The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-31 00:00:00

lab) inttlligence.
EQUITY COURTS.—JAN. 30.
(Baton the Lord Meanller.)

IX BC rill SHIPIMILD AND

ANCIIIIT OLDER

In this case a petition wan proßented to his Honour the
Muter of the Rolls for the winding up of this society,
which was registered under the lauslaild Bocietiee Act,
1852. The Industrial Societies Act, 1862, by see 1, re-
pealed the act of 1852 ; and sec. 17 *aided that societies
registered under the act of 1862 should be wound up by the
judge of the county court of the district. The act of 1862
also gave leave to existing societies to register under that
act, but it was not compulsory. This society bad not bees
so registered. The Master of the Rolls was of opinion that,
the act of 1852 being absolutely repealed, be had no juris-
diction to make the order, but gave leave to have the matter
mentioned to the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. Roxburgh, for the petitioner, urged that the 17th
section applied only to societies registered under the act of
1862, and this society not being so, the jurisdiction of the
Court of Chancery remained.
The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that, as all the acts
referring to those societies had been repealed, any society
dairies to be wound up must be registered under the In-
dustrial and Provident Societies Act of last scion.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-JAN. 30.

13itlingo in Banco.--(Batore Lord Chief Justine Cockburn
and Justice, Wightanan,Croinpaon, and Bisakburn.)

DICKSON V. TEN LIU; 07 WIIRON.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C. (with whom wan Mr. Gordon Allen)
moved, on behalf of Lieut.-Colonel Dickson, for a rule nisi
calling upon the Fort of Wilton to show cause why two
orders made by Mr. Justice Blackburn should not be est
seide---one etnking out certain averments to the declara-
tion, and the other retuning to administer rennin unwrap-
ton, to the defendant. Lieut. -Colonel Dickson had brought
an action against the Earl of Wilton for a breach of
contract.

—iii7ioffitioe Blackburn said he struck out the averments
Nu.being sandstous and impertinent, and as an abuse of thel
proems of the court
Mr. Hawkins said the contract was entered into on the
&dins*, 1860, by which the Fat of Wilton, se the plaintiff
a agreed to pay him the sum of 6,0)01., and also to
ulsielt beet endeavours with the authoritiee at the War-
office and the Hoes Guards to restore the plaintiff to his
fret position, if he (the plaintiff) would withdraw from the'
consideratioa of a court of inquiry about to be held certain
e which he had preferred against the Earl of Wilton.
Tta:reamed counsel bad no desire to mention mote names
than were necessary to their lordships understood* this
rase. The charges preferred by the plaintiff Nernst the
Earl of Wilton were, that in the spring of 1856, when the
Queen's Own (or End Tower Hamlets) regiment of militia wee
embodied ces Woolwich Common, of which regiment his lord-
ship thew was and now is the colonel, his lordahrn introduced to
his then lieutenant-colonel (Dickson) on the common a
female under the 'mournful name of Bales, who had
accompanied his lordship from London, and whom he
represented to be • sister of one of the ensigns of the regiment,
although his lordship was well aware that such was
Dot the true name of the said female, bat that she was a
fon of loose habits and immoral character, and a
requenter of notorious brothels in the metropolis. The
second charge alleged that Earl Wilton, on the amns
day, although not in uniform, ordered Lieutenant-Colonel
Dickson to parade the regiment for his lordship's in-
spection, and requested the plaintiff to allow the female
to occupy his hut until the regiment was ready
for inspection, and accordingly he escorted her to his hat,
where she was joined by the Earl of Wilton, who remained
with her till the regiment was ready far inspeaboo. The
third charge was that Colonel the Earl of Wilton paraded
the regiment, and received their salute, with this
female upon his arm, and that he afterwards
caused the regiment to be formed into sq=
into which he entered with the female, and ernr
through Lieut.-Colonel Dickson his approbation of the evo-
intim' be had witnessed. The remaining carps alleged
that immediately after the dismissal of the reguneot the
Fail of Wilton introduced this female into the mess-room
huts of the rogimeet, where the officers were assembled
with some ladies, and where refreshments were provided
out of the mess funds, and his lordship and the female par-
took thereof, although he well knew she was not the sister
of the ensign, but a person of disreputable character. That
the defendant purposely deceived the plaintiff a to the true
character and name of the female. That Earl Wilton,
by his conduct in this matter, had offered a direct
insult to the lieutenant-colonel, officers, and men of the

