The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-01 00:00:00

in respect of the petitioner's interest in the !amt.—Fits Honour
thereupon as& the

BAIL COURT.
!fittings Is Baaeo—Hann Mr. fasten OderMee.
TUX Quinn e. LAZARUS AND ANIIIIIII.--EXIIIIITING
ARTIOLNI Or' NN Px•Ca.—Upos the motion of Mr. Char-
neck, artieles of the peace were read sad exhibited by •
Mr. lusal Alexander, • hone dealer, tarrying on bushier
in Chiswell-etreet, Finsbury square, spinet Mr. Samuel
Lewis Luaus, who was also • horse &alas, residing in
Duke etrset, Portland-place. Both the parties in askew,
J
are ews. The articleseosamenced lay stating, that early in
the present month Mr. Llamas stood opposite the exhibi-
tant's house, flourishing a whip in a menacing manner,
using violent Lineage, and threatening to horsewhip him.
The articles further alleged that on the 6th of this month the
exhibitant, accompanied by his son Aaron Israel, was driving
near the horse repository in Upper SL Martin'elene, when
Mr Lazarus came up in his phaeton, having with him one
George Augustus Manning, and he then drove round about
and close to the exhibitant, with the intention of running
him down, at the same time striking at him with his whip,
aayieg that he would blow Mr. Alexander's brains out, and
that he would never leave the exhibitant till he had
ruined bim, as he wu • third. Mr. Lazarus
also made use of • well,known Hebrew expression, which
meant " take a sudden death," and had frequently threat-
ened to run down Mr, Alexandeeephaeton. The exhilidant
swore that he was in bodily fear, and that he felt his life to
be in danger in consequence of the violent threats of the de-
fendant. The affidavits of Aaron Alexander, the eshibitant's
son, and Edward Benjamin, clothier, of Upper St. M
lane, were put in and read, but they merely corroborateMoro'd
the statement before given as to what took place on the sth
of April. Similar articles were exhibited against George
Augustus Manning, and it wu stated that the facts of the
second case were the same as those of the flrst.—Mr. Justice
Coleridge decided that Lasarus and Manning must enter into
their own reenguisanoes in 401., and each find two sureties in
201. each, to keep the peace towards Mr. Alexander and all
her Majesty's subjects for two Tears.
WILLIAM JON'S e. DAVID AND WILLIAM JONIIB.—A
JUDOS CANNOT RIITOI.I lila DROIsION TUN
PANTIIta ARE NOT IN COURT.—In this case • rule had been
obtained by Mr. Lloyd calling upon the plaintiff and the
judge of the county court at Corwen, in Merionethshire, to
show cause why a prohibition should not issue, to restrain
them Irma tektng any further proceedings in the case. The
action was brought on • promisiory note for 104.,
and 61. for interest, se far back as February 1834,
and the plea of the defendants was the statute
of limitations. The case was to have been tried in the
month of July 1847, but was postponed severs' times.
Ultimately, however, on the 9th of September, judgment
was given in favour of the defendants, who then
went away; bat before the court broke up it was I
urged, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the defendants
bait not given five days' notice of their intention to
plead the Statute of Limitations, which was indispensably
necessary, according to the 19th rule of the new County
Courts Act. Upon hearing this statement thu judge re.
sanded his judgment, and directed the case to stand over
till the October court, when a decision was given in favour
of the plaintiff, with cots.—Mr. Bayley now showed cause
against the rule, and contended that the judge had the I
power to rescind his decision during the time the court was'
rutting. lie apprehended his lordship could alter any judg-
went he might have given this term during the time it
laated.—Mr. Justice Coleridge : Yes; if 1 had both
parties before me.—Mr. Bayley submitted that although
toe defendants had left the court when the judg-
ment was given in th favour, still they had
appeared again in October. and the case was then finally
'ided; therefore n i injustice had been done.—Mr. Lloyd,
in support of the rule, submitted that the judge having once
decided the case the defendants left the court, and
thet disj-
oin. having been recorded he (the judge) was in eew
11160 , and could not review the matter.—Mr. Justii e Cole-
ridge arid, he c.4isidered the judge had exceeded hie juria•
diction. if all the parties had been preeent on the 9th of
September he might have altered his judgment, but in the
patent instance he had adjudicated the case, and then given
a different opinion upon it at the next court. Under these
circumstances be (the Warned judge) thought the rule must
be mule absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Pitting. at Niel Prism, at Gnildhall.—Before Mr. Justice Mimic.
