The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-08 00:00:00

SPORTING.

TATTEII.B ALL'B.—Monoes.
The betting, except as against a few homes, was fist, and
without much effect on the quotalioes. It turned chiefly on the
Chester Cop, for witch Blase and Crariow Improved as last week's
and left off nominally even famirive, Cracow, ho eves.
hav-
ZW call. Jonathan Wild, War Eagle, Maid of my Saul, Glen
*haslet, and Enctuinter. were also In goad demand. Very little
choose will be Mond in the Derby betting. still it was notaltogether
featureless, Surplice having been hooted for 104. at 9to I, and The
Sheriff freely at 10 to I, the latter being taken for sto even apt his
stecft*p
be. competitor% Keraun. The Steeple Chve and Metropolitan Hen.
clitting don got call for any remark.
PITIVeIeTitItT STeEPLE CH183.-4 to 1 apt Maps ;(t);
4 to I apt Prealgste (I).
LIVERPOOL SPITTLE ettnen.-15 toy eget Wolverhamp-
ton; 15 to I apt Brunette ; IJ to 1 apt The Curate (I), 20 to 1 apt
PM Arthur ;20to I apt fit Leger (t); 25 to 1 apt Linnet ; is
1 apt La Sylphide. Now-or-Never was omitted in the printed list of
theentries received tort week.
2,000 G VONA. ST/41E8.-5 to 1 agst Surplice (t).
IiSTROPOT.ITAN lI•NDICAP.—IS LO I eget Jericho (t)I; 20
to 1 apt Morquis of Conyngttam 20 to apt Alboai (t); 25 to apt
Glea Saddel (4).
CitIIETET Cur.-20 to 1 eget Cracow (t); 20 to. 1 skeet
Bleat K
(do. and afths (t) ;
to 1 apt Jo offd) ;30to 1 aptn.athain (t) War Eagle (t a4O to nd aft
53 to 1 eget Met o 5 • 1 apt
Lady Hylda; 40 to 1 apt The Swallow; 40 to I apt Cltionty (t M 501.
and aft off) ; 40 to I apt Queen Mary (t and aft off); 50 to 1 apt
Rules (t); 50 ta I apt Maid of my Soul (t freely); 1,000 to 20 apt
Glen Solder (t mveral times); 1,000 to 20 apt Enchanter (dittoi;
1,000 to 20 apt Lade Wildal. it); 1,000 to 20 e/4 Pantelnioe (t
1,000 to 20 apt Neveour:oT ; 1300
tool 20 apt Maid of Motbenrel •
1,009 to 17 apt Gannet (t ; 1,000 5 apt the Tartar (t); 2,0.10
M 23 apt UL3mea (t) l, to 10 opt Poyotoo (I).
DEITRY. —9 to 1 eget Sorption (1) ; 12 to 1 apt Glen-
dower (do. and aft of ; 20 to I apt Springy Jack (t) ; 25 to 1 apt
Nit 044peeenctute (t to 591. and alt off )-• 90 to I apt derma (t and
aft off) ; 40 to 1 apt Kenton (t and ;ft off ) ; 40 to I apt Los&
stone (t to INN.); 1,000 to 20 opt Weitstone (t five Rime); 50 to 1
sgst the Sheriff (1 freely); 50 to I eget Swiss (t) ;MOtoMO on
Springy Jack apt Ceres.

tab intelligent,.

LAW

nuAt. AT rum wmple Lan

Lan inn tot rut.t. Nt;itct

Feb.
9, Lanhestet
12, Appleby
13, Carrier
19. Reading.Swanses,Winchester
lictifortt Newmatle & Town,
Northampton, Oxford
23, Durham, Lincoln and City,
asliabury
23, Aylesbury, Chetniefont Wor-
st:Ater. Haserfordwrat and

