The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-19 00:00:00

learned pntlenian then proceeded to show cause. coutenu-
ing that the verdict ought not to be disturbed. ea the goods
in question had been invoiced to the defendants direct, end
that there was no ground fur traversing the plaintiff's poi.
session of them. . . .

-----
t M.M. Chambon Purported the rule, but the arguments
had nut concluded at the rimihg of the court.

ADMIRALTY COURT—YESTIRDAL
BMWS Da- Luauteree.
Tue Amu TTTTT 1.-•• COLLISION.
This was a suit brought by two smacks, the Rainbow and
the Breese, for salvage services performed tt the Resultatel,
a Russian barque of 238 tons, bound from llsrtlepoul to
Cadiz, with a cargo of coats. About one o'clock p.m., on
the 9th of February lot, the crew of the Rainbow hile
fishing, descried the barque about 40 miles off the Spurn
Point, with a signal Ifyieg, apparently for a pilot. They
approached and asked if auy assistance was required ? The
captain told them in reply to come on board. They did so,
and were asked what they would charge to take the vessel
into Grimsby. After some discussion they agreed to per-
form the required service for 301. It was alleged, however,
that owing to the state of the weather the services of the
smack were required in towing the barque. On the followiug
day the Breese was also employed to assist; and it was el-
timately agreed between the parties that ite vessel should
be taken into Yarmouth, where she arrived on the 11th.
The master of the Resultatel then tendered the 301., but
that sum was refused, and the action was brought to re-
cover 6001. for salvage services. The owners of the barque
contended that the sum agreed upon was to cover the whole
of the Nervier* performed, and that the second smack bad
been employed by the Ant.
The Conn reserved its decision.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YEnzaDAY.
SIMS TIM Clllllll 01111111•140 lei.
IN TEN MATTI& OP WILLIAM COLLET.
Thia ir.solvent, who was a butcher and dealer in game,
at Strood, in Kent, attributed his failure to the pulling
down of upwards of ninety houses to make the new ap-
proaches to Rochester-bridge. He applied to be discharged
from prison, and was opposed by a dealer in pigeons,
named Hammond. He had supplied him with pigeons to
fiL, and had sued him in the County Court. It was a hard
use (he said) en him, and he had a large family of eight
AM= to t.
Tae insolvensuppor t said it had been a very bad season for
gar, and the pulling down of ninety-two houses at
Rochester had occasioned his insolvency. He had a family
of five children.
The Chief Commissioner thought that it would be no
good sending the insolvent back to prison, where he had
already been some time. Besides, he had been prevented
paying the complainant on account of the houses being
palled down at Rochester-bridge.
The insolvent was ordered to be discharged.
IN an Brunt= Srxinow.
This was an application to confirm the report of Mr.
Dance, the registrar of the court, and a question arose re-
specting the payment of the assignees' costs.
The Chief Commissioner remarked that it was an old case.
The schedule was dated in December, 1821—two years after
he was "born " • commissioner.
Counsel addressed the court, and Mr. Bargood thought
his learned friend was rather harsh in his observations.
Mr. Cooke—But I must say something. (Laughter.)
The Chief Commissioner quite agreed with Mr. Cooke.
It reminded him of a cue in which Serjeant Heath was en-
stied. He was stopped by the coon, and then said he was
much obliged for being stopped, for be was saved the
trouble of making a long speech. (Loud laughter.)
His amour made an order in the case.
lie an Howie Bosoms&
Mr. Nicholsapplied on the part of the provisional assignee
far the sanction of the court to an arrangement for the
benefit of the creditors. The insolvent was discharged under
the act soms_years ago, and on the death of his wile became
entitled to MK Two creditors, whose debts had been in-
curred since the insolvency, attached the money in the
Lord Mayor's Court, and, instead of spending it in litiga-
tion, it had been agreed that the two creditors should re-
ceive a moiety of their debts, and the remainder (about
401.) paid into this court for the creditors. The learned
counsel hoped that the court would give its sanction.
His Honour was not anxious that money should be
spent in law, and therefore sanctioned the arrangement.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.-YUnRDAY.
Ilesoaa Rs. SWUM. ADANA, ASTITTAIIIT JUDOS. AND • BO= ,
ce IIIITIATIAT" AT TO OVILDIAIA. weneulerW
The court to-day continued the hearing of appeals.
Tuoxthe CONNIILITS GLOVER V. • CONVICTION OP
- AINOLD, Eat.
This was an appal against • conviction made at the
Westminster Police-court, under which the appellant was
to pay • fine or suffer a term of imprisonment, for keeping
en unlicensed theatre in York-street, Westminster.
It was admitted that the place in question was to all in-
tent' and purposes a theatre, and that it was unlicensed,
When the case was before Mr. Arnold, • legal gentlemen,
who appeared for the defendant, the present appellant, ad-
mitted that his client was the owner of the premises, and
urged that be had some sort of an authority under a license
from ' the Queen's trumpeter." The magistrate held that
the authority meteeded for bad no existence, is fact, upon
which tie edemas Ise the appellant said he had been mis-
led, and that be would undertake that the theatrical repre-
sentations shield not be repeated. Upon this Mr. Ar-
nold postponed his decision for • week, and when the
parties ap on the second occasion, another solicitor
represented the defendant, and tendered evidence to show
Het he was net the keeper, but that instead he bad let it
to ausehee , although he still occupied apartments
in the of which the " theatre" formed put. The
sweetmeat was tendered as evidence, but Mr. Arnold re-
jested is, and at the same time remarked upon such sel-
dom* Ming brought forward after the admissions of the
harm illy. The appellant and another were convicted,
caul sash of the corps as were summoned were discharged
en remising to abandon their respective engagements.
M. Parry now repudiated the admissions made when
the parties were first before the magistrate, and said that
his client could not be bound by any unauthorised state-
ment made at that time. The conviction was for " keep-
ing" this unlicensed theatre, a sort of establishment, the
learned counsel observed, en peasant, none condemned more
than he, but be should prove that the " keeper" of the
theatre was a person of the name of Nelson' to whom
Glover had let it, and u the court would not go beyond the
limits of the conviction, and lay that because the appellant
had disproved one offence he was guilty of another, he
thought the evidence he should produce would satisfy the
bench that the conviction should be quashed.
Henry Montague deposed that be was one of the per-
formers at the theatre. He was enticed by Mr. Arthur
Nelsen, who took part in the performances and made
speeches thanking the audiences for their patronage. The
theatre was let to Nelson by Mr. Glover, who hai net=
to do with the management at ell. Nelson was
manager as well as lessee.
Reuben Watts stated that he was by business • wiesi-
man and lighterman. He knew Mr. Nelson and Mr.
Glover, and he was present on the 16th of September whim
the former took from Mr. Glover the theatre for 12 mauls
at 21. 10s. • week. 201. was paid down, of which sum wit-
ness supplied Nelms with ill. He knew Nelson's hand-
writing. (A paper was put in his bend.) He believed the
signature thereto to be Nelson's. That was the agreement
made between Glover and Nelson. Mr. Glover had had
isethift Is do with the theatre since that was entered into.
Whams paid the rent for Nelson to Mr. Glover. (The rent
book was produced.) The witness, in examination by the
court, admitted that he was the money-taker and bad an
Interest with Nelson in the concern, and that he was fined
when before the magistrate.
The check-taker and • servant girl gave evidence to show
that appellant had no part in the management. The check-
taker, a one-eyed man, gave the name of Hildebrand.
AM,. Williams, the landlord of the Bell public-hone,
Bell-yard, said he knew Nelson. That person went into
the country in November, and during his absence and at
his request, witness received the money from Watts, paid
the expenses, and allowed the perfirmers to draw in the
week. He accounted to Nelson. He gave the rent to
Watts, who paid it to Glover. Sometimes there was a loss
of 41. • week.
The Assistant Judge said be would *entice this witness
as to how for the future he suffered himself to be mixed up
in such matters. He must have known that this theatre,
as it was called, was not licensed, and that the parties were
acting illegally—and if this tort of proceeding were re-
peated by the witness, he would assuredly hear of it in
April next—the period for renewing lionises. These places
were the sources of en immense deal of vies and evil, and
instances showing them to be so were constantly in the
papers.
Mr. Parry joined in this caution—it would be much
better if Mr. William had nothing to do with the matter.
The learned counsel handed in the agreement, but as it
was not stamped,
The Assistant Judge said he could not take it into con-
sideration as evidence, on which the court was to give its
decision.

