The Express.
London, England, 1852-01-22 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 22, 1852.

iLab3 intelligence.

EQUITY COURTS.-YRIITIRDAY.
llama to Loam hires. or Jamul-
Ex tlura CMITILLI

Boum-

.111,11.Ta:Y.
7'he entities,' had been two of the partners of • Jinn
coasist.r,g of fear members, which had %fried ou business
I. Loulca. The object of the petition was to appeal
wins, the decision of Mr. Commissioner llolroysi to
Deoemher last adjudicating the Bra bankrupt. The peti-
tioners were Giovanni Oiustiniani and Savona Catcall, by
whom the bonito's of the firm had been carried on in Bury.
eonrt, St. Mary Aso, and the other two members of the
dna w..re Frank Cistern and one Braggiotti, who were re-
sident Jbroad. The adjudication had been obtained on the
petitioe. of:rdeeen. Lafuente and Webster,ofLiverpooLepona
debt I,t 16,6791. The other two members of the bankrupt firm
did not care to dispute the siljuilication, having been them-
selves adjudged bankrupts on separate San, dated in Oc-
tober a,elNovember last. The hens of which the petitioners
were nwintsers had, it appeared, been dissolved by
meat rrevious to their incurring the debt upon whicar the
'data, +lion was founded, and the principal ground on
Which . was sought to reverse the adjudication was that at
the ti of lending their money to the other members of
the 9,3 the petitioners' creditors hail antler, through their
agents in London, that the partnership had been dissolved,
and t1...t the petitioners, who hail All along beet, dormant
partni a in the dissolved firm, were no longer such
partn. a.
Lot, Justice Knight Brie., thought that there was •
sabsta isl question of fact to be tried, us to the knowledge
of the di-solution by the petitioning creditors ; and asked
Irina - either the petitioners or respondents hail any ob.
*tint •o such trial.
Con- I for the petitioners and respondents having both
anew, .d in the nivative,
Lon Justice Knight Bruce slid he was of opinion
that ti re ought to be a trial at law of the question, with
admie ins to be made on both sides, so ss to prevent any
obsta, arising to the trial of the real question at nisi
penis.
The ease then stood over, to arrange the form of the
coder . t be taken with this view.

Ihrl 1.. ng

ours-um—Boom rem Lou Caminita
riaelv tL r. CANEY.

A :union arose yesterday on the point whether the
iep• .ons taken in the original cause could be read in this
the ,e ,red canoe. The Lord Chancellor held that the depo-
sition math' be read. These documents were very voluesi-
tree. ond the reading of them occupied the court the whole

Boom Ties.o2/11/MiCS Tema.
la a■ S AAAA oltD11•11 SCItOoL.

Thi was a petition presented by two landowners in the
parist praying for a reference to the Mister to appoint new
trait.. • of the charity property, and that a scheme might
be a. t..ed foe the future management of the charity ; and
that the present master, the 11ev. John lox, might he di-
rected to provide a school-room at his own eapense • or, if
the e.•'irt should think that he ought not to be so charged,
than t-nit a school-room should be built out of the funds of
Übe el. ; and, if the court should think it beneficial that
Mr. F... should be removed, and a proper person appointed
in hi. room. The petition stated that the original endow-
ment was under an indenture dated in 11363, by which Sir
Themas Wvidrington Knight conveyed certain lands to
truster. to support a schoolmaster to teach and instruct the
pang children of Stem fordba rn,and who should be appointed
teem time to time by hi. (sir Thos.Widdrington's) heirs-at-'
law. fte eomplaints made against the present schoolmaster
were teat he had appropriated to the use of his own family
the building winch had been the schoul•room, and had hired
ass improper room at a public-house fur a school-room
that .uloequently he had taken a curacy at Newcmtle and
had I. It Stansfordh.sm, and had let the school-house and ne-
glect. .1 the school.
Mr Halt and Mr. Ridley appeared in support of the pe-
tition ; Mr. Stuart and Mr. Bates on behalf of the
maitre; Mr. Calvert for Mr. Sheila., who claimed to be
hair-st-law of the founder of the charity and visitor.
The facts and arguments are fully stated in the judg-
Illelli•
The Vice-Chancellor said before he entered into the facts

