The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings is 511000. —(Belon Lord Chief Justice Erie sod
Justices Williams, Willes, sad Keating.)

FROWN MiD OTHERS,

o. TURNIP., RIMPONDIDIT.

THE NM/ POACHEMI ACT.

This was • we ;Wed by justices for the opinion of the
court, and the following were the circumstances :—The sp•
patents were, on Sunday, the 12th October last,
about half-peat 6 in the morning,
to
Braintree, a
policeman upon a highway leading from to
Bmiotree, in Esser., and he suepectiog that they come
from land where they had been unlawfully in pursuit of
fame. charged them with that offence. He noticed that Brown
had something bulky upon him, and upon searching him
found that he had five dead rabbit., whichhad beau recently
killed, and also an iron spud. The other appellant, walked
ou while Brown was being searched. On the same day
another of the appellants named Melbourne was found in
bed, Led his clothes and shoes were more muddy than they
would have been from merely walking on the road. At the
house of another of the appellants named Chapman there
was found in his coat pocket • net for taking rabbit., and
from it there flew some rabbit fur, and the cuffs of the
man's coat had fresh blood upon them. It was further
proved that another of the appellant. named Hatchet' had
'old a rabbit on the Sunday at • boathouse for 6d. There
was no evidence that the appellants had been seen off
the high road, but it was shown that they had been seen
at three o'clock on the same mooting some distance further
along the road. Further there was no evidence that the
rabbits had been unlawfully obtained, or that they
had been lawfully obtained, and the question was whether
it was incumbent upon the prosecutor to show that the
appellanta bad been unlawfully upon any land in pursuit of
game, and so had becomo unlawfully' parried of the
rabbits, or whether there was endear from which
the magistrates could infer that the appellants had been un-
lawfully in pursuit of game, or SCOISSOOry thereto. The
justices convicted in • nominal penalty for the purpose of
Irving the point determined.
Mr. Martin, for the appellaota, said that the question
turned upon the construction of the second section of the
25th and 26th Vie., cap. 114, and under that section be
contended that it was incumbent on the prosecutor to show
that the appellant. bad been on lands in pursuit of game,
and that the justices were not entitled to infer it from the

circumatancei which had been proved.
Mr. Philbrick, for the respondent, ►rgued that it wu
sufficient that there mamma evidence from which the justices
might infer that the appellants had been unlawfully in
pursuit of game, and that the court would not inquire into
the quantity of the evidence. It was clear in this case
that therewas some evidence.

The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion that all the
appellants, except Melbourne, had been properly convicted,
and therefore that the decision as to the other three ap-
pellant, most be affirmed. The statute enacted that
if a constable met persons on the highways,
and had reasonable cause to suspect them of
having pme which they had unlawfully obtained
he might search them, and if be found upon them game
or instruments for taking game he might take them
before justices, and the justices might convict if they
should find that the parties had obtained such game by
unlawfully going on Lod in search of pme, or had used
any instrument for unlawfully taking pme or had been
accessory thereto. In his judgment three of then appal.
lasts had been convicted properly,although there was no eye
witness to say that they had been upon any land; and his
opinion was based upon the familiar principle that magis-
trates had a right to apply the ordinary rules of evidence,
and if there was evidence from which they could infer that
an offence had been committed, they had the same right
to draw the inference from the circumstanoss as any other
tribunal had. This remark was one which was almost too
obvious for him to make. The circumstances in reference
to three of the appellants were inch that the magistrates
might fairly infer that they had committed the offence in
question.

Decision warmed as to three of the appellants, sod .ver•
tided in referees* to Melbourne.

It was stated in the course of the argument that this we.
the first occasion osi which the new statute had been brought
before a superior court for oonatructron.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Wore the Judie Ordinary.)