'kir&
4, Carmarthen, Cornmeal; Her-
by, Huntingdon
6, Eutaw and City
7, Carnlarisigo
0, Baumann, Leicester and
Borough, Shrewsbury
10, Lawn
11, Brecon, Ritthin
13, Bury St. Edmund's, Hereford,
Liverpool, Oakham
la, Coventry
15, Bodmin, Motel, Monomial;
Presteign, Warwick
17, litagstent
IS, Coaster, Gloucester and City,
Norwich and City
92, 'bunion

lbws
23, Nottingham mil Town, York
and City, Welcdpool
19, Cerdigan
Mar*
Bedford, Dor.beider, Stafford
3, BaLi, Maidstone

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
New rare.—Before Lord Denman.
PARRY V. ISTataY AND OTHILIM—THE NOIITRAMPTOX
TAIIERN At:LW-11 r. Edwin James and Mr. Lee Decker were
counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder, Q.C., with whom
was Mr. klellur, appeared for the defendants. '1 his was an
fiction of trespass brought by the minister of a chapel called
the Northampton Tabernacle, 'Busted in Bowman-street,
Clerkenwell, against the defendants, who were trustees of
the chapel, fur improperly .turning the plaintiff out of pos.
sessi,m, and for having seiz,d and wild certain property be-
longing to him that was in the chapel at the time they so
committed toe alleged trespass.— r. F. James stated the
ease to the jury. He said that the plaintiff was a lair. Elias
Parry, and that he was appointed mini-ti r of the chapel in
question in 18:16, previous to which time he had been minister
of a chart in :load lids. lie was chosen by two-thirds of
the crtiigr,:gatido, and the sect ti which the plaintiff he-
long, 4 were known as a body of people who followed the
doctrines o f the late Countess of Huntingdon. The cbapelwhicb
was the subject of the prefect inquiry, had been hula especially
for the purpose of securing the services of the plaintiff, and
it hail coat the sum of 4,0001. A ground rent of 3-51. a year
was paid to the Marquis of Northampton, who had executed
a lease to a Mr. Wilson, who had uaderlet it to the present
defendants as trustees. The took place on the 9th of
August, 1836, and on the 16th of the same month a trust
deed was executed. He would call their attention to two
clauses in that deed. The first provided for the trustees re-
ceitiog all monies, &c.. and that Mr. Parry should be
mini-ter of the chapel. Then there was a clause which pro.
vide.: that the minister should not be removed except at the
instance of twe-thirds of the seatbolders of twelve months'
standing, and who should convenes special meeting for that
purpose, of which three months' notice must be given.
Things went on very well down to the month et &reaier, !
1842, when Mr. Berry, one of the defendants, who appeared
to have entertained some hail feeling towards the piaintiif,
set a turnout adoat of a very serious character. Au inquiry
followed, and two-thirds of the congregation expressed their
decided opinion that the charges were totally unfounded. How-
ever, the p'aintiff was so annoyed by the continued attacks of
the defendant upon his character, that on the 23rd of Sept.,
1842, he announced from the pulpit his intention to resign
his appointment. A meeting of the congregation then took
place on the Wednesday. following, being the 2611 t, but the
proceedings of that meeting were afterwards set finds, as due
notice of the intention t) hold it had not been given. An-
other meeting took place on the 16th of January, 1443, at
which a large majority of the congregation expressed their
!Fateful acinnwledgmenta of the manner in which the
plaintiff had discharged the duties of his sacred office, and
their entire confidence in the plaintiff, upon which he con-
sented again to become their pastor, and continued to be so
down to the time when the trespass which be now com-
plained of was committed. The trespass was committed on
the llth of February, when the defendants turned out a
man named Crichton, whim the plaintiff had put
in possession, closed up the windows, locked the
doors, and stripped the plaintid 's pew of its fur-
niture. The answer they now set up was, that
the plaintiff had no right of possession, and that the
property in his pew did not belong to him. Proceedings in
Chancery were taken, which ended in a decree that the
chapel should he sold. As to damages, he (the learned
counsel) trusted they would bear in mead the extent of the
injury inflicted on his client, and that he had been obliged
to hire a room to perform service in at his own expense.—
John Crichton was then called, and proved that he was put
in possession of the "Northampton Tabernacle?" Bowman-
street, Clerkenwell, under a written authority signed by the
plaintiff and two other gentlemen. That was on
Sunday, the Bth February 1846. On the following
Monday morning the three defendants, Messrs. Berry, Hill,
and Bailey called and demanded to see his authority, which
be produced to them; and they made no further obser-
vation. On the following Wednesday they came slain,
