The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-05 00:00:00

/, 0

mated; that an act of parliament was accordingly obtained
in June last for uniting the two proposed railways and raising
the necessary funds ; that the plaintiffs were not managers
or directors under the new scheme ; that before the smalga-
mation took place serious charges were raised against the
plaintiffs, ircpeaching their integrity in regard to allotting
'hares and otherwise; that, since the amalgamation, those
charges had been repeated ; that a committee of inquiry had
been appointed for investigating the charges ; that that
committee would make their report within a few days ; that
notwithstanding this the defendants, who were the present
directors, had written to Ingram, who bad been the London
secretary both of the old and the new association, desiring
him to send the books in question, which related to the
original scheme only, and in no way concerned the present
association, to the committee-room at Manchester ; and that
Ingram threatened to do so. The application of the plaintiff
was supported by the affidavit of Hayne, which, after slating
these facts, alleged that the deponent verily believed that in
the present violent state of feeling against him at Man-
chester, he would, if the books were sent there, be precluded
from access to them, and that access to them was necessary to
the vindication of his character.
His Honour: Take an interim order till Tuesday at two
o'clock, and serve notice of motion to-day or to-morrow on
the defendants, for Tuesday.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Homo.
SMITH o. HOPINIR.—RIGHT OP A HIGHWAY BOARD TO
NOTICE OF AN Ac- lux FOR A WRONGFUL ACT DONE BY ITS
ORDER.—In this case a gate, which for more than twenty-
five years bad stood across a certain footpath in the town of
Sunderland, was thrown down by order of the highway
board of the parish in which it is situated, on the ground
that the footpath was a public highway and the gate an ob-
struction. The owner of the gate and claimant of the foot-
path brought an action for the trespass against the highway
board, and had a verdict in his favour. Thereupon a rule
nisi was obtained, pursuant to leave reserved for setting
aside the verdict and entering a nonsuit, on the ground that
notice of action had not been given.
Mr. Knowles, Q.C., Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Heath, now
showed cause, and contended that, admitting the bon& fides
of the defendants, they could only be entitled to notice to
the case of there having been reasonable ground for the
supposition that they were acting in pursuance of the tu-
thority conferred on them by the act ; and that in this cue
there had not hecn any such ground, because the Highway
Act, 5 and 6 Will. IV., cap. 50, did not give a highway lamed
power to remove an obstruction of this kind from a highway
being a foatway.—Mr. Watson, Q.C., Mr. Grainger, and
Mr. Atherton, in support of the rule, contended that it was
bath the right and the duty of a highway board to abate
encroachments, end to remove all ohstructions from high-
ways of every kind. That being so, and the hoofs fides being
admitted, the defendants were entitled to notice that they
might, if they sr pleased. tender amends before action
brought —The court took time to consider its judgin, rd.
NMI PIM,. —MOM Mr. Justice Erie.
WILLIAMS e, CROPWELL. FALSE IMPRISONMENT ON
A CHARGE OF FELONY.—The plaintiff in this ease was a
servant in the employ of the defendant, a wine-merchant,
who was the owner of a house in Eaton-square. Having lot
that house, he was removing to Norland-square, Kensington,
on 24th Nov. in last year, and the house was in some coo-
fusion, workmen from an upholsterer's being occupie d there.
In the course of the evening the plaintiff was sent
out on some errand. About twelve o'clock, Mrs.
Cropwell missed a satin gown she had worn that
day, and the defendant called in a policeman and
gave the plaintiff into custody on a charge of felony,
there being only one other servant in the house, on whose
character ho had perfect reliance. The plaintiff's Furs was
searched, and some stamped envelopes were found in it,
which she said site had bought, but which it subsequently was
sought to show were given to her by a person of the name of
Mason, who was paying his addreaies to her. The defendant
asserted that he missed some envelopes of the same kind.
No trace of the other missing articles was ever found. The
plaintiff was then taken to the station.houre, where she con.
tinned all night, and on being taken before the magistrate
neat morning she wa., remanded for a we. k, and kept
in Tothill-fields Bridewell until the 4th of Decem-
ber, when she was again broueht up and discharged.
For the defence it was contended that there were
reasonable grounds of suspicion that a felony had been
committed, and that the defendant was juAifieel in putting
the law in motion, in eirder to further the administration of
justice ; that after this case had been taken frfore the magis-
trate, who ordered the remand, the liability of the defend-
ant ceased ; that fur the week's imprisonment he could not,
under the circumstances, be liable,—and that he was nut
actuated by malicious motives.
The jury, after a long deliberation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff.—Damages 251.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
ix notoa. —Before Chief Justice Wilde, Mr. Huron Parke, Mr.
Damn Alderson, Mr. Justice Wide, Mr. Baron Platt, Mr. Baron
Rolfe, and Mr. Justice V. M
CAMPIIELL AND ANOTHER V. THE QUEEN.—VENIEL
VACUA DP. Novo, AYrat REVERSAL. OP JUDOMF.NT IN
QUARTER firsslONll.—This case came up on writ of error
from the Queen's Bench. and involved a point of considerable
importance in criminal law—the competency of the Court of
Queen's Bench after setting aside the judgment of a Court
of Quarter Sessions on a bad verdict, to grant a venire facia
do novo. The facts of the case were these: The plaintiffs in
error, Richard Campbell alias Fisher, and John Haynes,
were tried before the recorder at the borough sessions for
Chester, on the 14th of July, 1845, on a charge of larceny,
The indictment contained two counts: the first of larceny,
in stealing certain goods of the value of 5/., from a dwelling
house; the second of' simple larceny. The record lone that
the jury found the prisoners guilty of the " felony furesaid,"
and they were sentenced to ten years' transportation. The
ease was then removed on writ ()terror tothe Queen's Bench,
and after argument the court decided thetas the indictment
charged the prisoners with two separate and distinct felonies
the verdict was erroneous ; they therefore reversed the judg-
ment, and at the same time granted a venire facies de novo.
—Mr. Peacock, in support of the error, contended that the
counts of the indictment charged two separate felonies, the
one involving a term of transportation of nut less than ten and
not ex«eding fifteen years, the other of seven years only. The
judgment of the Queen's Bench was therefore right, In so
far as it reversed the judgment of the sessions; but the issue
of the venire do novo was altogether erroneous. lle argued
that no case could be found where a venire de novo had been
granted in a charge of felony, when the prisoner had been
tried by a jury competent to try him, urging that it could
only be granted where the prisoner had not been
put in jeopardy, as in the cases of Arundel (
Cook, 14), the recent decision of the House of
Lords in • Gray v. the Queen, Fowler v. the King
(4 Barn. and Alderson, 273), &c. As the prisoner., in this
case bad undergone a trial before a competent jury, even
though the yenlict was bad—thus jeopardising them—he
submitted that, quoad, the point adverted to in the judgment
of the Queen's Bench ought to be reversed.
As several of the judges were obliged to go to chambers at
the conclusion of the learned counsel's argument, and as the
ease was deemed too important to be proceeded with except
in full court, the further hearing was adjourned till the 9th
of January.
ltemsxrr..—ln addition to the above case, the follow-
ing on the list of errors from the Queen's Bench stand
over foe argument next term :—St. Katharine's Dock
Company v. Higgs ; Gregory r. the Queen De Medina v.
Grove • the Mayor and Aldermen of Sandwich v. the Queen;
Lindsay v. Leigh ; Bullivant r. Gillett. The court will, how-
ever, have an interim sitting to give judgments.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Nisi Farm—Baum Sir F. Pollock, C. 8., and • special jury.
BEILEY O. 811EPHERD.—THE MASTER OF A VESSEL EX-
EMPTED FROM PENALTIES TOR ACTING AS PILOT OF NIS
OWN VESSEL—Mr. Martin, Q.C., with Mr. Cowling, ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Willis
represented the defendant. The action was brought by the
Warden of the Trinity Board, at Hull, to recover a penalty
of 201. from the defendant, as master of a ship called the
Nysus which was bound from Ostend to Gainsboro'. It
appeared that a licensed pilot, named Bailey, came on board
the vessel and sought to be employed in guiding her to
Gainsboro', but the defendant ref us -d
to have his assistance,
and took charge of her himself. A separate cause of legal
proceeding was instituted by the pilot against the defendant
for having dispensed with his assistance as a regularly licensed
pilot, but the latter action was settled by the defendant pay-
ing the pilot's fees. The proceedings in both cases were
under the Pilot Act (6 Geo. 4, c. 126).
The Lord Chief Baron thought the penalties were
not cumulative, and he was of opinion that the pe-
nalty given by the section, upon which the pre-
sent action was brought, was not against the masters of
vessels, but against foreign pilots, who superseded the pilots
regularly appointed by the board of Trinity House. The
verdict ought, therefore, be for the defendant, with liberty to
move to enter it for the plaintiff, if the court above should
be of opinion the facts sustained it.—The verdict was entered
accordingly.

