The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-26 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

Sittings in Error, before the Judges of the Common Pleas and Barons
of the Exchequer' from the Court of Queen's Bench.
DOUGLAS V. THE QUERN.—JUDGMENT.—VALIDITT OF
INDICTMENT AND SENTENCE APPIIIMED.—The argument in
this case was concluded on Friday, and reported in the Ex-
press of the following day. The points in question, it will
be remembered, were—first, with regard to the form of in-
dictment, it being contended for the plaintiff in error that
the court below had allowed too great a latitude ; and next,
with regard to the sentence, which was alleged to be at va-
riance with that prescribed by the statute 33 Geo 111.,
cap. 62, inasmuch as the jury having valued the gift of rums
received by Mr. Douglas at 3,6451. 16r. Bd., the Court of
Queen's Bench sentenced him to pay a fine and to he inspri-
coned till be returned the value so found, instead of allowing
him the option to return the gift or the value of i:. The
court gave judgment on Saturday morning.—Adverting to
the question as to the form of the indictment, Mr. Baron
l'arke, in delivering judgment, said the court were of opi-
nion that the indictment was good. They concurred in the
finding of the inferior court, that, as the intention of the
statute of 33 Geo. 111. war to prevent person s receiving gifts or
presents under any pretence, the acceptance of such gitt or
present brought the person receiving it within the provisions
of the statute. With respect to that portion of the sentence
which was alleged to be erroneous the court also concurred
in the finding of the Queen's Bench. Tne court held that
Mr. Douglas having accepted a gift of rupees estimated by
the jury at 3,5451. 16s. Bd., according to the value at the time
the gift was made, the court had legally ordered the for-
feiture of the same. Their lordships, therefore, affirmed the
judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench.
Dunst V. THE QUEEN.—THE BANKRUPTCY ACTS.—
CAN A PERSON SENTENCED ON AN INDICTMENT YOU I
PERJURY RE ADJUDOED TO FIND SECURITY POE It IS
Goon BEHAVIOUR ? —The plaintiff in error in this case was
Mr. Richard Dunn, barrister-at-law, who has obtained so
much notoriety from hie persecution of Miss Burdett Coutts.
The writ of error was brought up into this court on the
sentence passed last year by the Lord Chief Justice, on Mr.
Dunn's conviction in the Court of Queen's Bench, at the
London Sittings, on an indictment for perjury committed by
him in an affidavit sworn in the Court of Bankruptcy with
the view of making Miss Burdett Coutts a bankrupt. The
ry having found him guilty he was sentenced by Lord
Denman to be imprisoned for eighteen months, and
to find security for his good behaviour for the
space of two years, and to be imprisoned until
fresh security should be found. Mr. Dunn having brought
the case up on a writ of error, it was fixed far argument on
saturday. Du In was brought intc court on a writ of

