The Express.
London, England, 1864-12-16 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Dac. 15.

Sittings at NMI Prim.—(Before Mr. Baron Martin and •
Common Jury.)
MIDDLETON r. PONTEGAL..

This wu an action brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman
who had been admitted u an attorney, but not in practice,
against the defendant, Captain de Portugal, to recover the
sum of 2501. upon • breach of contract. The defendant
pleaded.never indebted..

r Mr. Keane, Q.c., and Mr. Henry James were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Philbrick for the defendant.
It appeared from the opening of the learned counsel that
the plaintiff met the defendant in the month of April last,
who was then about to start • company called " The Impe-
rial and Brazilian Finance Company. The plaintiff, wish-
ing to obtain • good aituataon, volunteered to pay him the
amouut of one year's salary if he would get him (the
plaintiff) the situation of secretary to the company. To
that the defendant agreed, end accordingly the plaintiff
wrote two letters, which were dated, as the plaintiff said,
by mistake, viz.. 17th and 18th April, instead of the 7th
and Bth, in which be formally applied for the situation, and
enclosed • cheque for 250/., which the defendant received
and cashed. The company never came cut, and the plain-
tiff, after applying time after time for the return of his
mosey, and finding there was no chance of getting it,
eventually placed the matter into his attorney's bands.
The plaintiff was called, and said—l was admitted es
an attorney in the year 1819. In April last I became
acquainted with the defendant. He was staying at the
same boarding-house an I was. He said he was
about starting • company entitled the " Imperial Brazilian
and River Plate Finance Company." We had a conversa-
tion upon the subject. I wished him to recommend me to
the company as a person fitted to till the office of same.
tary. He asked me what consideration 1 would offer if he
obtained meth' appointment. I said I would give him an
amount equal to • year's salary. He said the salary might
be fAX or 600/. a year, and we fixed upon the amount
of 250/. to be paid by me at that time. I accordingly wrote
two letters, one dated 17th, and the other dated lath April,
in which I applied formally for the office, and enclosed •
cheque for the sum of 250/. These lettere were dated by
mistake ; the dates should havelbeen 7th and Bth April. Is
July I went out of town, and returned on the Gth September.
Nothing was done towards the formation of the company
at that time except the signing of the memorandum of as-
sociation. I told the defendant that I thought there was no
chance of the company being formed, and asked for my
money back. He said my application was perfectly reason.
able, and that I should have it. He did not return it, and
on the 7th October I saw him again, and asked him what
he proposed to do, and he said he had advertised for a
person to fill the offioe of secretary, sod that when he
obtained that person the plaintiff would have his money re-
turned. He refused, however, to pay any portion of the
money on account. The company had not been
even registered up to a week ago. The only promoter was
the defendant. The offices bad no other name written on
them than " Almida and Co." That was the defendant's
Christian name.
One of the directors of the East London Bank was called,
and proved that the defendant asked him to become a
director of the company in question. He agreed to do so.
The company had not been floated yet, nor had it been
brought out at all.
Cross-examined—There were several gentlemen connected
with the company of the greatest reepectability, and amongst
them Mr Alexander Reed. who were all of opinion that the
scheme was • good one, but that it bad better not be fiesta
until the money market was in a better condition.
Mr. ticrimgour was called, and said—l am • stockbroker.
Oar firm were to be the brokers for the company when it
was started. I have not heard of its being started yet.
Mr. Philbrick—And it would not be expedient to start a
company now, would it?
Witness—lt depends upon the value of the scheme.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case Mr. Philbrick said
be could not resist the action, and agreed to a verdict being
taken for the plaintiff—damages 250/.
Verdict accordingly.
COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