HEAter r. WaILLEY, Id.P.—Ltnat..—This was an
action brought by the plaintiff, who is a barrister and
the edit r and proprietor of the Medical Tones against Mr.
Wakley, the Coroner M and member for
Finsbury, to recover damageag for • aeries of alleged libels,
published in the Lancet. It appeared that the plaintiff is
also the secretory to the " Committee of Poor-law Medical
Officers." and the" Convention of Poor-law Medical Officers:"
and these bodies had, through the medium of the plaintiff,
been attempting to co-operate with another society called
the " National Institute of Medicine," on the subject of the
remuneration to medical men under the poor law ; and this
latter body had effered the use of their rooms or offices to
the other. These associations were made the subject of com-
ment in the Lancet ; and on the 9th October, 1847, the fol-
lowing paragraph appeared :
In last we eyed the edical calkers of poopoor-Lou unions to
adoptour an independent course, a, trust to the Janes of their ague, and
to their own legitimate exertions for an amellahmeline of the 'fireman ;
of which obey 'opals comply'. The advise is dandy nersveary at
the present can
e. Wire we wrote, there ems ow party of a osipl.
aims cawacwr etassifit ft awe the aunt of the poor-law
=dirt nisei= he sewn parriar—var there are two quacks la
the geld; the ow remesesowsffini Clesekeersin. the other the vacant
toms et the Wisest the she easing
boom.
hear
other at.
to bey golndbotiewe on the peor-taw puree.
r.
If
veddls
aw mien surgeons puffer tither of these parties to Inte
with their adieu their cause will be inevitably ruined.
Another pnergesph was as follows :
As a made at strarlffiening their cause, the poor-law union
of their officers
Amid in stay oohs obtain the support and cooperation
gradational Whew ste heels ea possible. We have already=
open*, ram dr *dig, end. indeed, the self-Interest, el
rearms own with Arm; bat, stove all, we should exhort the ow
diced came le avoid the trope set for thou by desperate adventurers,
who, peeMelgeMmg In their efforts, would inevitably cover them with
ridieuM and dierepate.
On the 16th of October the
the
ot wing app
connexion be.
eared ..
We need not here dwell up
the i the
tweets the present agitation and the National institute, a body which
has disgusted the srvernment, and with other persons not ounneeted
with the pentagon, and whose weekly vocation it O to bring every-
thing belonging to the profession Into disrepute and contempt.
On the 23rd of October this paragraph wee published :
We trust the meeting on the 21th will be united, numerous sad
powerfu If it im whet it ought to be it will no doubt receive the rep.
led et the entire daily prole, and thue an immense
impale will be given to the good came. Nowhere @NW
gees ge~s be Degleeted. Daily or weekly, metropolitan se
gorsi wherever poor-law medial men have inasrest,
,
• shas ou-d be tired and publicity given to their Millen&
OW lailllooo has given as sincere satisfaction—namely, the sale.
ilegiathe recent adverthainesma of the name of the quack lawyer mg
airrolleak who Inlioini Wessell upon the poor-law medlog mei
mod him Wiwi^ ft permitted to motions. must have leaded In
the ehNMer
rdinl=B6.4. • ratsriaily knowe
part at the
rim erahnhe el heir resolve to cast off all exereaconces that sight
( Wale the 'Ahrens and slacken the triIbIIMUIII of their supporters.
Them asst be ne wow in the nutter, no discreditable alliance.
October 30 :
Every part of the three kingdoms of England, Ireland, and Pootiand
is furnishing de quota of resistance to the unjuet system of medical
poor relief which universally prevails. The meeting of English pee-
ler surgeons, on Wednesday, was not as it might and ought to have
been. There were present about one hundred and day, including
lookers on. We thinly believe but foe the sinlater influences we have I
before referred to, there would hare been a thousand medical men at 1
the meeting in
of one-twentieth of the medical puovlsw online' •
of England and Wales. But it would be as wine
to corivehe a meet-
ing tithe merchants of London in the present panic, under the wpm-
intendenee ofJomph Ady and Boy Solomon., mit 'solo oonvensaase.
