The Express.
London, England, 1863-12-10 00:00:00

THE EXIAESS, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 10, 1863.

THE COCRIWARTIAL ON COL. CRAWLEY.

(nor on OWN urowni.)
EIGHTEENTH DAY.

ALDERSHOT, Dee. 9.
Oa the retina of the court yesterday, after our report
had left.
Colonel Pippo (officiating Judge-Advocate) dated that se
the court was the prosecutor put in the following
datement, viz. :—" e blue-book was read out at the ex-
prima instep°e of the prisoner and against the urgent request
of the prosecutor." He then announced the decision of the
court on the point os which they had been consulting as
follows :—"The court adheres to its decision, as announced
on the :lel of December, to decline receiving any communi-
cation which is not to be read and appended to the proceed-
ings. With reference to the bluebook read by the prisoner,
the wort has to observe that the prosecutor has stated that
the document to which he now objects wee one of these given
to the prisoner for the expires puma.e of using in his defence;
and the prosecutor also stated that he had no objection to
these copies being read to the court as evidence. It reds
therefore with him to show what part can be legally ob-
jected to."
Colonel Crawley suggested, for the consideration of the
prosecution, whether it would not be convenient to adopt
the same course with reference to the correspondence which
ke nod dill to read as was taken as to the bluebook, viz.,
that he should read it all, and then that the prosecution
'should object to what parts they thought fit, and state the
grounds of their objections collectively. This course would
nave time, and if it were pursued he hoped to finish his evi-
dence that day—if not, the proosediop might be in-
definitely prolonged by needless dieenssioes.
The prosecutor weld only repeat what be had already
stated, that he was io the hands of the court.
The President—You had better proceed with the reading
of the correspondeece.
Colonel Crawley then reed a letter from Colonel Hatch,
deputy adjutant-general, dated Simla, June 3, 1863, to the
sommaorler-in.chief of the Bengal army, conveying the
opinion of the adjutaat-general that there was clear and
abundant evidence by which Serrault-Major talky might
have been tried and convicted by court-martial for having
disobeyed the orders of his commanding officer, for having
*waived at the disobedience of other non-commissioned
'Seen in making public the proceedings of the eourt.nartial
se Paymaster Smiles, and for hung uttered violent and
beastly language in regard to Colonel Crawley. 2. A latter
from the same official dated July 10, 1863, in which the adju-
tant-general justified Colonel Crawley in having arrested the
three sergeant-nsajoem and in the mannered the arrest. 3. A
letter from Sir H. Rose to the adjutant-general at the
Horse Guards, London, in which his excellency approved
id the course taken by Colonel Crawley in arresting the
sergeant-majors, and stating that the noncommissioned
ofiioere of the 6th Dragoons had been engaged ia a cabal
against their colonel. 4. A letter from Sir H. Roes to the
adjutant-general, dated Lucknow, 20th January, 1863,
nferrieg to the medical addenda at Surgeons Turnbull and
Barnett, declaring that Lilley had been in the habit of
drinking as justifying the remarks of Sir H. Rose in his
previous letter as to the waded of Litton and
the justification of Colonel Crawley. This letter
was in answer to a letter from the Hone
Guards, directing that the remarks of his Royal Ilitherew
the Commandsr•in-Chief as to the conduct of the
court-martial should be read out to the officen of the 6th
Dempans. 5. A letter from Sir H. Rose to the Hens
Guards, dated 6th May, 1863, informing the commander-in.
ohid that he had directed the letter of his royal highballs
to be read as be directed, bat cosseting certain misspelt.
heinous which appeared to prevail in the mind of his
royal highness as to the proceedings of the Mhow court-
martial. and stating that when the previous report had
been nest he (the conamandeeia-thief) did not know that
Mrs. Lilley had drank 3 or 4 dares of the brandy cote
mimed in Lilley's bungalow, but repeating what had
been stated in a previous communication that Lilley
hastened his death by drinking, and that be had
been frequently guilty of improper conduct 6. A letter
from Dr. Hutson, laspecter•Gemenl of Hospitals in ladim
dated Shah, 20th July, light andaddressed to the adjutant-
=giving as the cause of Lilley's death exceed,*
and enumerating the quantity of spirits, wine,
end basa:stated in evidence, sad inferring that he had drank
the whole daring the month of his arrest ; or admitting
that Mrs. Lilley consumed three or four glasses of bawdy a
day, the residue was sufficient to keep any man in a due
of
continuous intoxication, and sompettng that the habit el
drinking to such excess might ban been the reason why the
effects wens not perceptible, bat adding that
apoplexy was the natural weesqueoce. 7. Another
eomnivaication from Dr. Baden to the commaaderie
chief in India, denying that Sergeant-Major Wakefield we
admitted into hospital as a 'nude, or that he bad NM
shown symptom, of aberration of intellect. & • hetet
from Sir W. Mansfield to the adjutantral of the
Indira array, dated July 13, forwarding Co. Crawley's
and Dr. Turnbull's replies to certain queries swat to therm
and condemning the course adopted by the medical officers
ef the nth Dragoons, in the matter of Lilley, towards their
commanding officer. 9. A leder from Sir W. Massfield to
the adjutant-general in India, dated July 16, 1863, en-
closing a further communicatioa from Colonel Crawley,
showing further the highly improper manner in which the
colonel had been treated by his medical officers, and
complaining of their not having brought before him
the effects of the coubeemeat upon Lilley's health.