Mr. Birnie shortly replied—contending that there was
reason to assume after the admissions made before the
magistrate, that the ease now set up was an after thought.
Ihe Assistant Judge remarked that there was ample
evidence of the appellant occupying part of the premises,
and that he knowingly let the place as a th for money.
The conviction was not for "knowing)) letting," but for
" keeping," andeappellant, upon this evidence, could only be
convicted of the letting.
Mr. Parry said he might admit almost that there was a
letting knowingly, still Glover was not the more the
keeper of the place.
The Assistant Judge having consulted the bench, said the
case was a very singular one, and the court had come to its
decision with very great reluctance, the more so as it wee
quite clear the appellant was the owner of this place, and
had knowingly let it as an unlicensed theatre, an offence in
point of men& the same as that of which he had been
convicted by the magistrate. It was moat singular that a
different defense was set up now to that set up before the
magistrate, and the court looked with ajealous eye upon
that defence, and if it had been made at first the appellant
would have been convicted of unlawfully letting, and then
there would have been no secapeffor him. Under all the cir-
cumstances, the court unanimously thought the conviction
should be quashed; but if the appellant wu brought up
again for letting, it would be a very serious matter.
•
Conviction quashed accordingly.
Mr. Parry said ii the appellant would take his advice he
would at once shut up the place as a theatre, and turn it to
better account . .

—.—
Another appeal against a conviction was heard. The
magistrate convicted the appellant of an indecent a:po-
mace, within the meaning of the Vagrant Act, in /Lensing-
tongardana.
Tlw onwietiwa was cadrowd.