it that they
ought to give the benefit of it to the appellants.
Mr. Justice Wightmau concurred with regard to Neill,
but dissented with regard to GAlbraitle• conduct.
Mr. Justice Mellor concurred with the Lord C 'hid Justice.
The conviction was accordingly quashed.

BAIL COURT.—Nov. 7.

Sittings at Nisi Prim at Westminster.—(Before Mr. Justice
Craniptoa and a Common Jury.)

[LNG V. !ENGLAND.

This was en action for • malicious prosecution. The
defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Middleton, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Sediment Ballantine and Mr. Ribton for
the defendant.
The plaintiff is a widow, and had obtained • loan of 70!.
from • loan °Mee with which the defendant is connected.
Stas got into further difficulties and was distrained on for
tee. The landlord we desirous of aseiting the plaintiff,
and hearing thet the defendant had • bill of sale on the
goods he had them seized, appraised, and condemned, and
then gave them to the plaintiff's daughter. The plaintiff
informed the defendant that she had gone into lodgings is
the Enston.road, but that the goods in the bill of sale
were left in the homes. On the following day
he called on her at ber lodgings, and conducted himself in a
very 'Went manner. He abused her very much, caught
hold of her, end shook her. Lucy Redhead, a servant girl
in the house, interposed to protect the plaintiff from the
defendant's violence, upon which be struck her in the chest.
She fell spinet • table, and wee so eerie's!, injured that
she was afterwards taken to the Middlesex Hospital, where
she died • few days after. The defendant charged the
plaintiff with having stolen the goods, and threatened to
take them away. A policeman was sent for, but on his
being bid that it we • dispute shoat a bill of sale he left.
The defcadent end his sea removed all the goods she had
is be lodgings sod also her clothes. Plaintiff then brought
an action against hint for an assault, and for the WWI
mime of her goods, and an
it was pending be
obtained • warrant against her for perjury on the coroner's
inquisition relative to the death of Lucy Redhead. The
magierate, however, dismissed the case, upon which the
plaintiff went before another magistrate and made • similar
application, but the hearing was adjourned until after the
action. The trial resulted in a verdict with damages for
the plaintiff. They then went before Mr. Tyrwhita, who
after hearing the saes refused to commit for perjury ; upon
which the defendant called upon the magistrate to Wad him
over to prosecute, under the recent gent., the 22 end 23
Viol., cap. 17, sod as he lied no discretion in the matter,
the defendant was bound over to prosecute the plaintiff at
the Old Bailey for perjury. She was accordingly tried and
acquitted. as bad incurred 59/. expense in defending
herself.

Mr. Berjeant %Minim, for the defence, urged that he 1
bad two strong points to get over. The first, the pre-
ttegthat existed against a man who made a profit by
money instead of a profit from its investment in '
merchandise ; and the other, that the plaintiff was a widow
with eight children. There were, he said, two phases in
the life of • money lender, oneell honey when money was
wanted withoot security, and the other all gall when pay-
meet was required. The defame was that the seizure of
the goods was • tricky Urination to defeat the defendant's
claim, the plaintiff having purposely omitted to give the
dideodant polies of the ensure, sod thereby deprived him
of the opportunity of paying out the landlord. The laud-
lord mined 301. worth of goods for W., and on • previous
trial the jury assessed them at 161. flush conduct, it weal
alleged, was nothing better than robbing the defendant and ,
handing the money over to the plaintiff. The proosediep for'
's.yir
were taken before the action,and in consequence of the
a swearing that he struck Lucy Redhead, the plain-
whom he went to her was very violent, both in language
and conduct, throwing herself in his way and placing her-
self before the door, the children screaming adaryls(
murder. He only used sufficient force to move her from
the door ; and as to the girl Redhead he solemnly declared
he never touched her. A policeman was seat for, hot
it wane Ter, extraordinary thing in this country that when
a row was inevitable the policeman got out of the way, and
in this can, having no right to interfere, he left the
parties to settle the matter between themselves. When
the defendant heard of the transaction about the goods,
patting no faith in it he followed and seised the goods.
Two actions were then brought against him, and • third
was threatened ; one by the mother for an meet one by
the daughter for the goods, and the threatened action was
by the cos for taking his box. It wain oonsequence of the
coroner's jury bunting him almost as a murderer from the
evidence given by the plaintiff that he took criminal pro-
ceedhigs against her.
The defendant swore that he lent the plaintiff 55/., which
was to be repaid by ioatalmeota of 275. per week, but he
altered the payments after the nomad week to 10e. per week,
at bar requaet. The plaintiff gave him no notion of the dis-
tress, cad on going to the house he found the wont goods
only had been left. With difficulty he found out where
abs had gone. He denied hating struck her or the girl. In
aT
of the annoyance he suffered after the publics.
tiOaorocer's inquest he put himself into the hands of
his solicitor.
In crone-examination he said he was the Britannia Dn.
count Company. He had two persons formerly with him,
bat they left • year ago, or the year before, or two years
ago. Mastiff rolled herself on tins floor, and he gentle
rained her np. He was surprised to hear she had bruises.
His would not have hurt her. He did not think he left bar
bed.