Drc. 15.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

STONE r. STONE AND APPLETON. —PART MAID. I
lair J. 1.. Wilde, in summing up this cue, called on
the jury to dismiss from their minds any prejudice that they
mightbe tempted to feel on either side, and be depre-
cated the introduction of Captain Stone's letters from India,
which bad nothing in the world todo with the question whit*
they had to try, and which in point of fact were no; even
intelligible as they stood. The last of them, however, did
not bear out the idea that the petitioner had come home
duteous of picking a hole in the conduct of hie wife.
On the contrary, the parties seemed to have met each other
on perfectly affectionate terms. He also thought that ao
prejudice ought** attach to Captain Stone for his refusal to
communicate to his heothers-in•law the grounds upon which
Ihe suspected his wife. The questions the jury had really to
try were sot very complicated. The petitioner's ease was
that Mr. Appleton's visits to his wife were unusually long ;
that having come home on the 18th of May, his wife as
early as the 3rd of August was visibly pregnant ; that as
early as October she spoke of being confioed in December
or January, and complained that she could not have her old
nurse ; that the child was born on the god of January, and
that according to Mr. Webb it was • full grown one ; that
the respondent's family did not call in any other surgeon to
see the infant ; that without making any confession she had
provided an explanation for being in the family way by
another man than her husband ; and laatly, that her friends
and warm supporters had accepted, and for • time
at all event. put forward, the theory she had suggested.
Such was the case on the husband's side. On the other
hand the frequency of Mr. Appleton's visits was denied ; it
was alleged that the child was only a seven months' one,
and it had been pretty clearly made out that it was exceed.
iegly difficult to tall the uterine age of ao infant from its
appearance after birth. Mr. Bragg and Mr. Stephenson
altogether repudiated the language which had bese Mari.
buted to them, and the nurse stated that she was at liberty
in January, and could have attended Mrs. Stone at any time
after Christmas. Mrs. Stow had also gives evidence of
the state of her health, to show that it was extremely na-
likely that she could have been pregnant as early as was
alleged. The learned judge then proceeded to contrast the
evidence on both sides as it bore upon each of these
points. The strongest, as it appeared to him, were the
conduct of the respoudeet with respect to the story
about the swoon ; and the alleged visibility of her
ppeeaeggoancy at the end of about ten weeks after her
us 's return. It would be meet cruel and unjust to
affect Mta. Stew's interests by the conduct of Mr. Apple-
ton ; but as regarded Appleton himself, as he had Dot
appeared, the jury would have to assess the damages claimed
against him. But they must treat the two questions as if
they were absolutely ex parte causes, and sot in soy way
mix them up together io ethyl*, at their decisioa.
The jury, after a short consultation, found that the
respondent had not been guilty of adultery, and they
essessed the damages spinet Yr. Appleton ate farthing.

1864.

THE POLICE COUB2S.
MANSION-HOUSE.

James Moore w heooght before Mr. Alderman Stone,
who est yesterday, the Lard Mayor having to mode at •
Court of Common Oo•nail, charged with having been con-
cerned with three *then in breaking and entering the ware-
house of Messrs. James Franks and Son, of 40, Quesn-street,
Cheepride, on the 12th September bat, and stealing a quan-
tity of tea, value about 1501.
It will be remembered that three prisoners were com-
mitted from this court in September last upon a charge of
breaking into the warehouse of Messrs. Franks. The pre-
mix,' of Messrs. Franks were found to have been entered
on the 12th September, and at the time the polics-constable
made the discovery there was • horse and cart outside, near
the door, containing live or six bags of tea, and in the ware-
house • quantity more had been turned out of the
chests into begs ready for removal, showing that the thieves
had been disturbed. There was evidence on that occasion
that • horse and cart had been seen in the neighbourhood
shortly before this burglary was discovered, and four men
were seen with it. Shortly afterwards three men were ap-
prehended, who were identified by witneesee as being three
of the four who were with the cart on the morning in ques-
tion. Since then Inspector Foulger had been in search of
the fourth man, and succeeded in apprehending the prisoner
• few days back, and he was identified by several witnesses,
who saw both the cart and the men, as being one of the four
men with the cart oo the morning of the 12th.
The prisoner was committed for
GUILDHALL.

innT George Barnes, desert as • raannfacturer of manure,
appeared to • summons issued at the instance of Richard
Payne, charging him with perjury.
Mr. Westall prosecuted ; end Mr. Sleigh was counsel for
the_ defendant.