accompanied by a carpenter. They then told him he must go.
At that time be had a broom in his hand, and he threatened
to knock them down if they attempted to turn him out. He
put the broom down, anti immediately the three defendants
and the carpenter seized him, and after a severe struggle car-
ried him out of the chapel. Oa cross-examination the witness
said all the time he was in the chapel the defendants had
a party in possession also. Mr. RobertSmeed, said he was a
grocer, carrying on business in Clerkenwell. He was tree-
/WM:I and one of the managers of this chapel. The witness
then went through the whole of the facts as they were
stated by the learned counsel in his opening address, adding
that the plaintiff was honourably acquitted of the charge
brought against him by the defendant. In hie muse-examina-
tion he stated positively that five-sixths of the congregation
did not believe hint guilty of the offence that the rumours
which had gone abroad imputed to him. They had pre-
sented the pl iintiff with a Bible. The chapel was sold by
private canteen.. These rumours had caused the congrega-
tion to fall off from 700 to 200. In answer to a question from
hie lordship and ono of the jurymen the witness said that
the charge brought against the defendant was that he had
been guilty of indece-t conduct with some girl. Mr. Watt
stated that he had caused the plaintiff's pew to have some
curtains and rods put to it. He intended this to be
for the plainitis own use, and made him this present
es a mark of esteem.—Mr. Trail, the solicitor to
plaintiff, proved that, when be was before the m stir in
chancery, he claimed certain articles that were in plaintiff's 1
pew, and the defendants then admitted they had sold them.
—Mr. Crowder, on the part of the deft ndants, submitted
that the interest of the plaintiff, under the trust deed, was
not such as would entitle him to maintain an action for
trespass. The defendants, in tact, had somebody in posses-
sion who had been always there, and the plaintiff had no
right to put anybody else in.—Lord Denman thought that, if
the plaintiff had been turned out of his pulpit by the de-
fendants, he might maintain an action for trespass; but he
did not think his interest under the trust deed was such as
to enahle him to do so.—Mr. Crowder then addles ed the
jury, observing, that as the chief question in the cause had
just been decided by his lordship, the only point for their
consideration wan, whether the articles alleged to have been
improperly sold by the defendants were the property of the
plaintiff or not. As to the brass rods arid the curtains, he
should prove that they were presents to the minister's pew, not
to the individual exclusively who might then happen to be
minister, and as to the hassock, cushion, and table, they had
heard of as being claimed by the plaintiff, they had belonged
to the congregation before the plaintiff bi cense their minis-
ter. lie had had all returned that belonged to him, and
this claim was merely set up for the purpose of getting a
verdiot to carry costa—Witnesses were then called, who
stated it was the custo-n net to remove things from the
chapel when once placed there; that there was a regularion
to the contrary, and that the table, cushion, and hassock had
been furnished by an order of the vestry.—Mr. James hay-
ing replied, Lord Denman recalled a witness of the name of
Maher, who put up the rods, and asked him if they could be
moved, to which he replied in the affirmative. His lordship
then briefly summed up, remarking thnt as Mr. Watt had
nude the plaii..ilf a present of the rods and curtains, they
must be taken to be the plaintiffe, so long as ho had feed
them in such a manner as to be removable, As to the
other articles, it was proved they had been there before the
plaintiff lacome ruinister.—The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages 31., being the value of the brass rode and
curtains.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAB.
Before the Lord Chief Jeshee and • WWI Jar,.
WATSB HOWIL R 089.-00001 021 BALI OR UZI MN.—
Mr. Berjeant Bylea and Dlr. Miller appeared for the plain-
tiff; and der. Berjeant Channel and Mr. J. Browne for the
defendant. The action was brought to raeoere a sum of
2,6861. Ile 6d. for goods sold and work and labour, and the
amount of eight bills of exchange. A sum of 891. 15a. had
Mean paid into court. The plaintiff is an importer and
defiler in watches in Rupert-emcee, Pimadffir
fondant is a manufacturer a watehee in C. and the &i-
-harter-hous-
empure. It appeared that they had had dealings together
ke mine time, and in May. 1847, the defendant, being de-
&MI of taking a shop for the sale of watches at TO, Com-
bat, comated the plaintiff on the matter, who advised him
to do so, and offered to lay aside a sutra/dent quantity of
watches to stock the ahop, which were eventually sold

