The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Term sittings at N iai Prim at Weateninstra.—(l3efore
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and • Special Jury.)
THE k.:E.E44 E. HUY&
. .

••••:: farther bearing of this remarkable trial was rammed
The same learned counsel appeared as on the
The following evidence to character was called for the
I,,:eudant :
r;' o. liolvoak, • magistrate, and deputy-lientaaant
atord, and formerly &tanker, gave him an excellent
..er for morality, truthfulness, and honesty.
Admiral Sir Ste hen Lnahington, Last.-Governor
~,,welch Hospital. K.C.8., in November, 1838, hoisted
on board the Cumber/and. The defendant was on
:Le ship at the time, sod served with him the whole
; ..• :::ue be was in that ship. He selected the defendant
the others to go with him into the Leopard. He gave
, character for truthfulness, for which realm he
. •al him for the Leopard.
, • ~,e‘amined—He had known nothing of him for the
,e ears.
• N!. ‘f V. Wane, aesietaat•payezarter, Lieut.-Gambier,
second master, and Lieuten.,nt Peramore,
• Malacea, who were in the defendant's mess, gave him
Ni char inter for truthfulness.
N.kpier, the commander of the Malacca, gave him
.ra,ter for truthfulneas.
famine I—A grave charge was made net the de-
, ; e;tic the time he was as board theYalseoa It
, ?toe. 1562.
••etleant Ballantine—What was the nature of the

.4e '
tirtrubers objected to an investigation into anything
; • ,;.r truthfulness of the defendant. That was the only
.t. 11 then before the court•
.erjeaut liallantioe said the charge was made about
• • •-.r of the cocrt•martiaL
I. ;rd Chief Justice said this was a charge made in
• ; moot h after that preferred against Lieut. Armiftge.
-erupt Ballantiee admitted it did not bear on the
of truthfulness, but was an element to enable the
• • form an opinion on the moral bearing of the de-

hief Justice said it depended in what sense
• • ,n 1 moral was taken.
M:. serjeant &actine handed his brief to his lordship,
of: er reading that part referring to the charge,
Lord Chief Justice said the utmost the learned sea.
• -:11 ask was whether • charge was made, but if so
• :.1 cot necessarily show there was any foundation for it,
:t 1,0 doubt affected his character, the fact of &charge
• ',co made.
,i.t.uu Napier, in answer to questions from Mr. Serjeant
said the charge was investigated and a report
• t the .I.lmiralty. The defendant remained on board
era Mr. Davenport still remained in the service.
Lard Chief Justine—Then the investigation led to
g Napier lost so. He afterwards had the same
c, :pion of the defendant for truthfulness,
Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the evidence, said
..1.• a met distressing inquiry, and one deserving
the hest conaideratiou, inasmuch as the result mast be
:o the one party or the other according to the re-
, they arrived at. The prosecutor was convicted
,he charge before the court-martial on the de-
!•:Jant's evidence, and if what he then stated was true
proee.utor's conviction was perfectly right, and was the
result they could have come to. Mr. Armitage on
nsion had no opportunity of being examined on oath,
.• 1 he cow same forward to endeavour to convict the
-• ,ndant. if not of what was legally and technically called
.vet of an offence of • cognate character,
:h morally and substantially amounted to the
r. Although he had doubts as to the strict applicability
! :he rile with regard to perjury, in this case he thought
• ski '1 have some confirmatory evidence from the cur-
--. ••Aliag circumstances of the case. They had had
prosecator's oath, and be had exhausted the
..d 1,11 of the officers and men one ty, but
• furthest they proved was that thdid not
-.- or hear what the defendant had sworn to,
: Iron the laxity of the sentinels as deposed to in their
..fence. it was possible Mr. Heine had spoken the truth.
m ito queetioe for them to determine was whether the
:ee:e given by Mr. House before the court-martial was
and that now given by Mr. Armitap was the
:r :h. It was hinted by the prosecution that the
.rges preferred against Mr. Armitage were
• result of a consperney, but there was
.ridence of it except the three coming forward sod
. . •!,; their evidence before the court-martial. It would
that Mr. lean and Mr. Delisle compared notes as
: Mr. Armitage's eooduct, and that coming to Mr. Jack-
, L's knowledge, he made his statement. Their conduct ex-
, .1 the etiolation of Lieutenant Gambier• and on the dr.
coming to his knowledge, he reported them
C..ptaia Napier. Unfortunately this propensity
••:ed in some men. end ou the other band it was • charge
made and most difficult of disproof. It was • matter,
.refore, that required their most serious and careful roe-
-. :atiou. A more painful duty than they had to die.
could pot devolve arse • jury, and he
,ight that under the eireamstapees it was but wise
reasonable that they should require sonsething more
oath against oath before they convicted the defendant
•• perjury. With regard to the prooesdiags before the
.rt-martial, his lordship said that what they had seen
:.I heard lately was sufficient to show them that it
t.. 4 not the best tribunal for Ovestigatieg and deciding on
c..niinal changes. Their mode of examining, and above all
sou-examining witnesses, was of an obsolete character, and
tle sooner it was abolished the better. .

