The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-07 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 7, 1862.

Lab§ Intelligence.

EQUITY COIJETS.—Nov. 6.
(Wore Via-Clumoollor Sir W. P. Wood.)

IctentitllLeir v. 11083.—A JURY IN CRANCKET.
This case came on upon the trial of certain isaues before
a jury summoned, under the recent act of parliament, be-
fore the Court of Chancery. Whatever variation, of opinion
may be formed ea to the policy of this alteration in the
law, none whatever can exist as to the total inadequacy of
the buildings of the Court of Chancery to meet the new
demand upon their space. The jury are penned in a box,
whilst the public have the utmost facility of access ; the
witnesses stand in the midst of, and are hardly to be dis-
tinguished from the general crowd of on-lookers ; and the
entire building, from its smallness, inefficiency of ventilation,
and the utter incompetency of the ushers under whose con-
trol it is, is converted into such a den of foul smells that the
worst rookery in London might be proud of. To add to
their other discomforts, the unfortunate witnesses were
ordered out of court, and, no place being provided for them,
had to wander about Lincoln's.ino, in the open
air, in the fog and rain of the last two days.
But the catalogue of miseries with which this great sod
enlightened nation surrounds the administration of justice
does not end here. Yesterday, during a portion of the day
the fog rendered the court as dark as night, and although
the learned judge was surrounded with the halo of four
mould candles, the rest of the court was left in almost total
darkness. With reference to this,
The Vice-Clmocallor, addressing the jury, said—l am
afraid, gentlemen, no provision whatever is made for giving
you any light. Neither is there any place to which, if you
End it necessary, you can retire. This court was erected
20 years ■go as a temporary place, according to what was
then thought necessary. It is now totally unprovided with
nearly everything that is requisite in a court of justice.
The questions in dispute in the case with respect to which
the opinion of a jury was taken were these. First, whether
a house formerly standing ou the site of the present Water-
man's Arms had the enjoyment of light and air through
windows situate on the east and south side. Second,
whether, upon the rebuilding of the present Waterman's
Arms, the old boundaries were adhered to ; and third,
whether in the rebuilding of the present Waterman's Arms
the position of the old windows were substantially adhered
to. These questions were submitted to the jury in order
to aid in the determination of the suit, and to prevent
a threatened interference with the light and air of the
Waterman's Arms by the erection of a lofty warehouse im-
mediately in the rear. Unless the windows sought to be
protected could be made out to be "ancient light.," that
is, to have existed for 20 years in the state in which they
now are, this protection could not be given, and for the de-
termination of the question whether or not they were
" ancient," these issues were directed.

Mr. Itch addressed the jury for the plaintiff (with him
were Mr. J. J. Powell and Mr. Eddie) ; Mr. M. Chambers
was for the defendant, Mr. Giffard and Mr. Welder were with
him.

The Vice•Chaocellor summed up, and
The jury retired into a neighbouring and erapy court to
consider their verdict. At half.past seven o'clock they re.
turned, and found on the first issue the plaintiffs were
entitled to light and air through certain windows, viz., the
cellar window, the *cutlery window, and the loft window,
also three windows looking south. On the second issue
that the ancient boundary lines of the old building east and
south were not departed from. On the third that the three
window, facing the east in the new buildings are not in-
creased in size, but that the scullery and loft windows are
DOW more to the south than they were in the old building.

Mr. Bovill now moved for a rule for a new trial, and
stated that there was great confusion and hubbub at the
vestry, and that it was extremely likely, even if a poll bad
been demanded, that the vicar, who was in the chair, never
heard the demaod. The learned judge, however, simply left to
the jury thequestion whether a poll had hems demanded, and
declined to ask them whether the vicar beard the demand.
This, it was contended, amounted to misdirection ; and it
was further submitted that th:altht of evidence showed
that there had been no such dm
Mule granted.

Mr. Wontner asked the witness whether the defendant
had not stated something in reference to his having obtained
other and better work, and that this was the reason why
he had not completed that which he had undertaken for
their firm ?

Mr. Homan replied that the defendant had stated that he
had obtained all he required from Messrs. Browning and
Co., and be bad been engaged on some work that paid him
better. _

The Lord Mayor asked the defendant what answer he
had to make to the complaint?
He replied that he did not think be was boned to stop,
as he had given notice thet he was about to leave the aer•
vice of the complainants.
The foreman denied that any notice had been given by
the defendant.