of the case be wished to expends Ye umbel edlelheilea
at the way in which it hed Immo semi aidl
aisles. in the avoiding of all personal relleetiese
• cider./ on the master or the petitioners. It was
a ma rlegirable that that rouse should be taken in every
ces e, but more particularly so in charity matters, in which,
hatwa. forty to say, much personal feeling was frequently
▪ up, and from which infinite mischief arose. (Llis
Hwrn it then read the prayer of the petition as before set
out.) .S.me parts of the petition he had no doubt about.
First, bs had no doubt of the propriety of appointing new
trusties. It had been argued that there was no occasion
kir e, r, as all the property was for the benefit of the
name,. he received the rents, and bad • right to do
so, suit there lore the trustees would have nothing but a
mere dry legs I estate; but however respectable the present
miter might t -e—and there was nothing in the present
eye "leniut.d to cast any rificetion upon him—he (the
Viee•Vhancellor) had to look to the safety of the
charity estate, aot only during the tenure of the
present incumbent, but for the future also. If, there-
fore, the parties cos.ld not agree upon a bat of trustees
the matter must be referred to the Muter. But be
thought no question could Shire in the application
of the fund, the objects of the charity being so clearly set
out in the original settlement. Tberecould, therefore, be
no
need or • seisms. The and part of the petition prayed
that a new school-room might be provided. He entertained
no
doubt that it would be greatly for the benefit of the
chanty that a roper room should be provided. On the
affidavits he was essielled that the roots whisk Mel hen
need at tint finigimennament of Mr. Fos'e dm% AO midi

he was said to have converted to his own use, was set enellet
could properly be used, and therefore he could set died
that to he restored, nor could A, have su right to rope
that gentleman with the act of his censor, wan W'
dulleil down the original room. rle should, *Mae%
eclare that the trustees when appointed should, with to
cons,nt of Mr. lon, raise a sum act exceeding 200f.,tehodhl
a school-room—he said not exceeding 200 f., because be bused
the good feeling of the landowners would supply the ale.
if more was wanted. The neat part of the petition Intl
that which related to the removal of Mr. Fox. lie NNW
tallied no idea of removing him, and therefore he isehelte
that part of the petition solely with referee*" le aloha The
facto alleged against the master were, his mammies, se the
old echuol-room; his want of attention to the Nandi led
his making charges for books and coals. Aa swim.
was rain d that this court had no jurisdiction to roman the
muter, as there was a visitor; but he had no doubt is Mid
point. The case cited by Mr. Rolt, " Green v. Itelleiri
fere " (1 Vs., sear.), and the words of Lord Eldena in
the Bekaa ease, set that question at rut. The cbmg
converting the school-room was not denied, but j
upon the ground that it was not well suited he dm
health of the children ; and he thought the master had are
out that port of the case. It might be that there had rent
as well some personal convenience to the master in the rev
moral, but if the room was really detrimental to the health
of the children he could not direct that Um Mould be
brought back. The real contest was as to the Seem of the
substituted room, and on that point be ems mit matialled
that the allegations in the petition were mane out. 'lnt,
as to the charge that it was in a publie-batme, that was in
reality not the fact, it was joining • pubikeliense, but Mr.
Foe rested it yearly and not weekly as alleged in the peti-
tion. and net of the ones who kept the priblie•hose. It
was not true OM it Ina one the Odds% he it was
partly ewe the pastry used by the pellie-beese ; and as
to what was felled a staple, it appeared that it wee a place
where a gem yes kept in the winter, ad where horses of
travelMeammigts the inn were put up ; sadist° the stench
that was Way metradicted ; and it was dos contradicted
that it was used ter the purposes of the rasa in the even-
ing, the feat that two in the yea it ass end, with
Mr. Pea's at kit time nil MO kr • elan. He
should not, think% be asing Join if be di set throw
on the petitioner tae eels GC die Mire* relating to this
room. Nest, as es ienlisiest atteresse, he did not think
Mr. Wee had fully sesereng the seophist nods spinet
bin ; he hal r dart he had isterd to as his err; boa
he sensed in hove singderal Igensil Juliana is baying
the mean is the hare et • doper men An he was IS.
tined to de. He dried brief tars any pegilirots but
arimed Irvin; pew le Berrie it, he IsseAsear
Ord that he horssais to return ; he (the V
eider) thorn be could mat my that the psi-
aeon were to briefing that molter hewer as
to justify addhaslits Or with the soh of that part
of the pears. Ms thought be used net go Mae tie
=dm adbmilis end eels t it appeased the nester W only
rot hell always bees rieenor la het it., fee Mealy
are the *Berea pay a a week ft opera Bet
M thee& Os sorter's sMnelY is rawly to tise rows
a imagism des we te • peat err vasseerary—Ot ap-
pool rat he leg Mr hi eibiers)—relating to the Vasa
of troths, sr se te he teeloss. and as to the Oar
ifs d peers die had bees reseed at this nisei. NM it
was irminible le go Oa they night sat bon are is.
or bodes ea the cost He shoed, thanies, use 111111
=haw Mort IS that *at and an him mine re
• ewe te eliew Is that behalf, and deed Ire
ono le be oat of the dory, is Orris dr Ng
ile ea the whets, this perils wort never have
Moe pessired If the term basi .xis or inquiries into
OP WSW,. The ern that he Ord nolo tharidere,
Ipmdd be, that the sort being ambled OM it sushi net be
wbe was the last surviving tyres, it be
Histre-
qie"ghe Noon te appoint arms sew trustee% MA
lave their meta of this part of petition eat if
the rarity, ad Sr it be ileshissithet sash ranee dada
Ise at liberty telliee• roast osomenf MK lola porn
of brays • eibesi-nor ad • tare": lir sem flee Ile
sob kora by the owner is reifies Is the alliolle
Si No in ids natter, whisk wore set frond le be
ale
pod lbe orsode ;sr that se mash a the se
le to ealetheled esheeirso be mil
emit or le midi as okra to Ma noeval of MIN
wart eon And be Ogeght did be hatutedebilp
prod Werra of the rase wad he tr
oresidzi asp_der IS tat pdat There seal rthe farm of a easel of lib derjliallnet
gi7orisseemel eignire le it. sail or
Orr gseilieoest wig& woad Ober with his erg It
Ili alhallea to Ile seheaL