to the dehodant. Their usual coons ot deali
months tag
was i
three months' credit, land then bills at three ,
and et this time there was • hastier, due from
the defendant of about 1001. For tbi% sum a bill of exchange
was accepted by the defendant, and subsequently paid, as I
were eight others at different dates of the Ram, amount,
when the goods were delivered. To six of these bills a
"none proetwri" was entered by the plaintiff, they not being
due at the time of action twourtlit. The action now was
brought on the other two bills, and the price charged for the
watches. For the defence it was urged that the watches
were not sold out and oat, but were sold on sale ur return,
The bills of exchange were separate from the charge for the
watches ; they were in the hands of the plaintiff 's bankers
for value, and they were the real holders. The plaintiff was
in fan the owner of the stock at the defendant's shop in
Cornbill, of which the defendant wee to sell as many as pos-
sible, and the plaintiff himself otan took watches from that
shop and sold them. Witnesses were called to show this
was the arrar gement between the partiee,and that the plaintiff
constantly came to the shop to inquire about the sale, and that
he took away watches to sell himself, to the amount of
921. Ba. 9d. The defendant had sold to the &moult of
Bil. le. Although the case occupied the whole day, the
only qua tion involved was, whether the goods were sold
out and out, or on sale or return. So far as the two bills of
exchange were concerned, the objection that the plaintiff's
bankers were the real holders was decided to be fatal, so
that, coupled with the "none prosequi" to the sin others,
the question, as related to the hills amounting to 8001.,
was necessarily found for the defendant, under the direction
of the court. At the close of the case the jury inquired
whether a verdict ought not to be taken subject to a re-
ference, as they thought justice could only be done in that
way.—A verdict was therefore taken for the plaintiff, subject
to • reference of all matters in difference.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
NISI pure.—Before die P. Pollock, C. 8., ami• Special Jury.
THE ATTOI24IIY-ORNIItAI. O. F. CROSIILT. EXCTIM
Ceuee.—The Attorney-General, Sir F. Thesieer, Q.C., Mr.
Watson, Q.C., and Mr. J. Wilde were counsel fur the prow-
elution. Mr. Martin, Q.C., and Mr. Lush for the defendant.
This wee an information to recover penalties for the violation
a the excise laws regulating the manufacture of soap. It
rose out of what is technically termed the " cleansing" of I
map, which means the removal of it from the boilers into
immes. Seven days' notice of each cleansing must, by law,
be given to the officers of the excise. On the sth of June
lest such • notice had been given, and on the 12th two sure.
rise officers; went to the defendant's premises, at
=
. They discovered the frames, with respect to whish
bad been given on the sth, so warm and so similar in
temperature to frames filled from the boilers nn the 12th,
that they supposed the soap cleansed on the sth had been
removed, and another cleansing, of which no notice had
been given, bad been recently made. They im-
mediately seized the soap, to the extent of four
tons and is half, and the present prosecution wee the re-
sult. On behalf of the crown, Mr. Hawes, of Lambeth, and
Mr. Wheels, of Ilatcliff-highway, extensive soap manufac-
turers, were called to prove the physical impossibility that
the temperature of the frames could have been so high on
the 12th of June, if the contents had been, no the defendant
represented, deposited in them a week before. It was
charged that the first boiling was composed of such mate-
rials that it cooled very quickly, and thus the defendant was
enabled to have made a second cleansing, of which he had given
no notice, and which he would have cut down or removed on
the 14th of June—the expiration of the notice he had given—
only for the discovery which had been made. The defendant
called several persons to prove that the temperature of soap
in frames in the month of June could not be relied upon as
a proof that it had been recently removed into them, or
that there had been two cleansings between the .sth and