Mr. Goodman (the chief clerk) said that if he had, it
would not make any difference. The work he had under-
tAken to perform woe piece-work, and when he made the
contract he was bound to carry it out.
The Lord Mayor, addressing the defendant, mid it ap-
peared to him that this was the very CYO that was contain-
plated by the act of parliament. It was quite clear that he
had undertaken to perform • certain duty, and thst after
his employers had kindly paid him the money to which he
was entitled, in advance, sod other money besides, he bad
failed altogether in performing his contract, and hod left the
service and evened himself upon other, and which he, no
doubt, considered more profitable, work. Such pro-
ceedings as these were calculated to cause very
great annoyance and inconvenience to employers,
and it was very necessary that the law should
be out in force for their protection. The defendant was
liable to be imprisoned for three months, but he should
not go to the full extent of the law on the present occa-
sion, and should only sentence him to be imprisoned for
one month ; and be hoped that this sentence would cope.
rate as a warning to others in his position, and restrain
them from the commission of • similar offence.

Henry Williams, a respectably-dressed man, described as
an engraver, residing at 8.5„ St. Paul's-rood, Kennington,
was placed at the bar before the Lord Mayor and Mr. Alder-
man Hal., who were sitting in petty session, to undergo a
preliminary examination upon a charge of forging and en-
graving copper plates representing portions of Bank of
England notes.
. . . .

Freshfield, the solicitor to the Bank, who prosecuted,
said his lordship would no doubt recollect that one of the
prisoners who were examined on the previous day was the
man who printed the notes forged on the Bank of England.
The prisoner Williams then before him was the engraver of
the plates from which the notes were printed. He was
only apprehended that morning, and the officers were at
that moment, he believed, engaged in searching his house.
He proposed to adopt a course, which, as Mr. Alderman
Hale had not beard this case, would relieve that gentleman
from giving his attention to a tedious case, and which per-
haps would be beneficial to the prisoner himself, by giving
him a little time to consider what course be had best pursue.
He should, with hie lordship's sanction, take the evidence
of the officer, and ask that the prisoner might be re •
mended until Friday and be brought up with the other
prisoners.
Sergeant Webb said he apprehended the prisoner that
morning, with the assistance of Inspector Silcock, at his
own house in St. Paul's-road, upon a charge of engraving
copper plates for forging bank notes. The officers were,still
11 examining the prisoner's house, and he believed that, from
information he had in hie possession, he should be able
to bring forward evidence that would satisfy his lordship of
hisguilt.. . . .

His lordship said, under those circumstances, he should
remand the prisoner until Friday.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ichad Barry,;ged before Mr.
Knox with breaking cod entering a wine calla, at the Marquia
of Granby, 28, South Audley.street, and drinking and
wasting a quantity of brandy and beer, of the value of
about 3/., the property of Mr. John Henry Leisure, the
landlord, and also with assaulting Henry Smith, 147 C.
Mr. Lefevre said the prisoner was employed in his house
with another man to repair a drain near his wine cellar.
About six in the evening be (Mr. Lefevre) wen..; down to
see what the men were about, when he saw the prisoner
near the cellar-door in a state of mad intoxication, :and on
examining the place he found that the cellar-door had been
opened by the staple being drawn from the post. On
making an examination of the cellar he found that two
quart bottles of ale had been opened, and the tap of the
brandy cask had not been turned off, nod the floor of the
cellar was saturated with brandy, a large quantity having
run over the place. Some wine casks had also bean inter-
:ered with. On getting the prisoner to the bar he became
very abusive, and attempted to strike him. He then sent
for a constable and gave the prisoner in charge.
Prisoner said that he bad had some drink, but that it was
given to him by Mrs. Lefevre.
Mr. Lefevre said that was in the morning.
Smith, 147 C, said that on taking the prisoner into cus-
tody he became very violent, and struck him two or three
times, and but for the interference of two soldiers, who
were knocked down by the prisoner, he would have re-
ceived serious injury.
In answer to Mr. Knox,

Mr. Lefevre said that the other man appeared to have
been drinking.
Mr. Hoot —the prisoner having denied entering the cellar
—said he could not understand why the other man was not
present, either as a witness or in the dock, and remanded
the prisoner for a week, that further inquiries might be
made ; consenting, however, to take two bail in 151. for the
prisoner's re-appearance.

