The Express.
London, England, 1863-08-22 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.--theorDow' Auarn 21.
Piston Mr. Barak Bramwell amd Sweada Junies.)
/101,171.1.114 V. ItIICHNONT. . . . .

The plaintiff in this scams is the principal of a scholastic
lehntishment at Brighton, and the defeedant to the minister
of a dissenting orrogreption at Kensington, called the Free
(arch of Ragland. The action was brought to recover
twenty guineas in lieu of a quarter's notice of the removal
of two of the eon., of the defendant from the establishment
of the plaintiff.
The defendant put upon the record a plea that the plaintiff
had acted cruelly towards his sons. and that he had neglected
to give them sudicieet food, and had also given them food
Si
an improper description. cad that hia sons had in roue-
queue contracted a °mimeos disease, and upon this ground
be justified his conduct. This plea, however, was abandoned
et
the commencement of the cam, and it was admitted that
there wan not the slightest foundatio for it.
Serjeant Parry and another leaned gentleman were for
the plaintitl ; and Serjaut Slice and Mr. Murray for the
sliendant.
Some circumstances connected with this cue were rather
remarkable. The plaintiff is • foreigner, and he has for
matey years carried on a highly respectable school called
"Clive /louse School," at Brighton. One of his scholars
mu the son of • gentleman named Pocock, who was on
friendly terms with the Rev. Mr. Marchment, the defeat.
dead, and it appeared that in August last Mrs. Pocock wrote
to the plaintiff` and informed him that she thought she
Mould be able to recommend him two scholars. The result
war that two sons of the defendant, Arthur and Sydney,
were sent to the school for the Okra:lnas quarter, and t
vas arranged that forty guineas per annum should be paid
lir sigh lad, and at the same time • son of Mr. Pocock was
art to school, and • mull reduction was made in the
'amount to be charged for him, be brier treated in the
fight of three children being sent from the lame family. It
appeared that while the children were at school they had
• alight attack of chicken pock, and they were not quite
Well when they went home for the holidays, but it was
admitted that there was nothing seriously the matter with
them. The usual notice of the recommencement of the
scholastic duties was sent bathe defendant, and he is replyac-
emoted for the children not being sent back to school by say-
ing that they were unwell, and upon the plaintiff again corn-
sueicatiog with the defendant the latter sent a letter to the
piiialiff, in which he made use of an expression to the effect
MU he did not intend the children to return to school, and
that he strained from alluding to the cause,heeause it might
be unpleasant to him, and adding that the matter he re-
ferred to was the report of hi medical attendant as to the
nature of the malady from which the children were suffer-
ing, and the causes that had produced it. The punt
ration was therefore brought to recover a quarter's notice
for each of the Loyal, and also • sum of four guineas as
eaten for their having received instruction in dancing.
The evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff *mita
ef the production of his prospectus, a copy of which was
meet to the defendant, in which it was stated that • full
quarter's notice would be required before any pupil was
removed. adMrs. Hoffmann, the wife of the plaintiff, who
bad made the arrangement with Mrs. Pocock, Mated that it
was quite understood that either • quarter's notice should
be given, or the amount should be paid, ad that it was also
uoderstood that the usual extras should be charged.
The plantiff himself likewise sided that he never under.
Mood that the children of the defendant were to be received
into the school upon any other than the usual terms, and
that Mrs. Hoffmann, at the time the arrangement was made,
said nothing to him to the matron.
Sergeant Shoe, in his address to the jury for the defend- '
sat, mid that his instroctioes were that the agreement that
wee made was that there should be no notice of the
weenoval of the children, and that forty gatolas per annum
should include allextras ; and Mrs. Pocock and her daughter •
weesexasiaked, sad they flatly contradicted Mrs. Hoffmann
sad swore in the most positive manner that she agreed the;
ISO BOOM seed given, and that there should he no additiosal
sharp for extras of any kind. Both the Wise were crow
mainined by the Mused counsel for the plaintiff, bat no-
Wag whatever was elicited that tended in the slightest
degree to invalidate the testimony they had given.
Baron Bramwell, after this evidence had been gives, '
made an observation to the effect that it was his opiates
the case was see which ought not to have been brought
down to them assures for trial, and thereby a very large ex- '
penes incurred when the matter might easily have been
nettled in another court. He at the same time mid it was
manifest that the plaintiff meld not recover unless the jury
should be of opinion that Mrs. Pocock and her daughter
bed been guilty of wilful and deliberate perjury.
&giant Parry, in his reply to the jury upon the whole '
sale, expressed Pam,
with a good deal of warmth in re.
hasees to the observation Met had been made by the
bused judge, and said that it was one which greatly um-
bummed hins.He laid he felt certain that it had been made
unwittingly by his lordship, and that it would be very far
from his intention to prejudge any question that was AO be
submitted to a jury, and he should sat them, without
tesding the slightest disrespect to the learned judge, to
▪ that observation from their minds when they came to
eensider the case.