10. A letter from Sir W. Mansfield to the adjutant-guard,
dated 14th of August, enclosing correspondence from Major-
Omni Grua, commanding the Mhow Divides, to the
adjetant-geneeal of the army, dated 30th July, import*
as the conduct of Dr. Turnbull in forming part of •
tematie reaistaeos to his commanding oilier, and espwilly
condemning him for taking away the paper widening
Colonel Crawley's queries, and the doctor's replies, and not
returaiagit as preened Also complaining that the sudden
illness sad death of Lilley was not communicated to the
officer is command by the medical officers of the regiment,
and that they took no means of denying the etatemeots
made in the public papers to the prejudice of
Colonel Crawley, although they knew them to be fah*.
10. A letter from Dr. Turnbull to the officer in
command of the 6th Dragoons, dated October 4,
186 Z stating, in answer to a letter from the adju-
tant-general, that medical comforts were supplied
to female patients in hospital, but that in the can of the
wives of non-commissioned officers it was void to treat them
is their own quarters, and is the case of Mrs. Utley it was
store especially oeoeeeaq to do so, inasmuch as she enjoyed
conveniences in her owe bungalow she could not have is the
female hospital. 11. A letter from Major Champion, deputy-
adjutant-general, to Major-General Green, dated 13th July,
11563, enclosing &statement previously meet to Major-General
Farrell, conaequent on the debate in parliament, @tette"
that Adjutant Fitzsimon had voluntarily withdrawn his ap-
pal, and characterising his conduct as clishownrable in re-
peating charges against his commanding officer, which he
had voluntarily withdrawn, and the truth of which Colossi
Crawley bad denied. 12. A regimental order of his, Colossi
Crawley's, dated 27th May, 1862, calling attention to the
large number of men reporting themselves sick and being
admitted to hospital, and attributing it not to say wieldier.
like desire to avoid duty, but to exposing themselves to the
MI and indulging in the use of spirits, and urging them
yeast indulgence in these canoes of sielmess.
Time being all the document. put in, the prosecutor said
be was willing to adopt the same course as to tbase papers
as had been pursued m reference to Sir H. Rose's lettere to
the Hone Guard', viz., that they should Le appended to
the proceedings. lie admitted the correctrus of the
copies, or would (at the suggestion of the President) furnish
the court with authenticated copies.
ColoulCrawley then called the following witnesses for
the defence :
Ospiala F. G. Savage Curds, of the 6th Dragoons, who
deposed—l was, on or about November 3, 1001, at Colonel
Crawley's house at Mhow, when a conversation took plane
between the colonel and Lieutenant Fit/anon on the sub.
jut of the arrest of Sergeant-Major Lilley. On that rec-
ession Colonel Crawley asked Lieutenant Fitzeircoo if he
had seen the sentries posted himself. He repeated the
question two or three times before he could get a decided
answer. At last Lieutenant Firzsimon said he bad not
seen the sentries posted himself. but had ou-
tvoted himself with minim them once or twice a
day afterwards. I did not hear Mr. !Reliant allege any
muse for set having seen the sentries posted himself. I
sever heard him say that he bad abstained from mein them
posted himself, because he did not like to enter the house es
account of the state of Mrs. Lilley's health. 1 was present
at another conversation on or about the 17th of November,
1862, at Colonel flrawley's house, with refirenes to the
withdrawal by Mr. Fituimon of Lis letter to the commas-
der-in-chief appealing against the remerl:s made at the
Whew court-martial. Colonel Crawley read out to Lind.
Fitzsimou a communication be had received from General
Farrell or Major Champion, 1 nowt say which, stains
that Lieutenant-Fitzeiroon • retest on the commandeein-
ebiers remarks was insubordinate, and recommending
him as a yang officer to withdraw his letter.
Lieutenant Fitasimon said, if the inajorleceral and Colonel
Crawley wished him to withdraw it, Le woad do so.
Colonel Crawley said be did not wish it, es it was better
for him that the letter should go on. Colour) Crawley spin
asked him if he wined to withdraw it, end, after repeating
the question several times, said he would pre him a quarter
eta hour to consider. At the end of tie /under of an
hoar the question was again sand, when Lieutenant Fin-
ites* said he would rather seed a written answer, which
I believe he afterwards did. On 26th A ;Tit, 18;2, I can
pelmet in the orderly room at Colocel Crawlsy's
home at Mhow, with Mr. Davis and Captain Ras-
shay, when the examination of the three see-
pest.majois took place previous to their arrest.
I was present at the Mhos court-inertial when Sergeant-
Major Leßoy complained of the indigaity suffered by his
wife, and was sitting close to Colonel Crawley. I well re-
member his look of astonishment when the statement wan
made, and be turned rocked to me and said, "God God.
See this be true ?" When Colonel Crawley left Mbow under
arrest, on the 24th or 11th August, I accompaoied bias.
About 9 o'clock is the morning, just before breakfast. Col.
Christy, of the 9th Native Infantry, came to Colonel Craw-
ley's bungalow, and maid the mu of the regiment had turned
put, sad regnaided Colonel Crawley to drive by where they
were, near the church at Mhow. As we approached
towards the church the men ran over from the
harracks to the road to meet the colonel. They
_gave him
times sr fur vary heart cheers, sad " Ged —me you.
Calaisel, we haps yea will soon esteem Good luck to you."
About thirty or forty yards further on the women of the
regiment had tuned out ; they also expressed their good
widise • wed many Si them were is teen. Cohen) Crawley
limaksa them, and he then drove away. Cu the sum