PALACE COURT.
Moolen v. STEVENS.—A CURIOre BILL TRANSACTION:-
The plaintiff is a picture-dealer and print-seller of St. Mar-
tin'elane, and the defendant is a publican. The plaintiff
employed, in the year 1838, an artist named Swandale.
with whom he had many money and bill transactions.
The defendant drew the bill, now is dispute, for 12/., upon
Swandale, and indorsed it to the plaintiff, giving, in Decem-
ber, 1839, a guarantee that if Swandale did not pay the bill
within two years it should be paid by him (the defendant).
Swandale failed to discharge the bill, and the defendant was
now stud as :he endorsee. For the defence it was by
Mr. Locke that the endorsement to the bill being dated
January, 1839, the debt was barred by the Statute of Limita-
tions. But it was ruled that the promise to pay in two years
took the case cot of the statute. It was then shown that for a
long time wince 1839, the plaintiff had employed Swandale, and
had paid him several hundreds of pounds, out of which he
ought to have deducted the amount of the bill. In fact the
plaintiff had never endeavoured to obtain the money from
Swandale.
The Court was clearly of opinion that the plaintiff ought
to have made Swandale the detendant -Vei diet for defendant.
ELLIS V. SEILLICON.—BUTINO A CHANCE IN A RAFFLE.
—ln July last, a grey mare was raffled for at the Queen's
had Tavern, St. Martin's-le-Grand, and the plaintiff and
the defendant were members. A person named Scrivener
threw 43, and the Oefendant off: rid to buy that chalk* for
121., which offer was accepted, and the plaintiff lent the
money to pay fvrlt. Subsequently, the plaintiff himself threw
43, and no higher number being thrown, the plaintiff and the
defendant became the joint winners of the animal. The
defendant's ease was, that the plaintiff aftreed to pay the
12/. and keep the horse, but the plaintiff insisted on hemg
refunded the 121., and that the horse should then be sold
and the proceeds divided. The defendant declined these
conditions, and the action was brought to recover. The
animal is still in the possession of the plaintiff.
These facts being proved, the jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff.