The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-05 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 5, 1851.

he made Aar the tint four daps of term. It mould them-
; fore be prudent for int:dealer who had aew trials to more
to do so at once, fur atter the tour days had expired, the
court might pure, and decline to take motions.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YESTERDAT.
arses 11. r INK LUND Lump Items, Ms. Hamm
Paste. Ma. MAW,. ALIMINVP, •Sto Mk. Maw.,
CILOSS V. CHT.Millett.—PltobtletloltY
This was an action brought upon a promissory note for
2681. 2s. 3d., which was tried before Mr. Justice Williams
at the Mat wires at Liverpool, when a verdict was found
for the kliaintiff for the full amount.
Mr. 1. Jones now moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had on the grounds of misdirection and surprise.
It appeared that the plaintiff and the defendant
had formerly been in partnership as salt manufac-
turers at Northwich, and that the defendant had given toa Mr.
Firth, the banker with whom the firm banked, n promissory
note signed Cross and Cheshire, for • balance of 26$f. 2s. 3d.
being a debt due by Mr. Cheshire to Mr. Firth on hie own
personal account. The present plaintiff had been sued on
the note and had paid the amount, upon which he brought
this action against his partner fur money had and received.
The misdirection, of which the learned counsel now com-
plained. was that as Mr. Cross and Mr. Cheshire had been
partners, the former could not sue the latter for money had
and receive', but should have taken proceedings in Equity,
and therefore the learned judge who tried the ease ought so
to have directed the jury. With regard to the surprise,
the learned gentleman read an affidavit from the defen-
dant's attorney, teem which it appeared that although a
letter was produced at the trial in which his
client admitted that the note was given for his private
debt, yet the plaintiff up to the time of the action being
tried had nut so treated the matter. On these two grounds
Mr. Junes submitted that his client was entitled to a rule.

The court was of opinion t.nst the learned judge had cor-
rectly laid down the law when he told the jury that the
action fer money had and received could be maintained.
With regard to the complaint of surprise, although the de-
fendant might in some degree have been surprised, yet 115
upon his own admission the equity of the case was ag.iinst
him, the court thought no rule should be grunted upon
that ground.—ltule refused.
_ _ _

FITIVIL.Ii AT NIAI RAZ. NAOMI,
MIDDLEMAS V. HOOKER.-THE MIT ALT HISSVI
WITNENSES.