day 'us overtook the detachment of witnesses of the
IneSkillings encamped, on their way to Begland, at •
place called Bohner& The entire detachment, I believe
to • man, turned out, and cheered the colonel as we corns
in. We had some lun.h, and afterwards, as we were
going away, the men again turned out, and cheered him
on his way.
Captaia W. H. J. Clarke, 72nd Highlanders, deposed—l
was a member of the court-martial at Mhow, and remember
the 'Utmost of Serpent-Major Lillny respecting the indig-
nities he said had been suffered by himself and his wife.
When the statement was made by the sergeant major, in
reply to the prisoner Susie., that the last act of indignity
he had suffered war having • sentry placed over his wife, I
looked up to Colonel Crawley. aid saw him give a start. It
appeared to me that Colonel Crawley was taken by surprise
by that statement. When the court-martial adjourned for
half an hour I went into the side verandah of the rater-house
and saw Colonel Crawley in conversation with the adjutant
of the 6th Dragoons. I beard him say, "Is it true
that • sentry has been pieced over Mrs. Liffey!" The
adjutant replied that he did not know. "Then,' said
Colonel Crawley. " mount your bone, end go up at ones
endue if it is the case ; and if it is, have the sentry imam.
diately removed." I believe that adjutant was Cornet
Snell, but I cannot swear to it.
Captain Jno. M'Neil, of the 72ad Highbusders, deposed—
I was • member of the Mhow court.enutisl, and I remem-
ber the evidence of Sergeant-Major Libby es to the indigni-
ties suffered by himself and his wife. I observed Colonel
Crawley 's behaviour when the statement was made. He
looked round the court, and seemed very much annoyed and
utonisbcd at what had been said. Subsequently I was in
the verandah of the mess-house during the adjournment of
the court-martial, and beard Colonel Crawley call to the
adjutant and ask him if it war possible that the sentry was
posted as described by Sergeant-Major Lilley on
his oath. The adjutant answered that he did
not know. Colonel Crawley told him that he might
to know where every sentry in the regiment was posted,
and desired him to get on his horse and gallop off, and see
if the sentry was posted as had been described by Ser-
geant-Major Lilley, and if so to have him instantly re-
moved. Colonel Crawley added that he was then going to
his house, and be was to come down there and report to
him what he had done. I saw the adjutant ride off in the
direction of the barrack.
In reply to the President witness edded—To the best of
my recollection the adjutant was Mr. Snell, but I am not
certain.

