The Express.
London, England, 1863-07-15 00:00:00

[Stamped, Id. Additional]

This court never does interfere with the a:amino( the die.
cretin of Murton unless some nicer miaearriage his oo-
carred on their pert; and after hearing all that
have heard on behalf both of Lord Vernon and
the trustees, lam persuaded that they have shown every I
kind consideration for the countess, as well as for the infants.
The difficulties cast in the way of the trustee* are no doubt
very great, but still this court is not justified in Interfering
with them. The parties are quite at liberty to apply in
chambers, if they see any reason to do so, either u to the
payment of any money, or the conduct of the trustees.
Orders may be made in chambers, and there may be appeals ,
from any orders if wrongly made. In chambers, or in
any private hearing of the other parts of the
rase, all can be calmly and properly arranged.
end upon the whole of the present application I
see no ground whatever for making the order asked for.
With regard to the question of access by the countess to her
children, I directed that, till further order, the iofanta were
to remain under the care and custody of the trustees, who
are to allow the countess to have accent to them, but tinder
the restrictions then specified, via., so far as the invalid
is concerned, if the doctors think it right that she should see
her, and as to the other children, it they are themselves
willing to see her, but she is not to interfere with their
are or custody. The only remaining point is as to the
guardianship ; if that is to be gone into, and if the affidavits
are to be read, they contain purges so eminently unfit for a
public hearing, that I shall proceed with that part of the
cue in private, and I will order the court to be cleared for
this purpose.
Mr. Matins, Q.C., suggested that as the children were
now in fact under the rare of the trustees, if they were to
be at once appointed as the guardians perhaps any further
hearing of that part of the case might be for the present
postponed.
The Viee-Cbancelke teid—lt is to be borne in naiad that
them isbratta are by ameba toreigeen, and some ap-
plication may be necessary to a foreign court in the matter ;
but however that may he, in mercy to them I think it
would be highly desirable if the affidavits could all be
taken off the file. if not, and I must proceed with the
cue, I shall do so, as to this part of it, in private.
Mr. Greene, Q.C., intimated, on behalf of the children,
his approval of Mr. Yahoo's suggestion as to the trustee;
being appointed guardians ; and after some little discus-
' "ion upon the appointment, at the same time, of Lord
Vernon's son, their next friend in the suit of " Levoignat
v. White," and a Mr. Saute, to eat with them,
The Vice-Chancellor ultimately appointed the trustees
guardians to the infanta ; but made no further order on that
part of the case, giving liberty, however, to ell parties to
apply to him in chambers.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JULY 14.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
FORSTER e. YORSTIM AND BEILRLDOZ.
In this case Major Forster, on the 20th of December lad,
obtained a verdict against the co.reepoodeut with 5,000/.
damages, which the court had apportioned by an order of
the 23rd of Jugs.
Mr. Gibbon said that many ineffectual attempta bad been
made to serve the &respondent Berridge with the order of
the court, both a$ his private resides°, and at Meng's
brewery, in which be was a partner. He begged therefore
to move that service might be substituted on the attorney,
and that the 00-rempondent be also required to pay the 5,01.0.
within 48 hours.
Sir C. Creamiest' granted the application ; but
Dr. Spiels, interposing, argued that Major Foreter's pro-
ceeding was altogether erroneous. In the first place the
court was directed to follow the practice of the Court of
Chancery ; and in equity a mouth was allowed to pay in
soy morn that might be ordered. In the next place there
could be but one decree—a decree to pay damages and costa,
whereas Major Forster had not yet taxed the latter, sad
renal that bed been done the decree could not be served.
Besides, there was an appeal pendingagainst the decision of
the court.
Mr. Gibbon in reply contended that the court could order
the payment of the 5,000/. by itself, and also that the
month began to run from the date of the decree nisi.
Sir C. Cromwell maid the case had raised some very im-
portant points of practice, and be could not decide on the
application without further consideration. It must their
fore stand over.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.—July 14.
(Before the County Court Judge and • Common Jury.)
SMUT v. THR HON. NM. NORTON.

Thin was a action brought by Mae Sibley to reeover the
tam of 184 odd of salary, U., alleged to be due to her from
the Hon. Mrs. Norton, for eervieea rendered as govranees
to tb.t lady's grandchildren. The defendant pleaded never
indebted. . .