This case excited considerable attention, apart from its
intrinsic interest, from the circumstance that it was the
first in which the new law admitting parties to a Suit to
give evidence had been acted upon. Mr. E. James, Q.C.,
and Mr. John Locke appeared fur the plaintiff; and Mr.
Knowles, (44..., with whom was Mr. Hawkins, for the
defendant. It was an action to recover the sum of about
401., the balance of a debt alleged to be due ter a steam-
engine constructed by the plaintiff fur the defendant, and
for which a verdict had already been given at a previous
trial. it appeared that a contract had been entered into,
but Mr. James contended that it hail been nbandoned by
the implied consent of the parties. The plaintiff having
been sworn, stat, d that lie was a maker of steam-engines,
and lived in the City-road. In September, 1850, he had
entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, a print-
ing-press maker in Old street-real, to construct
for him a steam-engine of four-horse power. The
agreement was in writing, and stipulated that the
engine should be of good materials and should be put in
good working order for a sum not exceeding 1001. On the
other hand, the defendant bound himself to pay the plain-
tiff the main of 21. 101. per week fur eight weeks, the
balance within fourteen days after the erection of the en-
gine. The partite met at test foundry of Mr. Parry, where
they looked over wine patterns of castings fur engines of
four-horse power. The defendant selected the patterns,
and also ordered the boiler at the boiler makers. It was a
six-horse boiler, and plaintiff made from the castings fur-
nished him a nix-horse engine. Told defendant that it was
a good six-horse engine, but the defendant passed it off,
and would nut give him a proper answer. This was when
the engine was three-fourths made. The engine was after-
wards bent home and finished en the defendant's
premises. Defendant gave him the 2/. 10s. the first
week, 31. the second, and 21. 116. tor the six succeeding
weeks. When be stepped payment, plaintiff stopped work.
Defendant asked him the reason, amid lie told him that lie
could not go on without souse alteration, and unless he was
to have some more money. Def. nelant replied that the
work must be finished, and that lie would see about the
payment. Defendant also told plaintiff that he must stick
to the agreement, upon which plaintiff told him the agree-
ment was nothing to him, fur he could not do it for the
money. Alter desisting from work fur about three days, be
went on with it again and finished it. lied no further
conversation with the defendant until the engine was com-
pleted, and then the defendant would nut collie to any set-
tlement with him. Witness got no more money until a
fortnight after lie went to work again, and then he received
24; and on the 21st, the 21th, and the '2Bth of December,
he received the sum of 11. each time. Altogether he re-
ceived 311.' out of which ho found a portion of the mate-
rials. With the boiler, the castings, 61. c., he considered
that he had received 1071. The engine was worth 2.11. pee
horse power, or IdOL, instead of 1002 When he asked
defendant fur a settlement at the completion of the work,
he laughed at him, and said lie had amply paid him, and
would abide by the agreement Plaintiff replied that the
materials and the boiler had cost a great deal more than he
expected. Wituces had bought a 4-horse boiler a short
time before for 18/., and this cwt 241. Delitudant would
never show him any bills at all. If the boiler were for a
sin-hone engine every thing else must be in proportion
with it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knowles—Did not see the boiler
until he had gone un with the work fur six weeks. fly the
agreement the boiler was to be 12 feet long by 3 feet Gin.
in diameter. Witness had only inielsured it outside, and
it was 13 feet 6 in. lonic. Plaintiff had only been in a
small way of business, and this engine had reduced him to
be only a journeyman. It was because Mr. Parry would
not trust him that the defendant had ordered the castings
and the boiler. Witness found out that the engine would
be a 6-hors: when he gut the cylinder home. flail hired a I
lathe at Mr. Jones's, mud the cylinder had been turned by
a man in his (plaintiff's) employ.
Ite•ezamined—The demand, in fact, wan all for labour;
and that labour was dune from the castings sent witness.
flail made 4-horse engines with castings that cost only one-
third of what this had done.
Wm. Anderson, an engineer, had seen the steam engine
when it was half finished It was a six-hurse engine, and
would be worth 251. the horse, or 1.1(11.
Antrubus. a cabinet-maker, drove the defendant
up to the plaintiffs to look at the engine. Witness asked
plaintiff what size it was, and he said it was a G-horse. lie
added that he must have more money for at than had been
mentioned in the contract. Plaintiff, who must have beard
the remark unless he was deaf, said nothing.
C. IL Jeffreys, apprentice to Middleman, proved that
the defendant wan continually calling at his muster's while
the engine was in the course of construction.
Mr. Knowles, Q,C., then addressed the jury for the de-
fence, urging that the contract had not been set aside by
the defeuthuit's supplying the materials; but that it had
been acted upon throughout, the defendant merely supply-
ing the castings because the plaintill's credit was °ad. lie
then called.

Peter hooker, who said he was quite unacquainted with
the construction of steam-engines. Middlemas ordered the
castings himself. Went to his premises from time to time,
but he gave nu intimation of the change in the size of the
engine. It was completed on the lot of February, when
witness told the plaintiff that it was left in a slovenly man-
ner. Plaintiff replied, " Slovenly as it may be, I shall
make you pay a great Jeal more than we agreed upon, for
it is a sia-horse instead of a tour." Witness said, " How is
this: 1 never authorised you to make a six-horse engine,
and, if you have dune so, you hive dune it on your own
responsibility." Never saw him again, nor received any
communication from him or his attorney, until the action
was coiainenced, which was before the expiration of the
It days mentioned in the agreement. Did not hear the
plaintiff say, in Autrobus's presence, that it was a six-horse
engine.
Peter Hooker, sal, father of the plaintiff, was present
at the interview ou the Ist of February, and corroborated
his sou 's evidence.