—Lieutenant H. J. Wallace, 6th Dragoons, having been
duly sworn, stated—l was present in the orderly-room at
Colonel Crawley 's house on 3rd October, 1862, when a con-
versation took place between the colonel and Quartermaster
Wooden on the subject of a letter that had appeared in the
Decree Herald. There was no other person present
besides the colonel, the quartermaster, and myself. What
occurred was, Colonel Crawley read out • portion of the letter
which had been written by Mr. Smalls, and asked Mr.
Wooden several questions about It. He asked him if he
had heard lately from Mr. Swiss. Mr. Wooden said he
had not, adding that he remembered the cassia referred
to, when Colonel Crawley, in the orderly room, complained
to Lieutenant Fitraimon of persons, hating access to the
serjeant-major, and his saying something about the meanie;
of close arrest. Colonel Crawley asked Mr. Wooden if he
had reminded him that Serjeset-Major Lille 7 was married,
and his wife sick, as stated by Mr. Smiles in his letter.
Mr. Wooden said he had not—that he did not think it
would became him to have dose so. Colonel Crawley then
asked him whether he had beard him make the speech
quoted by Mr. Stales, about "married or single, officer or
soldier, he did not are, ha" Mr. Wooden said he did
not remember hearing him say anything of the kind.
The only thing he remembered imam was something
which was said by Colonel Crawley about the meaning of
close arrest Colonel Crawley then asked him whether he
bad told Mr. Sales what was stated in the letter. Mr.
Wooden replied that he did not remember having ever told
Mr. &males anything about it at all. Colonel Crawley then
said it was very odd that he could recollect nothing about it
at all. Mr. Wooden said that be could not recollect much
about it either, se he was in the habit of being so much in
the orderly room and hearing so many communications that
he could not remember much about say one in perdakr.
Colonel Crawley then said, `I want year decal of this in
writing, so you had better let me have a written statement
of what marred on the occasion as far as you can remem-
ber." He wrote a letter, which he ye to Coloasel Crawley.
I remember Calomel Crawley that he had add
nothing about what Mr. Smaleshad said Mr. Wooden bad told
him, and asking him to add • ostecript to that idea to the
letter. Mr. Wooden did so. ma above (sea the atoms) is
all the conversation that I remember while I wee present on
that occasion. Mr. Wooden, after he had given the letter
to Colonel Crawley, left the room before I did. In my
opir ion that letter contained all that Mr. Wooden said be
Gould remember about the coovereation in the orderly room.
I did not bear Mr. Wooden state to Colonel Crawley that
anyone else had made the remark about Mrs. Lilley being
nick. I did not hear Mr. Wooden say anything about mak-
ing any addition to his letter, except the postscript Colonel
Crawey suggested.
Cross-examined by the Pronseeter—Will you be good
enough to repeat the convocation between Colonel Crawley
and Mr. Wooden! Witness reprtd the conversation in
the mine words as before y altering the words, "The
above is all the convocation that I remember," to " That is
all the oonversatioej remember."
. - .

—Re.examired by Cobol Crawley—Is this the first time
you have been examined by the prosecution ?—No, it is not.
Lieutenant Bonito is Dais this country.
By the (burl—Lieutenant Bennett was not in the roost
when the conversation took plane.
Ardusia Fran*, having made an affirmation in accordions
to his religious persuasion that he would speak truth and
nothing but troth, deposed—l am a general merchant carry-
ing on business at !dhow. The paper produced is a true
copy of liquors supplied by ma to the late Sergeant-Major
Leßoy during the months of March, April, May, and June,
1862. The paper was ream follows
" Regimental Sergeant-Major Lilley, Dr. to Ardada
Faso*.