_ .
JORNBOI V. JONSSON AND HOTHZILBALL.—PANT MAIM.
This morning Dr. Swabey called an additional witness to
explain the circumetsnoes which led to the separation of
the parties.
The Court made a decree nisi. The nee was heard in
November bat ; the husband being a chemist in Liverpool.

maw o. sakes.
Dr. Soil*. appeared for the plaintiff.
In 1832, the parties were mate and sthuardsmos board the
ship law Webb. Is the February following, they were mar-
ried at Brooklyn, New York. They returned by the same 'hip
to England and cohabited daring the voyage as man awl wife.
When they reached this country the petitioner In ro-
amid his wife to his mother, who desired to see
her maniacs lista. The respondent produced them
and they we. now proved in evidence. A child win sub-
sequently born of the union. In 1854, the petitioner en-
changed to the Fidelia, where he was stabbed in a mutiny.
He was brought home to his mother's, at Litheard,
Cornwall ; but the respondent refused to go to him, or to
live in au apartment which had been taken for her near her
mother-in-law's boom. She afterwards came with her
uncle, and emleavonred to persuade her husband to rent
her a nepszate meinteoanoe. Being at that time without
say income whatever, be declined ; but eventually an order
was made oa him by the msgiotratop to pay her
7a • week through the parish authorities, sad mosey was
found him by his for that paryasa Evidence was
gives to show that the respoodect had beams acquainted
with a parson mimed Whams, with whom she bad made a
voyage, and with whom a cohabitation at the house of a
lira Jones, in Uvarpool, was proved. Williams had rime
disd. The formal proof teadered of the New York marriage
law teeing defective,
The ow wee Adjourned.

wan v. wren—raw BLVD.
This woe • nit for dieeohetica. as the pound of bigamy.
end it stood over on anount of a defieieney in the formal
evidence. This being
The Judge Ordaery=teleeree Nisi, with amts.
Yr. Pritchett appeared far the petitioner.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commisdoner Gou'burn.)
IN it I.I4UCHT.
The bankrupt, described as a wine-merchant, of Regent-
street, wu better known from hia connection with one of
the suburban musio-lU, from which the magistrates had
taken awa the license. This was the @Ming for examina-
tion and From the statement of Mr. Cooper, the
manager of the estate, it that the liabilities are be-
tween 13,0001. and 14,0001., with probable meets of 2,000 f.
or .1,0001. The accounts Dot being filed, an adjournment
was ordered for two months. The accounts are in oourse of
preparation by Moms. Hart Brothers and Bayles.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
II NM 0. H. IT. JO= o'mi..
The'beakrupt was a winesasecheat of Graveness& The
debts were only 3101. ;no meets. This wee the adjourned
examination sitting.
Ir. M. Abrams, for creditors, stated that the ban/cruet
bad failed to comply with the order of the court made at
the UM sitting to Ile additional accounts. Another d-
immest was therefore asked.
Adjourned awordiasly.

L`i He vas inev COMPANY
A wiadiag-up ceder waa recently made against this com-
pany, and this was the day appointed for settling the list of
contributories. Only eight names were placed on
the providooal liat, two of whom claimed to be
holders of paid-up shares ;in all about 500 shares
were held 'mooed them. The shares see ALnossiotia4Z
of code ;on some an others 35/. have been
The liabilities are mid to be considerable—about 25, .
Mr F.. W. LAIIIIMOB appeared for the official liquidator
Mr. Hutchios (of the firm of Murray, Sae, and Hutchins)
appeared for Mr. E. B. H. Lewin, an alleged contributory.
The only question of interest obi& arose was whetlear
there had been a written acceptance of alarm by Mr.
Lewin. The agents of the company bad written to him in
November, 1861, announcing that they had allotted him 20
shams, and requeeting payment of the call of 251. per share.
He had replied, but the letter was not forthcoming.
A subsequent letter on the Fart of the company
aeknow the receipt of a cheque for 5001., in respect of
the call 251. per share oo shares. Mr. Lewia was
examimd as to the contents of the missing letter, but he
denied that it contained an acceptance of shame—it was
merely as agreement to IdVIIIIIOB money on terms previously
settled between him and Mr. Alexander Young, the
manager of the company.
His Honour held that the written acceptance was not
proved, and the name wad struck oat of the list.