W I. km IV.

IS le TVS ET CIDIOSAMISIRS itAILWAT COlean,
NZ PASTS 13town. E . SS AS TO Tin IeeTIMIST-
VINT or Pa/Clean MOSSY 111 LAND.

Ceetais Lads La the poreasioe of • lomat for life lady
bees parebasei by the above tensity sem ptlis
amp was paid into Gout Lahr the at =l7

way Att. A petition was presented by the tenant he life c
for N.l. investou at of the money upon leadaved the question
as to t".e nece,sity of serving the parrots combat in re.
mainder after the death at the tenant fur hie wit again
raked.
11r. Daggallsy appeared in support of the petition, and
cited the 69th met ioth neatens at the Lands Clauses Act,
and submitted that the court was itself constituted the pro-
tector of the parties intereced in the money, and there
wee no necessity (or serving any party but the tenant for
life, who was the person entitled to the receipt of the rents
end profits of the estate.
Mr. Speed, for the railway company, said the recent de-
cision of this court, directing all parties interested in land
taken by railways, to be served with the petition for rein-
vestment of the purchase money, had mused great anxiety
on the part of the railway companies. A different practice
had been always pursued, and the obligation of serving all
parties would entail considerable increased expenses. He
trusted, therefore that his Honour would not adhere to that
rule.
The Viee-Chancellor said he had not expressed his own
opinion only upon this subject ; but he Itaq ascertained
that all the other equity judges agreed with him in thinking
that upon these petitions fur reinvestment, all parties in-
terested in remainder, after the death of the tenant for life,
ought to he served. He was quite convinced that the legis-
lature could never have intended any other course to be
pursued. The el lutes referred to in the act were, in fact,
similar to the ordinary clauses for sale and exchange in an
estate act. The reason why a different practice should have
been so long pursued ce.uld only have arisen from there being
no parties interested in raising an objection. Orders had,
therefore, been made sub silentio, and the point had
probably never been decided. If the parties had any
doubt as to the propriety of his decision, the better course
would be to have the practice settled by appealing to a
higher authority.
It was understood that this suggestion would be adopted.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAY.
armors a lasto.—Stroas Lola CAr.au., MadiIITICS PKITIOCO,

A ;I; Yi JonmesCZaive—s.—
BUSINESS 01 Till COURT.

At the sitting of the court Lord Campbell gave notice
that tho court would sit in bane* after term on Monday
and Tuesday, the tad and 3rd of February, and Monday
and Tuesday, the 9th and 10th of February, and would pro-
ceed with the country new trials which might then remain
undispotud of ; and also any cases in the crown official pa
pen which might be appointed by the court. The court
would oleo sit on Saturday, the 21st of February, to deliver
judgments.
Swan o. NTE.—Fawn IN OBTAINING a PARTNER.