" March 16,1 bottle of al;; 18th, 1 dozen porter ; 23rd,
2 bottles bawdy ; 26th, 2 tiitto ; 31st, 2 ditto ; April 6, 2
ditto ; Bth, 1 dozen pinta of ale ;10th, 2 bottles brandy ;16th,
2 ditto ;18th,2 do.; .Thd, 2ditio;26tb, 2 ditto ; 28th, 1 ditto
May 3, 1 ditto ; 4th, 6 pints of ale 2 bottles brandy, 1
port wine ; 7th, 1 bottle brandy ; Bth, 2 ditto ; 9th, balf.a•
dozen pints of ale, 2 bottles brandy ; 12th, 2 bottle.
brandy ; 14th, 2 ditto ; 16th, 2 ditto ; 18th, 1 bottle port
wine ;19th, 2 bottles brandy ; 214, 2 ditto ; 25th, 2 ditto,
1 bottle gin ; 29th, 1 bottle brandy ; June sth, 1 bottle
brandy.—True copy from my book, dated Bth JUDO, 1862.
Total amount, 103 rupees 11 minas." Sergeant-Major
frequently came to my shop before be was in arrest. He
was in the habit of drinking there—sometimes two or three
liquor glasses of brandy soil soda. I supplied him with the
brandy and soda water without payment. I did so became
he was my beat customer. I was in the habit of supplying
him with liquors without payment ever sins the arrival of
the regiment in India. I supplied him at Surname, Ar-
madnuggur, and now.
Cross-examined—la the paper now banded to you the bill
of which what you have just read is a copy
Colonel Orawley asked that the witness might be allowed
to compare them. . .

—This having been done, witness said—One of these 111861,
the other 1862. There la, I see, 1862 also at the back of the
1861 bin. • _

--eroet:examined reenmed—Has the bill just put into your
hods your signature upon it ?—lt has.
Is it a copy from your books!—lt is.
Colonel Crawley—May I be allowed to explain' Both
hills, I believe, are copies from his books. Neither of them
is the original.
The President—They are both bal. for articles supplied
during the name period'—Yes, but one is for a whole year;
the other only for four months.
Cross-examined by the Pro sector—The bill you gave me
is the one for the whole year ?—I gave the bill which has
my signature to Colonel Crawley. I gave it to him on the
lit of July, 1863.
Colonel Crawley—May I ask which bill'
Witases—The bill for the year.
Cross-examination resumed—How came you to give it to
Colonel Crawley'—He asked me to give it him.
What did he say'—That he waisted a copy for 12 months
previous to the date at which Seagenat-Mayor Lilley died.
Colonel Crawley begged to coil the attention of the court
to the fact that ha had obtained the bill from the purser
by the express orders of Sir H. Hose.
Cross-examinstion resumed—Did Lieutenant Davis come
to you about it'—Hs came to me for the bill for the fear
months. •

What did you do when Lieutenant Davie came to yon?—
I took my book to Colonel Crawley'. bungelow and made
out the bill there, end gave it to him, oopying it out from
my book.
What did be y to you?—That he wanted a copy of
'kismet-Major Lilley's bilk.
. . . . .

ihd Sergeant-Major Lilley orations to deal with you
while he was under arrest!—Yea.

How did he menage to do so!—He seat his Gorawallab,
or borsekseper, to my shop with his book.
Is his horeekseper here!—No, be is not.
Did anyoos else ever come with the book not
remember.

--Didie:a-always supply the bandy yourself with your own
hands?—Noq a taw times I supplied it myself, on all the
other oansidos my sereant toppled it.
Is your servant here—No, be is not
Who kept the pets-book !—Sergeast-Major Lilley himself.
Did you see the peas-book when you were with Colonel
Crawley !—At that time I had so pus-book is my passe-
sios. MrIL Lilley had it.
Was that the only time you ever talked with Colossi
Crawley about the soeount you
day I go to Colonel
Crawley's bungalow, and may times I have talked with
him about the mimd.

Attar Lilloy's death did you go oil supplying brandy l—A
few articles.

Who cams to your *bop for them ?—I don't know. I
don't remember..

Van-L7ciieck sent to you about them ?-ICo.
Then how came you to send them!—According to his
passbook.
Did Mrs. Laity go oe lending the per-book after Set-
geent-MaYee Lellsy's death !—Yes.
What has biome of the par-book don't know.
Did you bay any of Sorgeant-Major Lilley's thinp after
his death!—Yea, I did
Of Wib01111?—hom Mrs. Lilley„through Sergeant-Major
Cottoe. . _

iiiia-your bill paid 7—lt WM trill out of the WINK god
the Warm I rid over to lire Lilley.
lalo bee ow' Ira& ?—I sot twassialm.

Dki you teeeipt the bill ?—I not remember.
Had you say conversation with Dr. Barnett about this
matter !—Yeit.

Will -yciiisinte it !
Oolooel Crawlay—l am advised to object to that question.
No conversation between • witeises sad a third party Ood-
les a prisoner, and which took place act is the preeepoe of
the prisoner, ia evidence. This se the mod elementary of all
the rules of evidence.
- -

The Prosecutor regretted that the primer Ind been ad.
rind to advance this objection about the rake al evidence,
and he should be able to show that it was entirely I wile
take. But with mud to this particular question be would
leave it in the bands of the emit.
It being now 4 o'olook, the wart adjouraed till to-morrow
(this day), at 10.

