The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-30 00:00:00

BILL COT:W.-MAY 29.

Sittings at Niai Priva at Weatmimter.—(Before Mr. Justice
Mellor and a Common Jury.)
DI ROYER Y. WALLER. . .

This was an action for the unlawful conversion of certain
household furniture, for illegally seizing and taking the
same away, tic. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and
leave and license.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Honeyman were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were
counsel for the defendant.
Mr. Hoddleston, in stating the case to the jury, said the
plaintiff was a French lady who had resided for some time
in thin country under the protection of a gentleman, and the
defendant carried on partnership with a person named
Bolton as upholsterer and money lender, carrying on busi-
ness at Moreton-street, Pimlico. The lady resided some
time since in Sutherland-street, Finites), where the trans-

salons in question first commenced, and afterwards she
removed to Essex Villa, Kensington, where she now resides.
The learned counsel then called Madame Its Royer.
The learned judge interposed in the course of her ex-
amination, and asked, u many points of law must arise on
this case, whether the parties could not come to some rea-
sonable terms of settlement. It would be a long time
before any points of law could be settled, considering the
arrears of business in the court. Both parties ought to
be reasonable, because it was not to their interest that liti-
gation should proceed further.
Mr. Coleridge said there was no objection to give the
plaintiff her furniture if she would pay the defendant his
money.
Mr. Huddleeton said the defendant should be paid his
money, and 5 per cent. interest then in court, on his giving
up the furniture and paying the costa of the trial.
A consultation took place between the defendant and his
counsel, which resulted in the defendant refusing to ac-
cept the terms offered.
Other evidence was then called in support of the plain-
tiff's case.

- ---
Mr. Coleridge, for the defendant, submitted that by the
wording of the bill of sale, the furniture was transferred
absolutely to him, with certain powers in the event of the
non-payment of the instalments, removal of the goods from
Pimlico, damage, &c., or being sued by creditors.
The learned Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to
possession of the goods.

Mr. Coleridge, in addressing the jury for the defendant,
cautioned them not to be led away that the plaintiff was a
person unused to the ways of the world. The rate of in-
terested by money-lenders depended of course
upon the risk, and the Duke of Wellington never
said a wiser thing than when he remarked that
" the rate of interest was to be measured by the rate of
risk run." That the defendant under the circumstances took
a large rate of interest was to be expected, and was not
sufficient to disentitle him to fair consideration, more
especially when they remembered that the plaintiff was a
person who was likely to disappear from the scene in a few
weeks, and the defendant be deprived of his money and
his goods. He hoped the defendant's awe would not be
prejudiced because he was a money-lender and obtained
large interest, and observed that be thought it was very
much like • cam of "diamond cut diamond."
At this stoge another conference took place between the
parties; and
Mr. kluddleeton said they bad speed to terms. The
verdict would be entered for the plaintiff for nominal da-
mages subject to terms agreed upon.
Verdict accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—MAY 29.
Main. in Bums. —(Before Load Chief Justine Eris and
Justices Williams, Wills, and Byles )

ligaNtAtru v. egruseciw..—raint IMPRISONMENT UPON •
CHARON or PAWN° RAD MONET.
This case arose out of the following circumstances :—The
plaintiff one night on his way home from the theatre, where
was employed as a musician, went into the defendant's
shop and purchased a cigar, and 'mottling to the plaintiff's
ease he tendered in payment • shilling and received the
change. Almost immediately afterwards the defendant
followed him and gave him in charge for pawing a had
two-shilling piece. He was locked up, but the magistrate
discharged him, and afterwards this action was brought.
The trial took place before Mr. Justice Bylee, when the
jury found for the plaintiff, damages 5/. • but the question
now was whether • rule to enter a verdiCt for the defendant
should be made absolute.
- • •

Mr. Shaw appeared to show cause, and Mr. Serjeant
Peteredoef and Mt. Giffard to support the rule.
The 94 and 25 Vict., cap. 99, entitles any person who
gives another into custody under that statute for passing
bad coins to a month's notice of action, and the jury found
in this or.. that the defendant book fide believed that the
plaintiff had passed bed money, but that he bad no ream-
able ground foe so believing. The question was whether
this finding entitled his to notice of action.
The Lord Chief Justice thought that the governing ques.
tion in respect to the right to notice was whether the
defendant really believed that the facts existed which
brought the statute into operation, and honestly intended to
enforce the law ; and the jury having found this, be was of
opinion that the defendant was entitled to notice of action,
eotwitiatandieg they thought that he had no reasonable
ground for the mapicsoo.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF BANKFIIIPTOY.-MAY 29.
(Beton Mr. Oomesimiosier Fans.)
PS LILLY.
This was an examination meeting and application for an
order of discharge. The bankrupt wee a clothier, of ChM
well•street
The amounts, prepared by Hart Brothers and Bayley
show total liabilities 2,9691. ; mists. about 1.0004
Mr. Sargood appeared for the wigwam. and applied for
ea adjournment for further amounts. Than was a dee-