Mr. Justice l'atteson said this ease had been tried at the
last sittings at Ouildhsll, before Lord Campbell, when •
verdict was found for the defendant A new trial had
been moved for (by Mr. Scrjeant Sher), on the ground that
the plaintiff had been induced by the false represen-
tations of the defendant, and one Chequers, to enter
into partnership with the defendant, and advance him
80W. He did in effect enter into partnership with
the defendant under an agreement of June, 1849,
which partnership was dissolved in March, 1850. During
that time the plaintiff advanced upwards of 80W., and
took an active part in the business. In September, 1849,
the defendant was arrested, and the plaintiff then found
that a representation which thedefendans had made to him,
that he did not owe anything, was untrue. He, however,
continued to place money to the partnership account until
the dissolution, and also delivered to the defendant some
of his own furniture to the value of 631., which sum was to
be paid in six months. This, and more, appeared on the
plaintiff's own evidence, and Lord Campbell then ruled
that an action for money had and received could not be
maintained. Mr. Benoist Slice upon that said he would
prove many instances of fraud and misrepresentation, which
would alter the case; and thereupon mentioned • variety
of circumstances which had not came to the plaintiff's
knowledge till February 1860. His lordship then mid he
would not nonsuit, and the learned emjcant must prove his
case. The jury, however, interposed, and said that the
plaintiff had continued the partneaship after he was
aware of the fraud. His lordship ruled, in point of law,
that the plaintiff, having been cheated during the part-
nership, would not entitle hint to maintain the action.
The learned serjeant then withdrew, and would not cull
his witnesses. In storing for a rule he • new trial, Mr.
Serjeant Slue said he had been misunderstood, and bad
not called his wieners* because his lordship intimated that,
even if he did so, he must be nonsuited. His lord-
ship did not so rule ; but, even If be had dose
so, the court thought that such ruling would have been
correct. The plaintiff could not in law say there was no
partnership as between him and the defendant, and that
the money paid on account of the partnership was money
had and received to the defendant's use. By what-
ever fraud the partnership w is brought ahout, the money
was paid on account of it. Th jury found that fact, and
the court thought they were j... titled in so finding. The
only doubtful item was that of t furniture, which the
plaintiff said was to be paid for in six months. It was dif-
ficult to deny that upon that count lb: plaintiff was en-
titled to a verdict for 63/. The court would, therefore,
grant a rule to show cause why there should not be a new
trial on the count for goods sold and delivered, on the
ground that the verdict was against the evidence ; but the
rule could only be granted on the plaintiff undertaking, in
the event of • new trial, • verdict should be entered for the
defendant on the other counts.
.

Lord Campbell entirely concurred. He had expressed no
opinion of what would have been the result of the addi-
tional evidence ; but his own private opinion Tres that it
would have been insufficient to support the action. With
regard to the goods sold, although he thought there 11 as
evidence which justified the finding of the jury, he was of
opinion that a rule ought to be granted.
Hula nisi.

BAIL COURT.—YErrzzDAT.
armies twArsco.—Basoma Mw.Jomcs AILS.
Ex
Ursula UNDIA Tlll BIZTAOPOLITAX BUILDINGS ACT.
—lllAxpxure.

Mr. Wordsworth applied for a rule to show cause why a
mandamus should not be issued commanding the official
referees under the Metropolitan Buildings Act, statute 7 &
8 Vic., c. dl, to adjudicate upon a requisition made to them
in compliance with that statute. It appeared that the ap-
plicant, Poole, was the lessee in possession of seven houses
in Knightsbridge-green, at that part near Sloane-street
where the road diverges into two other roads. The houses
were built at right angles to each road, with their fronts
westward. These bonus had always had the right of a
carriage-road and footway in front of them and joining the
two roads. In the spring of last year a Frenchman built a
dining and coffee room on this space, the eastern wall of
which came within 13 feet of Mr. Poole's houses, which
was an infringement of the act which preserved the space
of not Jess than 10 feet between the fronts of houses built
and to be built, for carriage way. Where the place was a
street or alley the act preserved a apace of not less than 20
fast. Mr. Poole spoke to the district surveyor on the mat-
ter, but he could not interfere in the then state of the
building ; and Mr. Poole, on July 31, lodged a requisition
at the Metropolitan Buildings OM.. The hearing of this
requisition was repeatedly postponed by defendant's re-
quest, and was at last to be heard on the lath of December,
when the official referees declared that they had already
made an award, and would not hear the cue till that were
set aside or they were compelled to do so. Mr. Poole de-
nied that he or his attorney had received any notice of that
award, and maintained that he could not therefore be a
party to it. Mr. Poole's solicitor then wrote to the
registrar, who sent him a copy of the award,
and said he had refused to aft his oMcial seal
to it, and his refusal had been confirmed by the Commis-
Wooers of Works. Mr. Wordsworth, therefore, maintained
that the award without the official seal of the registrar was
not binding, even if it had been properly made.
In answer to his lordship, Mr. Wordsworth stated that
Mr. Poole considered the road to be a private way.
Mr. Wordsworth having stated the law bearing on the