Weal meeting under the auspices of Healey and Kos. At
would the e
haw WNW
meinglins.
meat of the meeting, the sellappointeal woretary
rip the whole day by reeding a confused list of meetings and mieds.
tione, which have been held and already retorted. some of them ado
ago. However, the reale:mama of the meeting warned the &Welds.
man, Dr. Burton, of Walton, and the brides quack secrefogy MN
unceremoniously snuffed out.
January 1, 1848:
The in.utute Is singularly unfortunate in Itself and Is protegee. I
The poor-law convention, which was to effect so much, bre under Me I
auspices proved a decided failure. We see the managers are
bully
imploring, by public advertisement, the poor-law surgeons to om. I
wood with and supply them with data and fun& fur their future pro.
ceedings; but, alas: neither statistic. nor eulocriptions are forth.
coming. Ibis to bunt as we predicted from the nest, from our
knowledge of the parties COIIOIIfIKKI in this affair. They
to of
tucoubules&
rse
attribute the failure to the harsh pour-law guardians, and
on the part of medical men; but the real cause of failure is much
nearer home, and one that Is not st all creditable to a body of gentle-
men! With whom are they osivociatoll
it was contended that these paragraphs were all intended
to apply to the plaintiff, and were libellous, and as such
entitled him to damages. The publication and proprietor-
ship of the Lancet were admitted. Proof was then given of
the plaintiff being • barrister, and the editor and proprietor
of the Medical Times, and several witnesses were called whd
o
steed their belief that the parsgraphs in question applie to
the plaintiff.
defence,
Sejeant Talfourd then addressed the jury for the
defence, and complained that the plaintiff, in stating the
first libel, had taken care to omit • passage in which the
words " twice convicted libeller " were used in reference to
the same person alluded to in the rest of the article, and
urged that this was an accusation far more worthy of re-
mark than any of the other alleged imputations, and that
the omission could only be accounted for by the supposition
that such an appellation was capable of proof. lie con-
tended that none of the paragraphs amounted to libel., and
even if the jury should think so, nominal damages were all
that the plaintiff was entitled to.—Mr. Justice Maule, in
n
summing up, pointed out those portions of the publicati
which he conceived to be libellous—anch as " desperate ad-
venturer," " that it was the weekly vocation of the person
alluded to, to bring the profession into contempt," " quack
lawyer," " mountebank and impostor, &c. ; " and if the jury
were of opinion that these imputation" were proved to have
been applied to the plaintiff, they must find a verdict
court in h
reis
favour.—The jury, after a short absence verdict
in .
turned • verdict for the plaintiff—damages 40 shillings.

COURT
ittings
in Big"' OF EXQIIER.
sCHE
GRIKLET V. ACKROYD.—COUNTT COURTS SPLITTINO
AOTIONS.—IKPORTANTIJUDOMENT.—The Lord Chief Baron
delivered judgment in this use on Saturday. A rule nisi
having been obtained by Mr. Martin for a prohibition to be
directed to the judge of the county court of Worcestershire,
' cause was shown last term t afore the full court. It appeared
that in Sept., 1847, 228 summonses were issued out of the
county court of Worcestenhire at the plaintiff's suit, to re-
cover from the defendant sums varying from 5/. to a few
shillings, and amounting in the whole to 3031. 19.. The de-
fendant wan a railway contractor, and the demands arose out
of an order alleged to have been given by him to the plain-
tiff (whowas a grocer), to supply the workmen engaged on
the line with suck necessaries as they required. Tickets
were glue by subcontractors of the defendant for certain
amounts to the workmen, from whose wages deductions
were subsequently male every week to indemnify the de•
readmit for tie reapossibiliq he had Incurred tolls plaintiff.
There were altogetker 3,000 tickets baud from time to tune,
and motions had been brought, not for each item, but
apparently each action had been brought tot the amount of