Freeman, in the employ of Messrs. Horton and Son,
the boiler tuakere, proved that the boiler was the size spe-
cified iu the agreement. It would nut be large enough for
a sin-horse engine.
Edward Parry remembered the plaintiff and defendant
meetings, hisfuundry and looking over the patterns of some
1-horse engines. 'those ',amnia had been used a kw
months More to make a 4 horse engine. One of them
was marked "4 hs." There were about 100 patterns in all.
William Farmer, Richard Crickmer, and Robert Rams-
den, engineers, had examined the engine, and concurred
that it was only a good 4.horse engine, or a 6-horse at the
most.

Mr. James addressed the jury in reply, and
Baron Martin, in summing up, took occasion to allude, in
terms of appioval, to the late change in the law of evidence.
There were two questions tor the jury to determine, namely,
whether the engine was really more than a 4.horso engine,
and whether the contract had really been set aside.
The jury, after deliberating about an hour and three
quarters, returned a verdict for the defendant.
The court then adjourned till to-day.

BRISTOL COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Benny C.maimiosra Ma. Saustsir bramm.
IN AZ WILLIAMS AND WILLIAMS, &ANIMUS, NEWPORT

- -
omitocr sis mat).
This was a meoting for the choice of assignees. A sitting
fur proof of debts was also held yesterday sod to-day, when
proofs were pint in making, with the sum proved before the
registrar (Mr. Tuckett) at Newport last week, a total of
upwards of Cd,ollof.
At the sitting yesterday the points raised were of a purely
technical character, and not call for a report.
Mr. John Bates, banker, of Bristol, and Mr. Samuel
Homfray, of Monmouth, ironwaster, were appointed
assignees to the estate.
During the course of the proceedings it was intimated
that application would have to be made to the Court to
allow further sittings for ',root of debt, to be held at New-
port, as there was a large number of persons holding single
6f. notes who had not yet proved, and to whom it was de-
sirable to save the expense of coming to Bristol for that
purpose. Many of the parties were PI, sad many lived at a
distance. They had sent in quite as tarp a number of
proofs as could be expected in four days.
LNSOLvENT DEBTORS COURT.—YESTERDAY.

BLrosa nes o'ultr Conn
IN THE MATFER OP ALFRED W.

This insolvent, a young man, appited to be discharged
from prison. Mr. Bargood opposed for two creditors named
Cooke and Knight. Mr. Cooke supported. The insolvent
was described as of Trinity College, Cambridge, and as a

I gentleman. On his examination he stated that the present
was his first appearance before the court. His debts were
about 4,1001., incurred within the last three %von. He had
received no consideration fur about 3,5001. of the liabilities,
which arose on bills of • %change given fur money lust at
billiards and on horse racing, and on bills he had given
persons to get discounted and had not received the pro-
ceeds.
Mr. Cooke said that every tradesman bad been paid by
the insolvent's father 20s. in the pound, but he would not
pay debts incurred in the manner described.
Mr. Lewis (Lewis and Lewis), the insolvent's attorney,
exhibited the receipts for money paid to tradesmen. The
debts were in the schedule, but they had been lately paid.
Mr. Sargood observed that it was no doubt prudent and
praiseworthy to pay the debts. It sounded very well be-
fore the court.
The insolvent stated that his father had allowed him
about 1501. a year, which was his only income. On being
asked whether he was a single man he said he was not mar-
ried. Ile speculated to increase his income. His specula-
tions were on the turf and at billiards and by getting ac-
ceptances discounted.
Mr. Sargood raised an objection to the description. Ile
cited the cube of a sporting character named Johns, which
was heard before Mr. Commissioner Law, and that learned
commissioner held that where a person speculated on the
turf he should describe himself to that effect.
Mr. Cooke said the cases were very different. In the one
alluded to the party got his living by speculating on the
turf.
The Chief Commissioner was of opinion that the objection
could not prevail. In this case the young man had an al-
lowance from his father.
The insolvent, according to his examination. hail 592/.
owing to him for bets on horse racing, cards, and billiards,
which was all the property he had for his creditors, ex-
cept a very remote contingent interest under his grand-
father's will. . . .