Mr. FROM appeared for the plaintiff; and the Hon.
Mrs. Norton defended the case in person.
Mr. Francis, in opening the case, said he had the honour
of appearing in this can as counsel for the plaintiff. He
had hoped that the defendant would have been represented
upon this occasion by a professional gentleman, as in that
case he was perfectly sure that so arrangemeot would have
been come to which would have spared the jury the trouble
of going into the case.
The Hoe. Mrs. Norton interrupted the learned counsel
by observing that she had by her side a sworn acoonntent,
who was the moat proper person to decide the matter in
dispute. This was an attorney's case, and the plaintiff was
an attorney's daughter, or else the matter would never have
been brought there. She was not going to employ counsel
to make a speech against her nursery governess.
After the plaintiff had given her evidence sad had been
cross-examined by the Hue. Mn. Norton,
His Honour, itl summing up, said there were two points
for the decision of the jury. The claim was for salary
from the 9th of September to the 't2tid of December. In
the fist place did Mrs. Norton dismiss the plaintiff, sad, if
so, was she justified in so doing. If they found that the
plaintiff was rightly dismissed, the defendant would not be
liable for her expenses to London ; but, if she were wrong-
fully dismissed, she would. The second point was
whether or not this young lady dal receive the 151. in
question. Mrs. Norton swore moat positively that she had
paid her that sum on the 14th or 15th of October. In cor-
roboration of her statement she produced Miss Sibley 's boor,
and they had heard the explanations of the latter lady upon
the point. If they found that Miss Sibley had received
that 151., his impression wee that it must be considered as
a payment on account of gaiety, and must go u a set off.
The plaintiff would be entitled to her salary at the rate of
50/. per annum from the 9th of September to the :.'2nd of
Docieniber, Dudes the items she had expended for her
pupils.
The jury retired, and on retnroing said they found a
verdict for the plaintiff for her salary and expenses, but
there seemed to be so much doubt respecting the payment
of the 151. that they thought Mrs. Norton entitled to the
benefit of the doubt, and therefore found their verdict upon
that part in her favour.
Miss Sibley was then spin recalled to give some further
explanation with regard to the entry of the 151. on the
14th of October. She positively swore that she had not re-
ceived that amount ou that day.
Mr. Francis submitted that it was for the defendant to
make out the payment of the 15/. to the satisfaction of the
jury, mid that if they had env doubt about the matter, the
plaintiff, and not the defendant, was entitled to the benefit
of the doub..
His Honour said that was so.
The jury then said—We think Miss Sibley entitled to her
salary and expeows ; but we think that Mrs. Norton is
entitled to the benefit of the doubt we have as to the pay-
ment of the money.
His Honour—lf your mind is so much in doubt, you
must find for the plaintiff.
The jury—Then we must find a verdict for the plaintiff.
We are so far doubtful that we cannot say whether the
mosey was paid or not.
Hoe. Mrs. Norton—Then that is no verdict at all.
His Honour said it was a verdict in favour of the plaintiff.
Hoe. Mrs. Ncrtoo gave notice of appeal on a future day.
The proceediap then terminated.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE

HOME CTRCIIIT.-CHELSBIFORD, JULY 14.

The commission for the county of Enex was opened yes.
terdry. There are about twenty prisonen for trial, and
some of the offences charged ore of a very heinous character.
The cause list will not be published until this (Wednesday)
niorning, and it is said that another itoupell forgery ease
will he among them, similar to the one tried last year at
Guildford. These are, however, a good many contradictory
rumours upon the subject, end nothing positive will be
known until the sitting of the court.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Wightmao.),

lama Oliver, alias /Maid Chas. Lloyd. 2.1. clerk, was
charged with feloniously forging three deeds of trawler,
with intent to defraud.
The primmer pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Serjeaut Rellantine and Mr. F. B. Lewis prosecuted ;
the prisoner warn undefended.
The foots of the case are es follow. In the latter part of
last year the prisoner was in the employ of a Mr. Clasilooer
a tharebroker, of Newcastle, end among the customers '
of that gentleman was • Mr. Oliver, of London, who
possessed certain stock of the North Esstern Railway, of
which fact the winner seemed to be aware. lo the
January of the present year the latter left the office of Mr.
Chatham mad came to London, and oommenoed to act upon
thatsystem of forgery asd fraud which has ended in his
being planet in the feloos dock. The first thing he did IPSII
to write to the secretary of the North Eastern Railway
Company, sipuig himself Jam.. Oliver, and stating that
las had removed from Gloucesterldacis to Woburn-plaos,
sod that io so doing he had lost his realms,
sad certificates of stock poseeseed by him to the
amount of 6001., and asking at the .me time what he
bad baler dci as be wee is wear of reedy ash. The ewe.

[TWOPENC:

tory, thrown off his guard by the address and signature, re-
plied that he must make a declaratioo at the polio* court,
stating bow many coupons, their nature, and their amount.
No sootier did the prisoner receive this than he forged a
declaration stating that be had lost three coupons—one for
3001., see for ZIO/., mid the third for 1001. This declara-
tion he 'ivied "Thos. Henry, magistrate, Bow-street Police..
court." and baring executedthis document be at clime pro-
ceeded to Brisbton, and pet himself in communication with
a Mr. Wilkinson, a sharebroker of that town, and after
seeing the declaration that gentleman drew op three
traers, which he sent to the hotel where the
prisoner lodged. said the latter returned them to
the oboe signed "James Oliver." which signature
was proved to be a forgery. The treaders were etch
for one share of 100/., for which the price agreed upon was
to be 1021. per share, the prisoner pretending to be the
owner of altogether sic shares. Before, however, the
necessary forms could be fully gone into Mr. Oliver was
communicated with, and an officer having been sent down
to Brighton, the prisoner war taken into custody.
The prisoner in his defame said he bad had ao accomplice
who bad forged the declaration as well 'envied the treaders
drawn up by Mr. Wilkinson. Re admitted that he had
written the letter to the secretary with a fraudulent intent,
but denied that it was he who actually comatitted the
fraud.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and his lordship,
after commenting in severe language upon the artfulness
with which the whole plan was concocted, sentenced the
prisoner to penal servitude for sax years.
Victor Cianuni pleaded not guilty to an indictment
charging him with parting with his goods within three
months of his bankruptcy, with intent to defraud his cre.
diton.