Bane Bramwell, addressing the jury, said—And I do the
mine, gentlemen.
fierjests Parry then proceeded to comment upon the evi-
dence in the c.w.o, cud he observed that it was not so
much the amount of money that was at stake a present
notion for which the plaintiff was =incendiary, es a beim
le relieve himself from the odious uneaten that had been
made test him by the plea that bad been put upon the
mord the defendant, and for which, at the last moment,
it was itted there was not the slightest foundation.
Hues Bisiewell, in summing up the MO, said he wee
very sorry he bad created a grievance for the learned eciaasel
fee the plaintiff, but all he could say was, that be
having made the observation at the tams, and that a
sot waited =Ail the clam of the cam. He bad no hesitii-
ties now in repeating what ha had before said, that the
mere oeght not to have bees bled at the arises at an ewe-
mom expellee, wise* the whole amount involved was only
211. He would also ay that it appeared to him with re-
gard to the facts that had been deposed to, that it was pos-
sible Mrs. Hoffman might be mistaken, or might have
begotten what averred ; but with regard to the other two
lobK if they were not speaking the truth, it
wee impossible to some to any other conclusion than that
they were committing wilful and deliberate perjury, and it
yea for the jar, to say whether under the circumstances
they woold be latailled in mobs to that conclusioni.
The j after a vary shalt deliberation, found a verdict
let the t upon the general issue.
Upon the application of Serbant Parry the verdict upon
the counts wing cruelty aad ill-treatment towards the
children was entered for the plaintiff, there being so
evidence whatever to support them charges.

JOWL! r. THY GREAT V.E Ti 63 RAILWAY COMPANY.

This wee as action to recover compensation for injuries
lasteined by the plaintiff upon the Metropolitan Railway.
Mr. M. Chamber., Q.C., and Mr. Hume were for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Bova], Q.C., and Mr. T. J. Clerk were for
the defendant..

The plaintiff in this action described himself as a crinoline
bonnet maker, and it appeared that on the 2Eth of April be
was at the Oower.street station of the Metropolitan Railway,
which was at that time worked by the defendants,
intending to go to Farringdon-street, and as he
was about to get into a third elms carriage, be said
that the train moved on while he was standing upon the
step, and be was seised by oast of the porton, who at Inn
attempted to force hies Into the carriage, but finding be
could not do this he pushed Lim on to the platform, end one
of his feet went between that and the steps of the carriage.
At first he did not feel any symptoms of injury, but very
shortly afterwards his foot swelled and be was obliged to
have medical advice, and he was laid up for several weeks.
The defence that was set up to the beton mut that the
plaintiff was endeavouring to force his way into one of the
carriages while the train was in motion, and that all the
porter did was to enforce the regulations of the company in
Oda respect, and prevent him from doing so.
The
with 75/ jury, however,es. returned a verdict for the plaintiff
. damag
Baron Cheapen was engaged the whole day in trying am
eimmon jury cause.

NORTHERN CLIVJUIT.7-LrvEspool, cover 21.

Caowu COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
Sliudgetli Beepers. 17, was indicted for the murder of her
child, about 12 months old. The circumstances of this use
were of a peculiarly painful character. The prisoner had
been driven from the shelter of her father's house, after the
lather had polluted her person by incestuous ioterviews.
In misery end destitution the poor girl wandered about the
neighbourhood of Eccles, near Manchester, not knowing
what to do with herself and
child. While in this; condition
• man cams up to ber, entered into ommersetion, and ulti-
mately suggested that, she should get rid of the child by
throwing it into the river. Goaded to desperation by her
miserable state of mind, she yielded to this suggestion, and
baringlned • stone in a •mps fastened it round the infant's
seek, and threw it into the river Irwell. She then
west te the house of a woman whom she
knew in Eccles., and with whom she hod found ',Niter for a
few nights. When asked what bad become of the child,
she told a confused story about haring given it to a woman,
but afterwards she admitted that she had thrown it into the
giver, and the police, upon dragging the river at the point
indicated. found the body.
Mr. Pope having addrested the jury for the defence,
His lordship summed up, telling the jury that the pain-
ful circumstances under which the crime had been com-
mitted might ,arm ground for • recommendation to mercy,
but must not be permitted to interfere with the NB per-
formance of their duty.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, end she was see-
genced to death, his lordship remarking that he would for-
ward the recommesdation to the proper authorities.
The penonellwea removed in • stets of ineeneibdity.
&or= Boyd, 36, was indicted for having feloniously
killed his wife, at Liverpool, on the 72nd June Met. The
prisoner end the deceased dwelt is a court off Kt. Andrew's.
street. and so both were nay intemperate they nosed •
miserable life. (la the night el the 22nd the deceased
went to bed intoxicated, and shortly afterwards the primmer
earns home is a similar state. He asked the decreed to
get up sad prepare his supper, but she refused, telliug him
le "go and get it where be came from. Some further
squabbling took place, during which the &ceased said,
" Hold your noise." Almost immediately afterwards the
prisoner, seising a poker with a sharp end. hurled it al bis
wife with en= irioce that the end entered her head sad
atoned the blood to flow profusely. The deceassil es.
ebbed, " Oh, George, you have killed Neel" The pd.