The proceedings in the action " Cooke e. Walker " were
produced. The action was on a bill of exchange accepted
by the insolvent for 1501. A plea was entered, and a
judge's order given just before the trial. The costs were
13s. 4.1., which had been increased to about 5!. by the
plea. The attorney's clerk who produced the papers said
Mr. Cooke was a bill discounter. The bill win bought by a
Mr. Wallis. The parties were not now in attendance.
The insolvent gave his account of the bill in question.
He had given it to a person named Wallis to get discounted,
and all he had received was 241. Ile said his father on a
former occasion had paid debts like the present.
The Chief Commissioner inquired of the insolvent his age ?
The insolvent said he was 24.
Mr. Sarnood remarked that he was of ago when he com-
menced his present debts. The learned counsel addressed
the court far a judgment. The insolvent's lather had sat
in judgment on the debts which the insolvent had con-
tracted, and paid same, leaving others unpaid. Ile (Mr.
Sargootl) was aware that bill discounters were a class
pretty freely satirised or ridiculed when they complained,
but the question was, whether the parties who recklessly
incurred debts were to escape with the protection of the
court ? all sympathy to be given to insolvents, and
no protection to persons because they discounted bills ?
Mr. Cooke expressed his satisfaction at the conduct of the
insolvent's family, who had refused to pay the debts of the
character described in his schedule—he had indeed sat in
judgment on the debts. The opposing creditors bad not
appeared in court—no one was in attendance except the
attorney's clerk. lie hoped the exhibition now made would
be a lesson to bias, and that he would avoid all such
matters iu future, and not give occasion fur remarks to be
made on his conduct. _

The Chief Cumnussioner was of opinion that there was a
case, and only a nominal ense, proved of a vexatious de-
fence. The extra expense was a tew pounds, and the insol-
vent had been nearly five months in prison. It should be
borne in mind that this court was not a criminal court, and
in a committee of the House of Commons, it was impressed
upon the court that in the judgments they pionounced they
were nut with the view to inflict punishment, but merely
as between the parties who appeared before the court. Ile
heartil)• joined in the hope and prayer of the learned
counsel Mr. Cooke, that the insolvent would Igz guarded in
his future conduct. lu his opinion, the ease would have
presented a very different aspect had not the insolvent's
father paid the debts he had done. There was a case as
he had stated, and when the insolvent again emu up, a
mere nominal judgment wsuld be pronounced.
The case was adjourned to serve a creditor.

THE POLICE COURTS.

BOW-STREET.

George Carpenter, a person of respectable appearance and
address, was charged with obstructing the police on the oc-
casion of a Bloomers' Ball ou Monday.
Police-constable 15S F stated that at a quarter past 11
at night he was on duty near the Crystal Ball, St.Martin's-
lane, where a great crowd had assembled to see the dresses
of the Bloomers going to end leaving the ball. The police
were obliged to keep buck the crowd, or there would have
been no thoroughfare. The defendant wanted to force has
way and when witness desired hint to go hack, he resisted,
and had to he removed to the station-house.

The inspector stated that the crowd and resistance to the
police, arising from the general curiosity to see the Bloomers,
was such, that the police, to the number of 40, had to be
called op out of bed and sent to remove the obstruction at
the ball-room door in St. Martin's-lane. The defendant
was not sober but greatly excited, and was with difficulty
removed to the station house.

The defendant said that he was not drunk but excited.
Ile was going home with his wife, when the constable told
him that he must not walk on the path, to which he replied
that the path was fur the public, and went on it, when he
was immediately taken into custody. The constable hav-
ing caught hold of the cuff of his coat, lie desired the officer
not to hold him so, for that he would go quietly slung with
him to the station-house, where he was sure the matter
would he set right; but lie was refused bail, and lucked up
all night.
The inspector explained that bail was at first refused be-
cause of the drunkenness of the defendant, but he was ad-
mitted to bail at an early hour of the morning.
The defendant persisted that he was not drunk, but
maddenesl—indignant." If he were not to walk on
the path, where was the liberty of the subject in Eng-
land.
Mr. Jardine said that the defendant should have attended
to the directions of the police, which he would have done
had he had his proper senses. As t' what he (the defen-
dant) said about the liberty of an Englishman, there would
be no one tree if crowds were to he allowed to block up the
way and act as the defendant had acted, for which he must
pay a fine of 205., or be imprisoned ten clays.
Another person was fined 10s. or eight days for a similar
offence.

LAM BET 11.