ere,
Yr. Justice Erie expressed a doubt that it was ever the
Wooden of the legislature to give the oflicial referees
shields jurisdiction in deciding upon all public and private
As et way is the asetropola flu leek their jurisdictioe
ale men of is emelleaseal mad teseasee character. The
awdasey of Ids mat was wad the application, bat he
wash great a rule nisi If the loused awed pleased, in
ardor to hear the matter fully diamond, as this was a
cwt important wheelies, sad depended gas a recent and
eery eatensise amt of parlimonst. If the rale werc dis-
charged, it woad so doubt may costs. His lordship
this Awed to has the hem with Was, and consider
if be amid peat a rui halt
Mr. Worderesa obese Is Sae a rule nisi at once, taking
time to seaside bow it aliseht be drawn up.
Rule nisi punted.
Tat QOM= O. BATILLIL—CILIMINAL Isrronstkvior.
Mr. Crowder leaved Sir a rule to show one way a eri-
mina iatermatiso amid sot be did emilma Mr. Edward
Saville, as erssey. of
milt HawasSi a aledsaumer.
Il e grommisill his miss ea the of Male sr leer
pewees tibia Masi that is Humid bet Mr. Saville
Seek a Ism soda pod is as aimidpal deed= of town
esumdlisen Or Or bum* of Heamtem amd aim in the
eisellam af analesee of podismat. There wen three
walla** is the Shad lama aril time is the seemerva-
tire latereet, sad at the day_ yreeediag the dudes Mr.
Saville we as elegise erred Nutt. Nutt'* MOW also
as siester, sad, being seeleed by illness in the
add set ate es the allowing day. Nat, is kistrzre,
MOM that he Sea Saville of his fimbree ills, and
rad him if ha (Batt) were *Sled la giving
a is lei sesos nein, perm amowered, " Oh, yes,
antaikesi held him he had better mo early on the fol-
kw* awl deliver in his ova alai paper, sad when
the " " cane on about 1 o'clesit, put is kis father's
.b.. sad be (Nutt) had betide net him at the
Seam INN pablishore which was in the ereserrative
Wend MN ems eniversatioe with Saville, Nutt went
he the awe Ism, east fur was drink, and had it on Gay-
le, he ewe ken bvdo. Oa the stades day Bat de-
, Haat la alba% wriappqor about 10 o'clock, and gave
in his own ahead gor Waimea He net Mr. Saville subse-
"wetly at the Seam illeee.ia angry with Mr.Shich, end
teid leg whet be hal dose.

lit. iietiTs idiel7l if it wu mkt tint Saville bed
Firtin wain ripen?
tvosits mit it was not stated sdas
Ca _pepopedi Obi
ate, bat Saville gay* it la Nett. Intim M mid
Sill bp bad Slavered the wiles paper, Sub Ink two
ballaiewas we al' bowl, apposes* ansilliat *ow, sad
ens Ma Ibis bat was tassabsamlad affidavit ot
wisass plum moat at milk& Ma albs, also
skied Solt ba was SI Ewing alasilsa; that bs asm
@WM a "Abe pow Idißself, asi saw selblebai say
saw puma to is as bit Sim
aisi postai.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YitereaDAT. I
SITTING' AT Nisi Pale• AT Werranwesc—Baresa 618. BARON 1.1.•••••
CANNAII (by pvviso) r. META°.
POLITAN LOAN SOCIITT.

This was an action t recover a aunt of 36L 55., upon a
promissory not*. Defendant pleaded, first, that he dad not
tusks the mote ' • and, accundly, that as to .uch istrt of the
elsiut s. coassisted of interest, he was not indebted.