Rats 3Entintinta.
COURT OF QUEEN'S 1331WIL—Dze. 9.

After Term sittings at Nisi Priem, at Westminster.—(Before
Lord Chief Jostioe.oockbare end • Special Jury.)

BOND V. ELIDING.

This was a singulariCircut. as illnitraiing the working of
the Limited Lability Act. The action wee brought to
mom 401. 7s. for rent on an alleged indemnity. The
defendant pleaded ascend plea denying his liability.
Mr. Hawkins, Q. 0., and Mr. Bridge were enamel for the
*Wilt ; Mr. Hiuldleatom, Q.C., and Mr. Day were counsel
for the defendants.

Mr. Hawkins ;aid that the plaintiff was a gentleman,
residing is Kin*. Bench-walk, Temple, acid the defendant
is the vicar of St. Ann's, Wandsworth. In 1860 the plain-
tiff was introduced to the defeedaat, and Is 1801 the latter
proposed that they should enter into business as gonna
erne and money-lenders oa dock warrants by
means of a limited liability company. It was ar-
ranged that as the act requited elven shareholden
the plaintiff and defendant should take each five tat shares,
that a Mr. Walker should take • 501. share, for which he
should not be called upon to pay, and the other four should
be " dummies," as subscribers of 11. each. In that way this
limited company was started, with as limited an amount of
capital and as limited • number of shareholders as probably
the jury bad ever heard of. Oakes were taken at 96, Greet
Tower-street, at a rent of 65/. per annum. The deleodant
was desirous that his name should not appear, and the
premier were taken for three years is the plaintiffs name.
and it was agreed that the name of the firm should be Walker,
Bond, and Co. (Limited). In the early penal 1969 the plain-
tiff became dieestialted with the undertaking, for he had Dot
only paid op hie 2501., bat he had to lend the defendant 2501.
rt:pap3az up his shores, which, however, was afterwards
and in addition to that he bad to advance
2501. in cash. Walker appeared to be the managing director,
for the plaintiff did nothing towards the conduct of the
boldness, and the defendant only appeared to be chaplain to
the concern to pray for its welfare. (Laughter.) He ea-
pruned to the defendant his wish to retire from the com-
pany. when the defendeat offered to take his iutereet and
pre him 3751. for his share' sad the debt due to him, and
indemnify him from the rest sad soy other liability. The
plaintiff accepted the term@ sad transferred his shares.
Afterwards an application was made to him for rent, bat he
could get nothing satisfactory from she defendant, and the
result was the landlord put is an execution for three
quarters relit, which realised 81.8., and the plaintiff had
to pay the balance, 401. is. The action was brought to re.
cover that amount.

wirr. Bond, the plaintiff, deposed—l was introduced to the
defendant by his curate, a college friend. When defendint
introduced the subject of the company he said he thought
a considerable amount of money was to be made by it, and
it wee proposed that Walker, who was a good man of
hominess and very well up in City matters, shouM join them.
A small limited liability company was suggested by the
defendant es the beat to secure all parties. The nominal
capital was 5541., but the real capital was 5001., in eleven 501.
shares and four of IL each, which were divided into general
and speaial shams. Myself, defendant, and Walker were
thirsahareholders, mid the four dummies were the
shareholders— (laughter)—to make up the seven
required by the act of parliament. I paid my
2501., and ea it was inconvenient for the defendant then to do
so, I lent him 2501., which he afterwards repaid me.
Nothing was paid by Walker or the dummies. (laughter.)
The defendant, myself, and Walker, were toibe(the directors,
Walker being the managing director of the company, at a
'shay of N. per week.
The Lard Chief Justice—Was that real or nominal I