the 12th of June. Several persons in the trade also deposed
that so !nun defended upin the quality of the meterials
used in the manufwure of the article; and judring Wm the
specimen then produced there could urder no circumstance
be two cleansings within nine days. They stated, that con-
sidering the heat of the weather in June, it was not possible
that soap, such as that seized on the defendant** premises,
could have been sufficiently solid, or in a fit state to be " cut
down" in lea' then eight days after the cleansing. The
learned judge, while summing up, was interrupted by the
jury, who found a verdict for the Crown—penalties, 7001.
ratting' In Hamm.
%VIRAL!. v. KlNG.—Paavaase VERDICT.—NEW TRIAL.
—Coens.—This was an action of ',mimosa, brought to re-
cover damegee from the defendant for the breach of warranty
of soundness on the sale of 500 store sheep at • fair in Hert-
fordshire. At the trial before Mr. Baron Parke, at the last
Monfort assizes, it appeared that the sheep in question were
sold, without any expreta warranty, in November, 1846, and
that in tie month of March following, they gave unequivocal
indications of toe rot. Upon thts the plaint tlf wrote to the de-
fendant, demanding compensation and a rettlement, but the de.
fondant replying that the 'beep were sound when mid, and that
or would not be answerable for their soundness, for so leen
after their sale, this action was brought, the plaintiff relying
not on any express warranty. hut on the warranty implied
by law and acted on by the custom of the country on saki o
store sheep. On this subject a great number of witnesses
were called, who were in the habit of frequenting the great
sheep fairs, and all said that when sheep so bought turned
out unsound they never knew of a case iu which the vendor
had refused to make good the loss, or bad disputed the
custom. Many of these witnesses extended their notions of
the law and this custom to pigs, horses, and cattle, all
thinking evidently that the purchauir was entitled to return
either of those animals, as well as store sheep, if they turned
out unsound, though there had not been any express war-
ranty of soundness. In summing up, the learned
judge told the jury, which was a special one, that the law
did not imply any such warranty as was evidently supposed
to exist by all the witnesses called for the plaintiff, and that
it was for them (the jury) to say whether any such custom
existed as was set up by the plaintiff. On this, however,
there was a question for the jury—there was little or no evi.
donee in the case on which they could act. The jury, how-
ever, without any hesitation found • verdict for the laintiff.
A rule was afterwards obtained to set aside this verpdict, on
the ground that it was perverse ; and now, the notes of
the trial having been read, Mr. Serjeant Shoe ape
peared to show cause against the same, and to support
the finding of the jury, which he contended was amply sup-
ported by the evidence of the custom.—Mr. Baron Parke :
There was but the slightest possible evidence to support
your case—but I left the case to the jury lest it might be
said that there was something to go to the jury. I, bow,
ever, gave them as strong an intimation of my °melon as I
could do short of taking the verdict out of the mouths of the
jury, and I little expected that a special jury would have so
found as they did here.—Mr. Serjeant Shee : The ques.
don was one for the jury, and they have found according to
their view of the evidence : the verdict may be
against evidence, but it cannot be deemed • perverse
one.—Mr. Baron Parke : I left the case to the jury
certainly, but they ought not to have found az they did if
they attended to the law laid down to them. They were
very much surprised to hear me say that the law did not
imply any warranty on the sale of a horse, and I dare say
they paid no attention to the law I laid down to them as ap-
plicable to this transaction. It is only a question of costs,
and we think that the rule must be made absolute, but that
the costs must abide the event of the cause.—The whole
of the calla concurred in this view of the case, and so
without hearing Mr. Id. Chambers and Mr. Wordsworth in
support of the rule, the Court made the rule absolute as sug-
- Mr. Baron Parke.—Rule absolute accordingly.