Mr. Otter, in opening the ease, said that the plaintiff was
the public (Aker of the Metropolitan Loan Society—an as-
sociation the object of which was to grant smal, loans to
tradesmen and other persons requiring an advance, such
mune to be repaid by instalments. In the month of March,
1847, a Mr. Luke Morris applied for a lota of 301., and
gave the names of a, Mr. John Franklin and the defendant
as his sureties. Inquiries were made in due course as to
the respectability of the latter, and, all appearing to be sa-
tisfactory, the loan was granted, a int and several note
aigned by the three parties. The instalments were
regularly paid for some weeks, after which they ceased, and
then it turned out that Morrie was entirely insolvent. A
writ was therefore issued against the defendant in 1847, and
it was intended to have brought the action in the
November term of that year ; but, finding that he,
too, was insolvent, the notice of trial was countermanded.
In January, 1849, the defendant obtained a rule for judg-
ment as in case of a mound, but that rule was discharged,
and so matters went on till the Bth of January last, when,
to the astonishment of the society, they received notice to
bring the action down for trial. There could be nu doubt
that this had been dune at the instigation of the defendant's
attorney, who well knew that the society would get
nothing of his client in case they won, but if could slit}
ceed in defeating the action he should be able to put his
hands into their pockets for his costs. The defence, lie (the
learned counsel) understood, would be of an entirely tech-
nical nature, and would be this : The society said that the
person's name who bad signed the note was Mr. James
Richards, whereas it turned out that his real name was
James Rickards, and therefore it would be contended that
ho was not the person who had mode the note.
Mr. Baron Platt observed that the defendant in the ac-
tion had pleaded to the suit, and that therefore such a
defence could not be sustained. A man might, if he chose,
allow himself to be sued as Beelzebub. (Laughter.)
Mr. Otter then called two witnesses to prove the
signing of the note; and the attempt of Mr. Keen., to dis-
pute the identity of his client having failed,
The jury at once found for the plaintiff, fur the whole
amount claimed.

CONSISTORY COURT.—YESTERDAT.
Snots Da. L, sanuros.
DAT AGAINST DAx.
Thu was a divorce snit, by reason of cruelty and adul-
tery, brought by Mrs. Das against her husband. The
proceedings were carried on in pornarn, and no appearance
had been entered on the part of Mr. Da:.
Dr. Bayford appeared for the wife.
Dr. Lushington, without going into the facts, pronounced
for the divorce, being perfectly satisfied with the proula as
to the adultery.
The sentence, however, was grounded on that alone,
there being no proof of the cruelty.

BRISTOL COUNTY COURT.
7111 GAY■ LAWS.

A cue arising out of the game laws came on, on Tuesday,
at the Bristol County Court, before the judge, Arthur Pal-
mer, Esq., and a special jury, and excited an unusual
amount of interest.

RUMAT C. 'Woo AND ANOTTIF.a.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for an assault and battery. The defendant pleaded, ant,
the general issue, and, next, that the plaintiff committed
the lint wank. _

Mr. Stone stated the case on the part of the plaintiff,
Mr. Edward Parsley, who is a butcher, carrying on a con-
aiderable business at Wrington, Somerset. The defendants,
John and George Bugg, were keepers or lookers after
game on the manor of Corington, which was rented by a
clergyman of the church of England, the Rev. Mr.
Tugwell. As is often the case with persona re-
siding in country districts, the plaintiff, Mr. Pars-
ley was in the habit of taking out a certifi-
cate for shooting game, and the assault of which
he now complained was committed upon him by the
two defendants, while he was lawfully amusing himself in
the pursuit of game. As he had said, the Manor of Coring-
ten was preserved by the Rev. Mr. Tugwell, and the ex.
perience of the jury would probably have taught them that
when a clergyman engaged himself in the love of sporting
his preservation of game was none the less stringent and
tenacious on account of his clerical oleos. On the Ist of
December in last year the plaintiff, Mr. Finley, with some
other parties, was shooting on some lands belonging to •
person named Bellipont, which lay adjacent to, or, indeed,
be rather thought, were surrounded by the Rev. Mi. Tug-
well's manor, when he saw one of the di fendants, John
Bugg, come from • held having hold of one of his
(plaintiff's) dogs. Now, Bugg had no right to do
this, and the plaintiff very naturally remonstrated with him
art said, " HoUoa! what are you about with my dog;
let my dog alone." The defendant, instead of complying
with his wish, immediately commenced an angry alterca-
tion with him, seized his gun, wrested it from him, and
commenced beating him with the butt-end of it. He also
got • bludgeon, with which he belaboured him. The per-
sons who were in company with the plaintiff dad not inter-
fere, but entreated the other defendant, George Bugg,
who came up. immediately, to prevent his !mother keeper
from murdering the man ; but instead of doing sohe urged
John Bugg on, and when one of them said he would kill
the man, he replied, using a bad word, " Well, he can
die but once." The injuries inflicted on the plaintiff were
of a very severe nature. A surgeon was called in to attend
him, and they would hear from the testimony of that gentle-
man that it was some days, so swollen was one of his arms,
before it could be mcertained whether the bone was broken
or not. As it was, the bone of the forefinger of his right
ho id was fractured, and deprived him to an extent of the
use of that member. For these injuries the plaintiff had
best. !ht his action, laying his damages at 401., and he (Mr.
Stone) apprehended that when the jury had heard the facts
they Is nuld have no difficulty in awarding him that
amount.
_ .