discredit, not having been mails until after the prisoner wu
some time in custody.
Mr. Ingham observed that the question was whether
there was any fresh evidence that would carry the rose any
further. On the former occasion of the partite appearing
before him it was with the greatest reluctance that he con-
sented to remand the accused, as there was no reliable evi-
dence to support the prosecution; it was only upon the
earnest entreaty of the prosecutor's attorney that he called
upon the prisoner to eater into hie own recognizance' to ap-
pear again. Until be heard whether there was soy new
es Wanes which would materially strengthen the use be
thought it would be neaten to proceed.
Mr. Hutchinson expressed au earnest desire to cross-
examine the prosecutor. An the learned counsel had made
him out something approaching to an angel, and had cast
the imputation upon the prisoner of having fixed a false
charge upon him, it was only just to the accused, who was
brought before the public in such colours, that he should
have an opportunity of exculpating himself, and showing
whether the prosecutor was ►t all to be relied upon—whether
he was credible on his oath.
Mr. Ingham observed that he took the prosecutor's own
statement of his conduct on the night in question, and it
satisfied him that he was not in command of his reason at

the time. He was exceedingly intoxicated, so far as not to
know what he was doing, and he produced ou the previous
examination no confirmatory evidence ; and the charge of
felony under those circumstances consequently fell to the
ground at once. Prosecutor was not sufficiently competent
to give a reliable account of what bad occurred. On the
previous examination there were other matters introduced,
which he could not exclude, because they were part of the
conduct of the prosecutor. He (Mr. Ingham) expressed no
opinion on the defence of the prisoner, but confined himself
to the prosecutor's own account of the transaction.
The other matter was irrelevant, as it might be termed, to
this inquiry ; although he could not strictly call it irrele-
vant, as it was the prisoner's defence, and the prosecutor's
conduct on the night in question was an important matter
for investigation. He did not mean to go into any charge
but that of felony ; if any other charge were to be preferred
it moat be brought before him as a distinct matter, in the
ordinary way. He repeated his wish to know whether there
was say confirmation of the prosecutor's statement; if there
was not strong confirmation, the charge of felony must fall
to the ground.
Mr. Sleigh was anxious that the magistrate should hear
what evidence he had in corroboration and in further sup-
port of the charge.
Mr. Hutchinson pressed to be permitted to cuss-examine
the prosecutor.
Mr. Sleigh observed that Mr. Hutchioson might cross-
examine his client if he pleased ; he would be found per-
fectly prepared to answer.
Mr. Ingham said be ought to have dismissed the charge
on the previous examination, and repeated that unless
strongly confirmed, it was useless to go on with the prose-
cutioe.
Mr. Hutchinson said that if the charge were now dis-
missed, it was only natural, unless something occurred to
shake their belief, that the public would think the prisoner
bad committed the offence, but that the legal evidence was
not sufficient to send him before • jury. He wished to dis-
abuse the public mind in that respect, and show prosecutor
unworthy of credit.
Mr. Bury Hutchinson, having obtained permission, then
proceeded to cross-examine the prosecutor. The cross-
examination was a very searching one, but nothing which
requires special notice was elicited. After witnesses had
been examined,
Mr. Ingham said that in his opinion the confirmation was
not sufficient, and the prisoner was therefore discharged.
THAMES.
William Banks, a notorious ruffian and thief, well known
to the police, was brought before Mr. Selfe, charged with
stabbing a young woman named Margaret Cullen.
The complainant., who belongs to the class termed
unfortunate, said she was living at No. 2, Palmer's-
folly, and was in Ratcliff-bighway, • abort &starer
from her own house, walking with • young man, a sailor,
when the prisoner came behind her and stabbed her twice
on the shoulder. She screamed aloud for help and called
out "Murder." She was taken to the station-house, whale
her wounds were dressed, and was afterwards sent to the
London Hospital.
In answer to questions by Mr. Self., the witness said
I am sure the prisoner is the man. I have known him •
long while.
William Walker, a police-constable, 488 K, said that he
found the prisoner in the Crown public-house about fifteen
or twenty minutes after the woman was stabbed. The pri-
soner said be knew nothing of the affair whatever.
The prisoner—Nor more do I. I never did it.
The woman was recalled. She was sure the prisoner was
the man who stabbed her.
Walker produced • knife, which he said • shopkeeper
named Barnett picked up directly after the woman was
stabbed, and close to the spot where the transaction took
place. The prisoner was a thief who had not long been out
of gaol, where he had been six months for stealing • watch.
Mr. Selfe asked the woman Cullen if the sailor who was
with her when she was stabbed could attend the court, and
how long he intended to remain on shore.
The witness replied that the sailor would appear as a
witness, and that be would be OD @bore another week.
A certificate from the house surgeon of the London Hos-
pital was put in, and it stated that the woman, Margaret
Cullen. had received two severe punctured wounds on the
shoulder.
Mr. Selfe remanded the prisoner, and directed Walker to
procure the attendance of other witnesses.