The tion was 000 ducted by Mr. Sleigh, Mr. Bri-
ley,
M Mr.
Bast Montagu' Williams. The primmer was defended
by
The prisooer was a cabinet maker residing in Kiogalaod,
nod it was alleged that be obtained goods to the amount of
281., which he parted with at a very low figure immediately
before his bankruptcy. Ilia debts altogether did not amount
to 2001.
The Jury found the prisoner Not Chatty.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
YANSION•HOIIBS

William Blow, of 11, 13611-yord, Gracechurch-street,
builder, appeared before the Lord Mayor in answer to •
summons taken oat at the instance of Mr. Woodtborpe,
surveyor to the Commission of Sewers, charging him with
having unlawfully failed to give notice of certain works now
in progress at Mr. Lake's dining-rooms, Gracechurthatreet,
as
Act, required by the 38th section of the listropolitsn Building
1855.
Mr. Blow admitted having failed to give notion, but said
it arose from a mistake. A chimney had been commenced
by • builder and had not been tioubel, and he bad gone
over the work afresh and turned the chimney into another
flue. Notice had been given in the first instance, and it was
not thought requisite to renew it.
Mr. Goodman, chief clerk, explained to the defendant
that if the work had been suspended more than three
months he was bound to give notice, end if a builder colli-
mated a work sad another took it up before it was
!Wished, the second was bound to give the two days' notice.
the seine m if it were anew work.

snitiiih:diTiown Mr. Blow for some
time, and the summons was not taken out with any feelings
of animosity, but two fires had occurred through the new
chimney of Mr. Blow's cookery range, which burnt with
greet draft, having been turned into old flues, which were
sometimes made pertly of wood. The wood got chested,
and no one koew when a fire might break oat, consequently
it wu requisite that he should keep a good look out upon
Mr. Blow and his cooking apparatua. He did not wish to
proms the matter, nor did he ask for eats.
The Lord Mayor inflicted a film of 20a., and 2a for the

MILITARY CANTEENS fur OFFICERS.
1.8 each.
Coeaptialng TABLE ENWIM, SPOONS, PORES, 41c., eke..
NO CHARGE MADE FOR THE nAx PLATE CHMTS.
Zvery other Sloe and Pecs up to the Sum of VOCI sack, kept In
.'back.
mAppIN BROTHERS, SILT ERRMITHS and (ATTU"
U. REGENT STTREETKEE I , mho
ND ofT
IA•BRID D and o,
KING WILMER-
S, IA/
Same mit,. charm,l at both Ilmuum as at their
MANUFACTORY—QFEEN'S
HEFFIPt. ',TE and CUTLERY WORKS,
ELD.
OBSERVE TIIE DURESS.

NOTICE.-POCKED BAROMETER.
NEORkitTI and Z t'A original instrument Oise of
a watch: for fore...lbw arty her. and for mountain measure-
ments, as supplied to h, .1,-I)'s government, to be had only
at I, Hatton garden . LI), Conduit and 12, Regentatreet.
- - -

EVERYBODY KNOWS Mr. MILES.
Allred Webb Mika REMOVED Fltoll BOND-STREET
to 73, BitOOB•3TREET, Llonoverisquare, in 1869.
The 18s, Trousers (originated by him) In all the New Patterns,
.11ITTUR THAN EVER.'

CLASSIQUE

p HOTOGRAP HIE
FRANCAISE,
31. Edgesrare-rood. Hyde park, London.
Manager, Professor V AISSIE f llpm ator to C. &Ivy.
TEN CARTES DE ISITE, 10s. d.

IN FUN THIS WEEK, Price One Penny,
The Lord Mayor of London.
Two of a Trade.
The Itoehuok and the Eagle.
Mrs. Grundy's I:..voph.ds.
The Viee-Chanconor ~ Wander. &c.

Now ready, handsomely bnun.l In magenta cloth, gUt,
twice Is. GI.. port pai.l, es.,
THE THIEF HAL), YEAR IX VOL ME of FUN. with numerous
Etulravingr by talented artkts, and arti.les by distinguished
writers. .

.1174- and Second Volumes, uniform with the third. mule.

SO. Ilatt-strret.

ght 4E-rot-Coo.