regiment, who, placing relia;ce in the fact that
his lordship was then • married man, and in the enjoyment'
of a high social position, did not imagine that his lordship
would have ventured so to conduct himself. That Earl
Wilton having by such conduct offered an indirect insult to
the Queen, whose representative he was when in command
of the regiment be received the salute ; he subsequently, in
June, 1856, exercised his powerful influence and high family
manexions to obtain, and did in fact obtain, vouchers for •
hall given by order of bet Majesty at the Hanover-square
Booms, and by means of which vouchers he introduced into
the society of her Majesty, of the Princess Royal,
and of numerous members of the Royal family
and court, the female in question and members
of her family and acquaintance. ; and, lastly, that
Earl Wilton's conduct was • direct violation of the rules of
the memos, unbecoming the character of as officer and •1
Seatleman, de ton to the position of • deputy-lieutenant
of the Tower Hamlets, and especially disgraceful to •
privy coulicillor, • peer of the realm, and • magistrate.
There was an appendix charge that Earl Wiltoa did, oe the
*Mk May, 1858, maliciously prefer certain scsodalous sad li
belle= charges injuriously affecting the personal character,
honour, and position of his then lieutenant-colossi (Dickson),
the falsehood of which was admitted by General Peel, the
Minister for War after s• report of • mllitary Court of ID-
' quiry, and sithsequently established by the verdict of •
spaced jury in the Court of Queen's Bench. The
inquiry into the above charges was to have taken place
on the 4th June, and on the 3rd June the contract OD which
I the present action was brought was made, and that contract
was as follows :—"Colonel Dickson having placed himself
in the hands of Mr. buncombe, M.P., with reference to
the accusations brought against the Earl of Wilton,
and the Earl of Wilton having given Mr. Edwin James full
authority to set in his behalf, it is waned as follows :
Ist. That Colonel Dickson shall appear before the Court of
Inquiry to.morrow, sod stet* to the mart that he
has placed himself in the heads of his friend Mr.
Duncombe, M.P., who his recommended him to with-
draw the charges made against the Earl of Wil-
ton, being satiated with the explanations which have
been given, and Colonel Dickson is to ask permission of
the court to withdraw the same. god. Mr. Duocombe and
Mr. Edwin James, on behalf of Lord Wilton, undertake to
use their best efforts with the authorities of the War-oflim
and the Horse Guards to restore to Lienk-Ooloael Dickies
the position be has lost in his profession, sad endeavour,*
thesis for him some employment coesisteet with his former
station. 3rd. Col. Dickson bevies incurred a large expense,
arida' out of thedisputes and charges against him connected
with the Tower Hamlets; Militia, and in the action brought
by him against Lord Wilton. Mr. Duos:nabs has represented
this to Mr. Edwin James. and he has speed, on Lord Wil-
ton's behalf, to pay Colonel Dickson 600 L upon this ar-
rangement being carried out. (Signed), THOS. IDDDCOIIIIB,
EDWIII JAMUL-3, Seams-gardens, Rd Jule, 1860. If any
pablicatioo appears connected with the charges, this v-
ra ent is null and void.—T. D., B. J.^
VJustioe Blackburn said be had no recollection of say
promise to pay money being brought before him at chambers.
Mr. Hawkins said the whole of the above was set out
word for word in the declaration.

Mr. Lush, Q.C., who appeared to show muse against the
ride is the fint Inetance, said the breach of contract was is
the Earl of Wiltou's not usiog his best efforts with the
authorities of the War•of3ce and Horse Guards.

Mr. Hawkins said that iD punUDDCD of that agreement
Lieutenant-Colonel Dicksou appeared before the Court of
Inquiry, and said to be permitted to withdraw the charges,
which was done ; but the Earl of Wilton and his agent bad
not endeavoured to procure him to be reinstated in his
former position. It was all-important to show in sup-
porting an action of this kind that these were not fabricated
charges. cod that they were madebont fide.
The Lord Chief Justice--But you state them in the de-
elataiieuxeAsetes_ooeureed. ". •
ns Mr. Hawkins—No doubt.

The I.,d6lll4..TrUti;;—How is that consistent with
the statement in the agreement that the ex planatiohe are
satisfactory.
Mr. Hawkins admitted it was not a question here whether
the charges were true or not, but whether the plaintiff bon►
fide believed they were at the time they were preferred.
The plaintiff was desirous of knowing what part, if any, the
Earl of Wilton intended to deny.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said he struck out, or intended to
strike out, all the averment& in the declaration that averred
what might be called libellous matter against the defen-
dant, and averring them to be true. If more had been does
it had been done inadvertently.
Home discussion took piece on the technical bearing of the
motion, and ultimately the rule was refused, it being
arranged that the declaration should stead with the aver-
ments struck out, end no objection was to be taken on the
trial of the omission of the averments of the truth and boo&
Ades of the charger,.
Mule refused accordingly.