JoAn Danis, L, was charged with
indecently amattting a young girl, named Elisabeth :Von
Jewel.

Complainant, a very simple-looking girl, fifteen years of
age, stated that she resided with her parents, at Nu. 10,
Anna square, Lambeth-wall:, On Thursday night week
she went out with her aunt t , carry her baby, and a little
after 10 o'clock they went hi*, the Cock and Bottle, Lam-
beth-walk. Her aunt then took the infant from her, and
told her ft:ego home. There was a court next the public-
house which led to her home, and as she was entering it a
lad put his foot out and attempted to trip her up. She was
scolding the lad fur his conduct, when the defendant came
up, to whom she related what the boy had done. Defendant
drove the lad away, and, taking hold of her arm, pulled
her down the court. She told him she would tell her
mother if he would not let her go. He how-
ever persisted in pulling her toward, a dark
corner, when he indecently asaaulted her, and at-
tempted to violate her. She did not call out, as she was
frightened, but when he began to treat her in an indecent
way, she cried, " Oh, h re's my mother coming, let me go."
She then got away from him and ran into her mother's
house close by and shut the door. She afterwards told her
grandmother, who acquainted her mother with the circum-
stances, and the following morning a complaint was made
against the constable at the station-house.
In cross-examination by Mr. Solomon, she said she had
been nurse in a family four or five months ago. Last time
with Mr. Clark, at the corner of Chester-street. lier aunt
lived in South-street, near Lambeth Chapel, and she fre-
quently nursed her baby for her. She did so on the night
is question, when the constable ill-used her.
Mr. Solomon—Did you ask him what ho held you fur
when he first seized hold of you ?
Witness—l did nut; I tried to get away, but he would
not let me go.
Mr. Solomon—Did you make any alarm when he acted
indeceutly towards you, as you have stated?
Witness—No, I dal not, as there was no persons coming
through the court, and I was much frightened.
By Mr. Eliot—My aunt left me at the Cock and Bottle,
and I was going direct home when the police constable
seized hold of me. I did not cry out. I might have done
so, and some person must have heard me as there are plenty
of houses in the court, and a light at each end.
Mary Newland, grandmother to the girl, said she lived
at the end of the court near her daughter's, and about half-
past 11 on the night in question she looked out of her door
and saw the constable pass along towards the arch. She
had previously heard a rustling noise, but she thought it
was all right silica she saw the constable. Shortly after-
wards her grand-daughter came and informed her what
had occurred, and she went and told her mother.
For the defendant—Mr. Solomon said, he was instructed
to say it was a most gross unfounded charge against his
' client, who had been in the force tea years, and bore an
unb.emished character. He should be able to show from
two witnesses that complainant's statement was all false,
and that the constable never entered the court with her, but
seeing her there with a lad, he merely ordered them away
according to his instructions. He called
Edwards, who stated that he was a shoemaker,
and had worked fur six years for Mr. Davis in the Water-
loo-road. On the night in question he was going to Ken-
nington Oval to see Menke, the pedestrian, with another
young man and two females. They called in at the Cock
and Bottle to partake of some refreshment, and he went
out fur a necessary purpose. He went into the court ad-
joining, and saw the complainant standing inside talking to
• young men. Toe policeman then came in. Witness
then went into the public-house, and came out a minute or
two afterwards, when he saw the defendant telling the com-
Plainant to go home as it was not fit for her to be out that
ate hour of night. She went down the court, and while
witness was talking with hie friend the defendant went
down a street leading to the Kennington road.
By Mr. Elliot—The reason of my c titling here to-day is,
I met the constable last night on lus beat, when he told Me
he was in trouble and requested me to come and speak for
him, as I saw what took place.
Maud Smith, a fruitseller in the Surrey Theatre, gave
similar evidence.

THE DUBE OP CAMBRIDGE has, with his charm-
teristre benevolent:4h forwarded from Dublin a donation of
IW. to the Laiorateragaare Soup Kitchen.

Parr sal rabliabad Warsa Kim ILue, of Ns. e, Laura&
MM. la dr at!! at Laura. Plater. s the 0/I.la is Umbr a.
mart. la tbrarriar al VI hierras..Wassaaar. Namara /.
• Ms