A perms 'aired Hayes, who described himself so an
estate sail bormiragent, assisted the deleodant in his busi-
ness. He Willi with him to the plaintiff's. Defendant
said be bad come for the goods that had been taken from
Clatendoe.islare, and she said the thiwi had been given to
beedasediter by the landlord. Defendant said it was rio
ass delaying, they had better get the things out. She
herself against the door and said abe would stiffer
before he should take the thing', rod she slipped
down on ths floor with her tack to the door. Defendant
took her lap seedy in his arms and placed her oo a box. He
did not ewe him strike the girl Lucy. It was more like
Bedlam than anything elss. The whirl° of the goods were
removed.

Crowaexambisd—He mad* the iarsatories for the defen-
dant's bills of .4., and was paid 10a each for attesting their
axacintion,

John Robinson, earman in the employ of Mr. Bates, who
does the defendant's work said he was present all its time.
Defendant did not strike the plaintiff or Lucy.
C.ors-examined— Defeodeot took hold of the plaintiff to
remove her carefully from the door, but Dot to kurt her.
She had slid down on the floor, and was rolling about like •
drunken woman. Bite wee in • fidgety' way on the floor,
the defendant looking at her arid admiring her. (Laughter.)
There war a row, and much crying.
John loglefiehl, another carman, gave similar evidence.
In erassozamination he admitted there was • variance
between hie then staterorrat aid what he said before the ma-
gistrata. There was struggling and screaming.
Other iridium was called, and there was • deecrepancy
in the evidence given to-day and on former occasions
relative to the persona present when the policeman was
called in.

The jury ultimately returned &verdict for the plaintiff,
damps 1581.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Noy. 7.
Sittinp in Banco. —Worms Lend Chief Justice Eels and
Jaatiose Willnms, Bylaw, sad Kratiog./
WOODS,. 7112 WIMBLEDON AND 110121K0 RAILWAY
COMPANY.
The plaintiff is this in.. owned a sad of ei acres at
Epsom, through which the defendant.' hire passed, taking
1..2r. 23p. of the laud. It was in 1857 that the land was
taken, and the time between then and now had been ■pent
in negotiation sad litigation. In February, 1858, the plain.
tiff broa,ght aa action of ejectamat, to test the °mummy's
right to take tbe land ; and that action resulted in a special
came, when the court decided in favour of the company. In
September, 1881, the plaintiff served a notice claiming
2,AKV. for the part of the field taken, and the company
having omitted to mew their warrant for a jury to assess the
amount of compeesation the plaintiff claimed ►he full num
of 2,100/., under the provisioos of the 68th section of the
Lands Clauses Act, and he brought the present action to
recover it. Another special cam was framed, end this cam
now same cm for argument.
Mr. Lush, Q.C.. Rod Sir G. Hartman appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Borill, Q.C., sad Mr. H. Lloyd for the
defendants.

-7111. counsel contended that the warrant for a
joq not having been issued within 21 days of the notice the
*motif( was absolutely entitled to the full amount claimed ;
but on the other side it was said that this depended upon
whether the souks wore a valid one ; and various `rounds
of objection to the notice now is question were submitted
to the court. It was also mentioned that though the sum
claimed was 2,2001. a surveyor appointed by the magis-
trates had estimated the sum which should be awarded at
4801.

The Lord Chief Justice .usgeeted that the parties
should sow coward to a jury bawd aumruoeed to mem the
carrapeasatioe.
Ms. Leal rid he had ao authority to do as.