The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-17 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-MAY 16.

Bitting; in Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Justice Wightman
sod a Common Jury.)
POWNCEBT V. DOUGHTT.—" THI PLATERS."
The declaration stated that the plaintiff bad been induced
by the false and fraudulent representations of the defendant
to purchase for 1001. a publication called The Players,
which he said returned W. 15s. weekly. There were other
counts in the declaration.
. .

The defendant pleaded not guilty, he.
Mr. Serjeasit )3ellantine and Mr. Quoin were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Littler were
counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiff is • theatrical printer, /ca., in Leman-street,
Whitechapel, and the defendant is • chemist and druggist.
He was, with a person named Snell, the owner of a publica-
tion called The Players, which he sold to the plaintiff, toge-
ther with the stock. Plaintiff deposed that the defendant
represented to him that he made from 40a. to 50s. per week
for the insertion of engravings of actors, actresses, lie.,
with • laudatory professional sketch. Hs also represented
that a similar sum was made by advertisements, and that
the circulation was about 5,000 per week. Plaintiff deposed
that after he became posiessed of the publication he found
he had been deceived. The advertisements he found a
sham ; and so far from receiving 40s. or 50a. a week from
the portraits and sketches, he received but • trifle. The
professionals would not pay lo for their portraits, nor take
a copy of the paper. At the end of the quarter the adver-
tisers refused to pay, and be got nothing from them. He
went to considerable expense in bringing the publication
out, and he lost from N. to 61. per week without effect.
Defendant told plaintiff that Sims Reeves had paid 51. for
the privilege of having his portrait in the publication, and
that he took • oonsidomble number of copies at the Mail
price.
Mr. Hawkins—Yon can't have a Sims Reeves every
day.
Plaintiff—No ,• I wish I could. (Laughter.) He mid
Mrs. Stirling had paid a large sum of money also for the
privilege of appearing in the publication.
Mr. Hawkins—Did you expect to have these over again
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—No ; but there are many who
think themselves a Sims Reeves or a Mrs. Stirling,
and it was to be expected they would be anxious to appear
on " this shies," if the defendants statements were true.
Plaintiff—l believe Mrs. Stirling was disgusted at her par-
huh being published in the journal. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—ls she here tosaso!
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—No ; but her picture is, and that
is enough. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins—Well, I think it is more like the late Mrs.
Manning than Mrs. Stirling. (laughter.)
Plaintiff—Defendant told me that Charles Dillon and
Miss Lydia Thompson had paid him large same for their
portraits and sketches. The " inimitable Hackney" took
V. worth of copies from me for his publication. A man
whom the defendant introduced to me collected between
31. and 41. from Madame Elise for a similar privilege, but
forgot to pay it over. He also collected money from
Angell Grover, and bolted with it. I tried to sell the
publication by auction, but could not get a bidding. The
beck numbers, stereo plates,fra., I sold for 251.
Mr. Hawkins having addressed the jury in a humorous
speech, called the defendant. He denied that he told the
plaintiff that the receipts were 9/. per week, but only 71.
Plaintiff knew it was • losing publication, but being a
theatrical printer, be took it es a speculation, thinking to
make it pay. Finding he weld DM do so, be then bad
turned round upon the defendant end brought this action.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Buy 16.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
LAWIIIIISCZ V. LAWILLIMIL
(Oostinusd from yesterday's Express.)
Sir C. Cromwell said theee were two things very plain in
the case. The unfortunate petitioner and her family had
been moat generous, forbearing, and kind to this man, and
he had repaid their kindness with the grommet ['behead, in-
gratitude, and perfidy. Whether there was legal evidence
of desertion for two years and upwards betas the date of
the Meg of the petition (the 7th of November, 1961) was a
matter that would require very grave consideration. The
hot thct he had made the acquaintance of Eliza Brown co
the 12th of November seemed rather to point the other
way. He (Sir Cromwell) would carefully read the oorrespon-
dense &pin before giving his judgment.