Mr. Wartall—The charge for which this summons has
been procured originated in the defendant's declaration on
his becoming bankrupt in 1863, and his subsequent exami-
nations. lie was a lighterman and manure manufacturer,
carrying on business at Chatham. In March, 1863, he was
declared bankrupt, and scheduled a Mr. George Wakefield,
of Maidstone, as a creditor for 2001. Os his examination,
in reply to Mr. Luce+, who opposed, he said the entry wait
correct, and that there was also U. due se interest. He
further said that he had borrowed 100/. front Mr. Wakefield
near the market, and afterwards another 1001. when at the
house of that gentleman. So far from this being the fact.
Mr. Wakefield bad deposed that he had never
lent the defendant any money at all, and that
the defendant bad said to him that he should put him
down as a creditor for 2001. This was done, and the de-
fendant had sent Mr. Wakefield an I 0 U for that amount,
which he immediately burned. These facts were is uired
into on the two first examinations, and it war proposed that
on the third examination a full inquiry should take place.
On that occasion the defendant did not appear, and about
the same time he amended his schedule and applied for
first hearing. lo the amended schedule Mr. Wakefield's
name did not appear.
Evidence was then given in support of the charge, but
some uncertainty seemed to exist as to whether the prisoner
had really been sworn on the occasion referred to.
Mr. Sleigh made a very able address to the court on de-
fendant's behalf, pointing out the unsatisfactory nature of
the evidence as to the administration of the oath to the
defendant.

)Ir. Alderman Allen—l cannot Uismiss the summons, as
on the 17th of February the defendant made several contra-
dictions on oath, therefore I have made up my mind to
commit him for trial, bu► will admit him to bail in the sum
of 100/. _ _ _

'Bail was instantly teadared, and anosptad.
CLERK EN WELL. _

The l&r. Mr. ritTgcruici.T33tOr of St. Stephen's, Pratt-
street, Camden town, was summoned before Mr. L'Eyncourt,
for feloniouly and violently assaulting John lineptoo.
Mr. L. Lewis, of Ely•place, appeared for the complainant ;
and Mr. Applaud, of Liocoln's-inn, for the defendant.
John linepton, examined—l am in the employ of Mr.
Giblett, of Prattctreet, Camden-town. On Wednesday,
the lath instant, I was standing on a pair of steps against a
wall in the premises of my employer which separated the
garden from the premises of the defendant. The wall is
about rift. Gin. high. The defendant came and said, "What
are you about ?" I made no reply. He then said, "Who
told you to damage my wall!" I referred him to my em-
ployer. I mule no further reply, and went on with my
work. Soon after that I received a blow on the head with
&triangle. It was lying on the wall. I said, "Is that one of
your Irish tricks, it so it will fetch a summons for
you." He then took and dragged a board sway. This is not
the first, second, or third time he has molested me. I feel
the effect of the blow now. I can't recollect that I called
him a liar. If I did it must have been after I received the
blow.

James Gibbon, in the employ of Mr. Giblett, said he saw
the defendant throw the triangle.
Mr. D'Ernoourt—You are sure; that he threw it at
oomplainant!
Witness—Yes ; he took it up and threw it. He wee in
a very great rage.
Mr. Appleyard, for the defence, said the defendant was
Placed in the difficulty of not being able to contradict the
statements wade. A piece of ground belonging to the
church comniissiouers was next to the premises of Mr.
Giblett. On the day in question, the complainant was
cutting into the wall, and the defendant, who thought he had
right to protect the church property, saw him, and asked him
for his name. He refused, and defendant then said,
" I will take this plank until you give your name." In
removing the plank. the triangle fell. He never bad the
slightest intention of assault°, the complainant whatever,
and he had no idea that an assault had been committed
until the summons was received.
_ _

Mr. lYEynoourt maid—When this man first came here for
the summons I warned him if he did not prove the case he
would have to pay the costa. He then admitted that the
wound on the head was a very slight one, but sow he makes
it out a serious affair. It all depends on the evidence of
the second witness. lam inclined to Mink that as the
complainant was only 13 inches from the wall he could not
have been hit in the manner described. I consider that it
was an accident, although I believe the defendant lost his
temper. I shall dismiss the summoos.
Mr. Applsyard asked for costs which the magistrate did
not think seesentsy to allow.