itnei :es were then called in support of this opening,
and the Lint of the first assault of John Bugouthe plain-
tiff, by kieling him on the shin, and his subsequently bela-
bouring him with a heavy cudgel, as well as tis • brother,
George Bugg, striking him several blows over the head with
his gun, was fully proved. It seemed also, that whilst
John Bugg was beating the plaintiff with a bludgeon, his
brother George encouraged him by calling out, '. beat his
brains out." The plaintiff suffered so much that be was
under medical care for above five weeks, during which
time his arm was in splints, and he was unable to attend to
his business. He had paid the surgeon three guineas and
a-half.

-
' For the defence the two Boggs were called. John Bugg
declared the plaintiff struck him tint, and George llugg
wholly denied having committed an assault upon him
with the gun, as alleged.
The jury considered that the ease for the plaintiff had
been fully made out, sad returned a verdict for the full
amount of damages claimed—Nl. The court also awarded
the cost of counsel, &c. The verdict was received with
loud applause.
The Rev. Mr. Tugwell was present during the inquiry.

and to get op utopia to give to travellers forforwbtale called
the wine business ? (Laughter.)
The Lord Mayor (through Mr. Goodman, tho chief el,rli),
intimated to the prisoner that the general mode of coo.
ductiug busionse did nut bear upon the question of his guilt
or innocence.
_ . . . .

Tile prisoner—l require to be answered. Your lordship
I. 4udfing me without hearing me. lam able to rebut all
this kind of accusation ; but you allow a swarm of hornets
to attack ma, and deny me the opportunity or means of
defence. _ .

Mr. Goodman—The Lord Mayor is anxious, for your own
sake, that you should not make statements calculated to
aggravate the character of the charges against you, and
elsewhere operate to your pnjudice.
The prisoner—l thank his lordship very much, but I
want to trace the usages of the wine trade for the informa-
tion of people. I say it is the practice to make up samples
fur the sale of all sorts of rubbish. I know all about it.
' They put a V upon a sample bottle, intimating that the
article is vapid, and they tell the simple customer that it
means the vintage. (Laughter.) I have seen their way of
wino-making. I know bow they strain the puddings.
(Great laughter.)
The Lord Mayor—You are doing yourself no sersiee by
this mode of abusing gentlemen because they charge you
with having defrauded them.
Mr. W. Alexander, of Kensington, said —I disposed
of my business to Mr. Meadin. I had carried on business
in Walbrook for nearly 20 years. I never saw the prisoner
before, and never received a farthing from him, either in
the way of business or in any other way.
The Lord Mayor (to the prisoner)—lle you wish to ask
Mr. Alexander anz questions ?
The prisoner—No ; I know nothing about him. (A laugh.)
Now, I deny the charge of this queer fellow altogether.
The case has been regularly bolstered up. All my accusers
have concocted the matter. It is well known that in
every department in London where travalers aro kept,
whether upon salary or commission, firms are in the
habit of supplying them with samples of the goods
they wish to make sale of. Now, if a traveller bo upon
'salary, his time belongs to his employer. It he be upon
commission, then It is not the custom of the trade to re-
quire him to bring back the residue, or ends, or bottoms of
the samples left after tasting. The person, who sells upon
commission, has to pay his own expenses out of his own
pocket,
and for wear and tear, unless he succeeds in male
sag a sale, in which case he gets something like remunera-
tion by way. of commission. How could it be expected that
a commission agent, not being! a paid servant, should
bring back the bottles? No respectable house would think
of such a thing. Now, to my positive knowledge, it is the
practice of many of these who call themselves wine mer-
chants to use travellers as newspapers for advertising all sorts
of trash. (Laughter.)
The Lord Mayor—l advise you to change your mode of
defence.

The prisoner—lf they play at bowls, shall they not have
rubbers 1 Here they all come down against mo with false
charges, and shall I not retaliate by telling a little truth ?
(Laughter.) All these samples were given to me for the
express purpose of trying to effect sales fur the parties. I
have always tried to sell, but I found it impossible, on
account of the immense differeace between the value and
the price. Now, there is an order and the money ready, if
ho chose to take it, fur Mr. Harper, who was here the other'
day. As fur all the rest of my accusers, you may put them
all in a bag and shake them up well together. (Laughter.)
Mr. Reader, of the firm of Reader and Howard, of the
Neptune Brewery, to whom the prisoner referred Mr.
Clay, the wino merchant, as stated in a former examina-
tion, attended and stated that the prisoner never had been
in the employment of the firm, and never had been autho-
rised to refer to the house.