The jury retired at a quarter past 11 o'clock to ocesider
their verdict.

- --
At ten minutes past 12 o'clock the jury sent a note to say
then could not agree, bat his lordship would not diaeharge
then). At half-past 1 o'clock his lordship came into court and
a.:l be had received a wood communication from the jury.
lle said they stated there was not the least chance of their
omiog to a unanimous verdict. They had exhausted the
ih.ruscon of the subject, and therefore they submitted they
lad performed their duty, and asked to be discharged.
Mr. Serjeant Ballasting, for the prcescution, and Mr.
West for the defendant, said they would leave it in his lord-
*Up's hands.

The Lord Chief Justice aid he wee of opinion that where
a :17 said there was DO chance whatever of their coming to
a unanimous verdict after they had exhausted discussion on
:le subject, there was no use in keeping them together to
coerce them lab giving a verdict.
The learned counsel maid they concurred with his lordship.
Tue jury was then celled in, and in answer to questions
from his lordship, said there was not the slightest pawl-
k of their unanimously agreeing to a verdict.
The Lord Chief Justice, on that statement, discharged

The jury were accordiogly discharged without agreeing to
a renhot.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judy °valency.)
rite werts
Mr. D. D. Keane eras this morale; invited by the Court
to take hie seat within the bar, ea hu appointment as one
of ber Maje.ty'l conned learned in the law.

11...81N1C1N V. PALLIdTiII
This was a probate cause, tried before Mr. Jostles
Mellor at the lut Durham assizes, sad reeeltieg to the
enablishmeot of the will. A sew trial had since ben
bored for.

Sii,lSS..Wilde said that after reading the evidence sad
moulting Mr. Justice Mellor. he was satisfied that there
ought to be no sew trial. He should, therefore, decree
probate , but he would make no order as to oats.

MARSHALL V. MARSHALL.
This wu &discern petition prosecuted at the instance
of the wife.

Dr. Spuiks asked leave on the pert of the Attorney-
General to intervene.
The Judge Ordinary granted the application.
aortriso o. BOULTOW.
Dr. Swabev salted pen:maims on behalf of the peti-
tioner, the wife, to enter an appeal although the pro-
per time for grunting nab had passed. The
pound of the applicaties was the mete of the health of the
mioorr which bed prevented her from taking the noose.
tiFT step wooer.
Its Judge Ordiesu7 did sot ear that the set gave him
atr lower to extend the time beyond 14 days. He was
rertcoly not disposed to give facilities for appeals, esp.
cur., on the part of • wife whose petition had been dia.
11..1,ed, and where the costs would fall upon the husband
Alitioo to those already iecurred.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Registwar Winslow.)
IS RE P. NOLL.
The b•inkrupt was a silk broker, of Old Bead-street.
T3's was the first sittun. The adjudiesfies was oe a
77iztoes petition. A prebnairiary statement shows
12S110/., with amine estimated at about
'only two creditors proved their debts—Mr. W.
!nor. silk broker. of Uaion court, Old Broad-street,
Messrs. Overend. Gurney, sod Co" 1,3141. The
f gentlemaa was chosen trade mains«.
Rt PTLIINGTON A.ND PILLINOTON.
.Tbe bee iceupte were ship broken, of Feuchurch.street and
! v'rt--)1. They failed last veer, with liabilities of about
This was a dividend anther. It was stated that
assets in haud will yield &boated. is the pound.
IN RE JANIS COORRUIT.
rhe bankrupt was • inercbast. of Mincitd-lane. sod of Old
Cb.rlion. He ,eme to the court on his owe petition. The
!.'mPnaying list of creditors erten& over several pages;
- ...Aunt of liabilities is coosiderable, Owen heist one
sh.ne of 6.5.038/. due to the Chartered llereantils
• a India, Leedom, and China. The bankrapt
"r.`'utes his failure to losses is respect of his
• - with China in tea and silk. No statement of the as-
-. 's has yet bees supplied. At the last sitting tfr. Howell.
:oust, of Leadenhalletreet, was choose assignee ; and
• ',solution was now pawed for taking the owe oat of

Cr RR MART BOCK.
I • bookrupt, • widow, woo described ad a mor.
broker, and oomotholoo isg=it
:6% .oquaso, and Oroydoo. oarryiag OR
the brm of Vachard Back sod 0o."