Plaintiff--:0 Ives.' salary =Third. (Laughter.) The premises
were taken by us before the actual formation of the nom-
paay is mine sad Walker's names, the defendant not wishing
his name to appear in the concern. The name of the com-
pany was Walker, Bond, and Co. (Limited). Shortly after-
wards I lent 2501. to the company. I had soon reason to
be dissatisfied with the company.
The Lord Chief Justice—Had you much business?
Plaintiff—Not very moth, or very profitable. I bad been
anxious for some time to leave the company, sad I bad fro-
' quest coaversation with the defendant about it. In the
spring of 1862 the defendant proposed to give me 3751. for my
interest is the company and the debt due to me, which I
accepted; but the letter in which I accepted the offer does
not contain any reference to an indemnity. The proposal
was cm the 15th of March, and cc the 26th
I transferred
my shares to the defendant by deed of treader. Before,
however, the transfer was made, we all three met in Mr.
Daniell's office (the solicitor to the company), in Chancery-
lane. I said, of course in transferring my shares I should
be relieved from all liability for the future rent, sod that
they should see the landlord and get the agreement for the
tenancy altered. The defendant said be would take are
it should be dons, and that I should not be liable for any
future rent or anything elas. The treader was then exe-
cuted. The defendant told me at that interview that he
had sold my interest to a friend for 500 E a few minutes
before he offered me 3751. for it. la May, 1863, I received
a letter from Mr. Archer for the rent. 1 wrote to the de-
fendsat asking if the landlord knew of the change, but I
got no reply. I was obliged afterwards to pay the rent
under pressure of legal proceedings.
Oross-exarnined-1 am a studeot at the bar. 1 can't my
I have read the Joint Stock Companies Act. I entered
into the speculation hoping to make a good thing of it. I
made no objection to the dummies, or the terms on which
Walker should join. I hoped it would torn out a good and
legitimate business. I made no inquiries before joining the
company. I spoke to Walker about it before we went into
the speculation. I was paid 5 per cent, interest for the
money I lent the defendant until he repaid it. In the con-
venation of the 15th March—the original agreement—l said
nothing about the rent. The transfer of the shares and of
my debt for 3751. I consider the consideration for indemni-
fying me. The cheque for 3754 was paid the same day as
the transfer. The rent accrued subseqesatly to the
transfer.

Mr. Archer, the landlord, was called—When the rent
became due he called on the defendant, who told him that
he had paid Mr. Bond out of the concern, and he was going
to introduce to him another gentleman equally as responsible.
He said he wanted witness to alter the agreement for the
premleas. He said he should have no objection to do so if
the proposed person was as responsible as Mr. Bond.
That was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Haddketon submitted that in the original Dropped to
purchase, and in the letter written by the plaintiff accepting
the terms, no mention was made of any indemnity, and that,
therefore, oral evidence of a subsequent conversation which
added a term to the agreement of purchase—viz., the in-
demnity—was not admiesible as evidence.
It was then arranged that a verdict should be taken for
the plaintiff, with leave to the defendant to move the court
on the point raised, the court to draw inferences of facts if
the evidence was properly received.
Verdict accordingly.

plaintiff suffering from blows on the eyes, cheek., and
right thigh. Me attended him for a inoistb.
The defendant denied the assault, arid with reference to
the false imprisonment the defendant alleged that he was
in the honest belief that the person he found is the MOM
was there for the pawpaw of committing a felony, and that
what he did was 1101111 boas ids, be hay* before lost some
property. The cireneestasera, it was ocutended, reasoe-
ably justified the defendant in giving the plaintiff into
oustody. The injuries, it was alleged, were canoed by the
plaintiff running whist the furniture in the dark is 10s
attempt to escape, The day of the trial wee the fast time
the plaintiff said be was upstairs by prembidm it Kn. Ro-
bins. The roan where the plaintiff wee oresesaled was
separated off by doors frau the radio part of the hones,
and the cosusesatioe spoken to was a pure action. It was
only when the light MI brought that the defendant near
aired Use tiff. Defendant had lost between 701. and
801. worth at property about a month before. Hie wife was
packing her things to leave him. It was immaterial to him
whether she left or not. (Laughter.) She has been ordered
by the magistrate to leave the house.
The jury were looked up some hours, and bad not agreed
to a verdict at a late hour.
This dosed these aittinp.
The Oast of Queen's Bench will sit today at Guildhell.

COURT OP OODDION PLEAS.—Die. 9.

SROOND OOORT.

Sittiap at NW NW; in LeinlatT.l(Before Yr. Justine Bykil
and a Common Jury.)

SULLIVAN AND ANOTHEI, S. WOOD:TADISITD MILT.