WILLS V. WILLS.
The respondent, a hones spot in Manchester, married the
petitioner, a widow, in April, 1848: and she now preyed a
judicial separation, oa the ground of her husband's oruelty,
of which she narrated several &pant instance%
Dr. Spinks appeared for Mrs. Wilke.
The oourt decreed a separation.
WONT r. VONT.
Dr. Spinks appeared for the wife, who also sought a judi-
cial separation, but on the ground of adultery.
The respondent, an architect and surveyor in London, had
married the petitioner in 1848, and they lived together till
last July, when he formed an adulterous connection with
a German woman named Smalhausen.
Judicial separation as prayed.
WILSON O. WILSON.
Dr. Phillimore, QC., and Dr. Sauey appeared for the
petitioner, the wife of Lieutenant Wilaw, of the 13th
Madras Native Infantry, afterwards of the Leicestershire
Militia, and later still of the let Staffordshire Militia.
The parties were married in India on the 25th of October,
1852, and there bad been four cbildreo. The respondent
came to England by himself, leaving his wife in India. By
the amistance of her friends she was afterwards enabled to
follow him home, but he had refused to live with her
win, alleging an incompatibility of temper. Evidence was
given of adultery committed at the Portsmouth barracks,
while the Staffordshire Militia was quartered them.
The case stood over far further evidence of identity.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Willem.)
The trial of Thomas Henry Johnson Brown, architect
for forging • receipt for 64, was resumed.
The prisoner addressed the court for several hours in his
defence, and in a long rambling speech he entered into •
history of all the transactions that had taken place between
hirk and Brittain. endeavouring to show that he had not
coullaitted the offence imputed to him, and that the original
version he had given of the affair was the true one.
The prisoner was found Guilty.
Mr. Justice Willis, in pausing sentence, said that if the
cue against the prisoner had rested merely upon the alle-
gation of his having forged • receipt for 61., his offence
would not, perhaps, be so . serious in character, and there
might have bees rune doubt as to his guilt; but when all
the circumstaDoes were taken into consideration he thought
there could be no doubt upon the subject. The evidence
appeared to him to establish most clearly that his otjoct
in putting forward thisreceipt was the wicked
one to cause Belt lain to be convicted of the
forgery of the 74 cheque, and that the receipt
was concocted for the purpose of procuring the
conviction of Brittain for that offence. He was b=gfr.ol
say that the evidence had produced the same conviction
on his mind that it had upon the jury, and he was per•
fatly satisfied that Brittain was entirely innocent of the
forgery of that cheque. The offence of the prisoner was
greatly aggravated by the fact that he had endeavoured to
make the law an instrument to oppress an innocent man,
and he felt that he should be neglecting his duty if he did
not pass • substantial sentence. He then ordered the pri-
soner to be kept in penal servitude for ten years.
Robert Richards and Magneto Balls surrendered to take
their trial for the manslaughter of Mary Anne Hiddle.
Mr. Liffey widened the prosecution. The prisoners
were defended by Mr. Montagu Williams.
The prixosers pleaded guilty.
The circumstances under which this charge was
preferred were somewhat peculiar. It appeared that
the prisoner Richards was the captain of a steam
tug called the Esther, and the other prisoner
was also employed on board. On the 14th of
March the vessel was lying off Greenwich, and the prisoners
were on shore, when they met the deceased girl, who was
about 15 years old, and another girl about the same age,
named Swainish Spencer, filid took them to two public-
houses, where they gave them beer and spirits. They be.
came intoxicated, and while in that state the prisonen pro-
posed that they should acoompsey them on board the steam
tug and stop all night. At first they refused, but even-
tually they consented, and they all went down to the river
side, when the vessel war hailed and a boy came
to the shore with a small beat smiled a "diem,"
which, it was alleged, was quite unfit to carry
four persons ; they all, however, got in, and
the diugey was rowed to the side of the vessel, when, from
some cause or other, she filled with water, and the deceased
was drowned, and it appeared that her body was not found
until nearly a month afterwards.
The learned Judge said that, although the prisoners had
pleaded guilty, he had some doubts whether the facts would
have J 11411184 a conviction for manslaughter. The prisoners
vary probably bad some immoral object, but the girls ap-
lave gone into the boat of their own accord.,accord.,and
reiri:id to
ost cosier that he did not see how the prisoners
could he bald to be criminally responsible for the
death of the deceased. He did not, therefore, feel himself
justified in •g a sentence of imprisonment upon them,
but he skonld require them to enter into a recognisance to
be of good behaviour for the future.
Aims Cr sky, 52, WAS charged with misdemeanour In
hayloft unlawfully sent • quentity of pork to Newgate.
market as fit for human food, tee same being in • dimmed
aad uswiwiasenas state.
Mr. ,Me4h emidneted the prosecution, which wee
toned by by tie direction of the corporation el the City •el
Leedom.
Butlisareil that the prisoner was a Idirr at Lefintso
mod WA on the f.th et Mirth he sent the car-
om al two pip I. Dossowts. meet ottowswa in