Mr. Goddard, the solicitor, appeared to charge the pri-
soner with embeulement, committed against the house of
Larchen and Co., brewers, while in the employment of that
firm. Ile said that the prisoner had upon one of the
OCCAAIOOII in which he had appropriated the money of his
employers shown great adroitness. A beer-shop keeper,
who dealt with Meurs. Larchen and Co., had paid the pri-
soner 51. for the firm, and was requested by Mr. Larchen
to give the defaulter into custody to a policeman. The
customer once met the prisoner in the City-road, and
accordingly collared him and called for the police.
The moment, however, the officer appeared the
prisoner turned the tables upon his accuser, charged
him, and had him taken before the magistrate at the
Clerkenwell police court, where the unfortunate beer-shop
keeper was lined Ph. for the unwarrantable attack upon
the gentleman. (Great laughter.)
The prisoner was then committed for trial upon two
charges, but was remanded upon several others for some
days.
There were, the police officers stated, 20 other eases in
court against the prisoner, but he very coolly said that he
could look down with dignity upon the whole set of fellows
who assembled together in so base a conspiracy against an
innocent and honourable man.

Remanded till Wednesday neat.
GUILDHALL.
_

J. Norman, appraiser and auctioneer, 5, Little Britain,
was summoned for obtaining from Sarah Bottrill the sum
of 71., with intent to defraud her.

Mrs. Bottrill stated that she was a widow, her husband
having died on the 28th of June, ISO, and that on the fol-
lowing day a person named Jennings, whom she knew,
called on her and said he was clerk to Mr. Norman, who
was a solicitor, and a few days after she went with him to
Mr. Norman's in Little Britain, in order to consult him
about her husband's affairs, when that person stated that
he would go to Dorton' Commons and see the will. On
the same night Jennings said he must have some money to
enable him to see the will, and she gave him M., since
which she had never seen him or been able to Lind him.
At a subsequent interview she had with Norman, he told
her that he hail ascertained that her marriage was not good,
sad that she could not get any of her husband's property,
but if she would give him it he would enter • " caveat"
against the probate, and that he would place the matter in
the hands of a Mr. Kirkman in Doctor's Commons. She
gave hint the money, and he afterwards told her it was all
right, and ho had given Mr. Kirkman, a proctor, the
money. She called several times, and was &Ilea),
told it was all right. On finding that Norman was not
a solicitor but only an auctioneer, she went to Mr. Kirk-
man, who stated th.ij be had not received the seven pounds.
The reason her marriage was illegal was that her husband's
first wife was her aunt.

Mrs. Mary Bate, a friend of Mn. Bottrill, who
went with her to Norman on 'several occasions, corro-
borated her evidence, and stated that she demanded the
money back from. him, and he offered to refund 2/., which
was refused. Mr. Kirkman stated to her that he was not a
proctor.
Mr. Norman, in his defence, stated that at the time in
question Jennings hail only been in his service a few days.
The sum in question he had received, but it was applicable
to the payment of his charges and expenses in getting in
tradesmen's accounts against Mrs. Bottrill's husband, and
in journeys to Windsor and Maidenhead, in order to ascer-
tain whether a woman who had alleged that she also
was married to Mr. Bottrill, was to be found. Mrs.
Bottrill instructed him to do so at Kirkman's suggestion.
He then produced a bill, which was drawn up in the man-
ner, and with the phraseology of, an attorney's bill.
In answer to a question from the alderman, he stated
that he was in the habit of doing such things professionally.
An officer was sent to Mr. Norman's fur Jennings, and
he wee brought into court.
Mrs. liuttrill's evidence was read to him, and, in reply,
he said that she hail met him on the evening of her hus-
band's death, and asked him to ;look into his affairs, when
Ihe advised her to apply to Norman to appraise the property.
He was occupied 19 days about Mrs. Bottrill's business,
and she gave him the 51. for his trouble. lie never re-
presented himself as clerk to Norman, or that he was an
attorney.
Alderman Sidney said that at present there appeared to
be a case of fraud, and he must adjourn the inquiry for the
attendance of Kirkman. Neither Jennings nor Norman
had any right to take Mrs. Bottrill's money for the purposes
they had stated. He should require two bail in 401. for the
appearance of each of them on the next hearing.