gteied by

COURT Ot BANKRUPTCY.
Before Conintiesioaers Goulburn, vonblanque, and Iloiroyd.
QFASTION AS TO THE OPENING OF AN AWARD.—ILI
the case of Lyon Samuel, silversmith, of Bury-street, St.
Mary-axe, a guestioa had been raised as to whether an
award made before the bankruptcy was conclusive ; and a
subdivision court was now held to hear the arguments.—
Mr. Cole, solicitor, tendered a proof for 16,7431. 12s. 2d., on
behalf of the assignees of Messrs. M. and H. Emanuel,
which sum was due to them under an award by Mr. Wm.
Quiiter, accountant, of Coleman-street, which had been
made a rule of court. In Michaelmas term last, the rule
had been made absolute for the payment, and then Samuel,
being in a state of hopeless insolvency, went into the Ga-
zetfe,—the fiat being dated 25th November, 1817. At the
choice of assignees, this proof had been tendered, and ob.
jected to on the ground that the award was had—the arbi-
triter being one of the assignees. A few years ago, Mews.
Emanuel had carried on an extensive business as jewellers,
in Bevis Marks; on Mr. Matthew Emanuel retiring, a
payment of 8,0001. a year was made due to him from his
brothers, Michael and Henry Emanuel, which was paid for
some time, and then reduced to 4,0001. a year. As the firm
felt a pressure in meeting these payments, they resorted to
bill transiotions. The bankrupt Samuel, had been a
jeweller and bill discounter. Messrs. Emanuel had deal-
ings with him ; and he suggested to Mr. Henry Emanuel,
to enter with him into share transactione, offering
him, at the same time, facilities for discounting
bal. In 1815, two bills amounting to 6,4451. were
accepted by Mr. H. Emanuel without the knowledge of his
brother, and discounted by Samuel at the Union Bank of
London: of the proceeds Mr. H. Emanuel got 5,0001., and
Samuel retained 1,4451. for his share. Similar transactions
followed ; and in August, September, October, and Nevem-
her Samuel had drawn, and H. Emanuel bad accepted, un-
known to his brother, bills to the amount of 52,0001., with-
out any consideration. These bills being ail at long datee,
the transactions did not come to the knowledge of Mr. M.
Emanuel till January 1848, when he immediately *ought
the protection of the court. Bills to the extent of 42,000!.
were proved against the estate ; one of 10,0001. having been
given up by Samuel. Oat of the 52,0001., 32,0001. bad been
received by Samuel, and Henry Emanuel got about 18,0001.
In July, 1846, Samuel had been sued on two of the bills for
6001. at the suit of the assignees of Messrs. Emanuel ; he
then filed a bill in equity. Mears. Emanuels answer int.
pitted to him fraud ; and ultimately, when the' action came
on for trial, a reference of all matters in dispute was agreed
to, and Mr. Quitter was appointed arbi'rator at the
earnest persuasion of Mr. Samuel. He had since
objected that Mr. Quitter was one of the assigame
of Messrs. Emanuel; (but he was not a creditor
on either estate, having been merely joined with the
other enigma on account of his intimate knowledge of the
transactions; and if he bad any bias at all, it would be
rather in favour of Samuel's estate. The artritraibn was
perfectly regular and the order binding ; the only ob-
jection being that the arbitrator, although fully agreed to
by both parties, was nominally a plaintiff' to the
action. Counsel ones& side had appeared before the azbi-
Meteor ;
testy point had been raised and discussed; and
then, aler two menthe' consideration, Mr. Quitter made his
award.—Mr. Cole read the award.—Mr. Commissioner
Cloulturrn doubted whether the assignees had power to refer,
runt's' a specific astdilerroriyerj. been given by the creditoas,
I in references to this ease.—Mr. Cole contended
that that objection not now tries; it was merely a gate-
tion between the assignees of Messrs. Emanuel and their
creditors, and could not now be relied by Samuel, as ajrs
Emannat's assignees, he being esteem d by the 'mud
made a rule of coterie—Mx. Poatilaaqua