Thiiwi;am7acat 'on to recover damages upon the ground
that a quantity of malt beef which was warranted sweet was
in fact tainted, and unfit for food.
Mr. &Omit °Tries and Mr. Folkard appeared for the
plaintiffs ; and Mr. Clarke and Mr. Warton for the de-
fendant.
The plaintiffs in this cam were general dealers in a
humble way, carrying on their business in the neighbourhood
of Fetter-lane and the defendant was • provision dealer.
In March the thintiffs were at the defendant's warehouse,
when he maid t he had some barrels of beef which would
snit them. The plaintiffs' ore was that Sullivan, who was
a good judge, looked at some of the beef in the defendant's
cellar and with the aid of a candle partially examined ft.
It was email on moth occasions to me an iron hook to
faros and " torment " the meat, but Sullivan only had a
pimp of a wooden hoop to me in that way. Sullivan
did not find any taint, and he bought the meat
upon the defendant smearing him that it was sound and
sweet. The prios was 11. L. • barrel. The plaintiffs next
day paid the defendant 101., and fetched away six barrels, •
portion of thirty which they had bought. They sold some of
it to the poor in their neighbourhood at 3d. and 3ficl. per
pound, but it wasfoiled milt for food, and the end was that
the whole parcel was °oedemata by the afters of health
and destroyed.
Mr. Seemliest O'Brien, in stating the came, said that some
little smell that was found on the partial examination by
Sallivsa was carted by the defendant to be not taint, but
only flavour. When, however, the stuff was cooked the
" flavour " was Noah as to be quite suffioleet for the hungriest
man in all Saffron-hill ; and indeed • man who had been
fasting for as mach as a month could not approach it.
Mr. Justice Byles thought that that was quite probable.
(laughter.)
The defence was that there had been no warranty that the
meat was sweet.or sound, and that it was absurd to supplies
that there should be when the meat was sold at about Id.
per lb. The fact was that the meat was known to be
tainted, and was mold as such, the defendant thinking
that the plaintiffs would boil down most of it for fat,
though he also thought that some pieces fit for food might
be picked out.
The plaintiffs, in addition to the 10/. paid, claimed also to
recover damages in respect of the profit which they would
have got if the whole of the beef had been delivered in •
sound state.
The jury found for the plantiffs—danages, 101.
It was the mooed time that the case bad been tried.
His lordship certified that it was a fit owe for • superior
mart.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Dec. 9.
(Mere the lodge Ordinary.)
CAVW. V. CAVZLL.

Mr. Coleridge, Q.C, and Mr. Duller, for the petitioner ;
Mr. Sarelake, Q.C., end Dr. %Mike for the respondent.
This was a suit instituted by a husband for the restitution
of conjugal rights ; and the respondent pleaded that the
marriage was null.
As the suggestion of the Judge Ordinary the case was
postponed in order to enable some questions of law to be
disposed of before trying the question of facts.
HANILION V. lILIOLTON AND RINDIDTOI.-13PICIAL JURY.

a year. There wee property not let that would produce
170/. more.
Cues examined-21u property was mortgaged to the ex-
tent of 12,000/. It was freehold.
Mr. Gibbs, a clerk in the London sad Westsairwiar Beak,
proved that the arm paid in to the oseresposawat's essount,
plus the balance remaining at the ed of the year, was gear
' rally between 5,0001. and o,000?.
Mr. Serjeant Mee addreesed the court in mitigation of
damages. There could be no question of his client's guilt,
but he denied that it had been attended by say circum-
stances of peculiar turpitude. As regarded the amount of
the co-respondent's property, the learned accused celled
Mr. Smith, who said that his firm were solicitors to Kr.
Remiegtoe. lie had a third share of a property in York-
shire worth 1,2001. a year. Their firm had advanced
23,0001. on his property in Yorkshire and in London.
Oross-examieed—The probate of his father's estate was
sworn under 60.0001., to be divided amongst five psnout.
Believed that Yr. Remington bad as yet received nothing,
from that source.
Sir J. Wilde having Bummed tap the earns,
The Jury, after a brief oonsultatioe, returned a verdict IA
favour of the petitioner, with 5,0001. damages.
Sir J. Wilde then made a decree nisi with eats.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Dgc. 9.
(Before Mr. Clemmirsionsr Hoburl.)
COLOWEL WAUGH.
This case was again mentioned pursuant to the order made
yesterday.
Mr. Bagley said the Lord Chancellor had fixed this day
(Thursday) for hearing the appeal, and had suspended the
order of discharge until Saturday.
The Oornmiasiomer—That order having been made, the
original order will be suspended, and the application of Mr.
Bagley discharged.
Mr. Begley—Of cause your Honour will direct your own
officer to carry out the order of the Lard Chancellor.
The Comm • —1 have no doubt the order of the Lord
Chancellor will be serried out.
Mr. Linklater—The original order will be suspended to
Saturday next.
His Honour—Yee, subject to any direction from the Lord
The matter then dropped.