habeas
bull;
,in the custody of one of the officers of the
copruisortn,accerst
grog cot nideztedth
inhisnothwen, catisedik,cuanndiveadidtyrelessed.
times with considerable ability. He urged a greet many
iffere points in support of the error, contending that the
daffiilarnitt, as set forth in the indictment, was immaterial,
inasmuch as the statute of 1 and 2 Vie., cap 110, was re-
pealed by the subsequent act of 5 and 6 Vie., cap. 122. If,
as he contended, the affidavit was not in the form of the 5
and 6 Via., it was not sworn under any act relating to bank-
ruptcy, as the one act repealed the other. It was not a form
on which a fiat of bankruptcy could be issued.
Then with respect to the affidavit itself, he sub-
mitted that it did not appear to be sworn before any
one, the averment being that " the said Richard Dunn
came iota the Court of Bankruptcy, the Name court being
then and still held in Basinghall-street," &e. But it
did not specify which of the court', and there were six of '
them. The affidavit, he contended, should bear on it, that
it was made before the judge present and holding the *oust.
It was attested by John Fisher Mills, but he did not make
the lame before Mr. Mills, but before the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. This affidavit clearly disproved the averment,
because it was impossible that any person could on it be de-
clared a bankrupt. He then took an objection on the ground
that Miss Coutts was called in the affidavit " Angelina
Burdett Coutts," whereas her name was Angelina Georgina
Burdett Coutts.
The Court intimated that the objection was not a valid
one, inasmuch as Mini Burdett Coitus was sufficiently iden-
tified by the name stated in the affidavit.
Mr. Dunn having contended that the Court of Queen's
Bench had no power to order him to find securities to keep
the peace, Mr. Baron Parke intimated that the Court were of
opinion that the learned counsel for the crown should con-
fine himself to the three points—first, an to the materiality of
the affidavit; next as to the power of the registrar of the
Court of Bankruptcy to take the affidavit; and lastly, whether
at common law a judge at nisi prius could order the defen-
dant in addition to the sentence to find security for good
behaviour.
Sir F. Thesiger contended that the affidavit was material,
the defendant having sworn before the registrar that Miss
Burdett Couta was indebted to him in a large sum of money,
the effect of which would bare been to make her a bank-
rapt. The act 5 & 6 Vic. did not absolutely repeal the
1 & 2, for the recital stated the ono to bo. in force,
when not specially repealed by the other. They were per-
fectly consistent when they stood together, and the affidavit
he held to be perfectly good, and in accordance wits the
statutes.
The learned judges, at this stage of the case, having ex-
amined the two statutes, intimated they were perfectly
satisfied that the act 1 & 2 was not repealed by the
& 6 of Vic., that they were perfectly consistent with
each other, and, therefore, that there was an end to the ques-
tion of the materiality of the averment on the record.
Sir F. Thesiger then proceeded to the next point, and very
briefly argued that the affidavit bad been sworn in prop, r
form. There could be no question as to which court of
bankruptcy was meant, as the act of parliament expressly
provides that the building itself shall be called the Court of
Bankruptcy. With respect to the last point, he said that in
every superior court of record, the judges being in the corn-
misston of the peace, had, ex officio, the power to order per-
sons brought before them to find security to keep the peace,
and ho apprehended they had the power to do so in every
case of misdemeanor.
Mr. Baron Parke said there was only one point on which
the court entertained any doubt, and that was with respect
to the question of ordering the defendant to find sureties for
good behaviour—not with respect to the discretion exercised
by the court below, but the power to do it. With respect to
the question of the materiality of the affidavit, the court
were clearl of opinion that the judgment of tne Court of
Queen's Bench was right. The statute 1& 2 Vict.
was not repealed by the 5 & 6 Vict. The latter only
give additional powers, and therefore the affidavit was mate-
rial, as it would have the effect of making Miss Burdett
Coutts • bankrupt in twenty-two days, according to the
bankruptcy law. The court were of opinion that, in accord-
ance with the provision of the statute, the registrar of the
Court of Bankruptcy had full power and authority to take
the affidavit. With respect to the last point, the court
wished to look into the authorities on the sulject, and they
should therefore take time to consider the question.
Mr. Duns asked when their lordships would give judg-
ment on the point?
Mr. Baron Parke said not before the flitting next term.
But the plaintiff would sustain no injury by the delay, be-
cause he believed a majority of the court were of opinion
that Lord Denman had the power to order sureties for good
behaviour.
This concluded the business of the court for the present
term.

ARCHES COURT.
Before Sir llrrliert leaner Ya‘t.
WILSON r. WILSON.— Car 111.Tif AND DITORCE.—Dr.
Phillimore stated that this was a suit promoted by the wile
against the husband for cruelty. Mrs. Wilson had previ-
ously applied for restitution of conjugal rights, when it or-
dered Mr. Wilson to take her to his home, when be suffered
her to occupy a house next door to his own. with one servant
to attend her. Ile world sometimes seat himsef with her
at the dinner table, but seldom pin took of anything. Ater
the lapse of some weeks he took her to his own house, and
then commenced a series of acts of cruelty and uppressioa
towards her, fur which she now sought for a divorce.
Dr. Jenner having pleaded for the husband, and Drs.
Phillimore and Addams replied, the court summed up, and
in en doing gave an outline of the case. The case was one
that might justify it to rronounce fur a divorce. It then
commented on the whole of the evidence. The more impor-
tant question for the court to inquire into was, that after a
separation of fourteen years by mutual consent the wile
cited her husband in this court for conjugal rights, which
terminated in the court directing her husband to take her
home. They then cohabit with each other from April to
October in 1847. It was during this cohabitation stated that
sufficient cruelty bad been exercised to justify the wife in
suing for a divorce, withoeit referring to the cruelty w hich
hail been practised in the earl 'put of their cohabitation,
which was in 1817. It appeared to the court that from the
'treatment the wife had experienced it was sufficient for the
court to pronounce for a divorce, as further cruelty
might be resorted to if she was compelled to re-
turn to cohabitation. It was evident from the state-
ment of the witnesses that gross cruelty had been practised
' towards Mrs. Wilean by the husband, at the same time
calling her all manner of names of a foul character.
Tweiee months after their marriage Mr. W,.son behaved
very ill to her, and put himself into most violent passions
aim ist every day. At times he was seen to strike her with-
out any provocation On ene occasion, while going to her
chamber, he struck her in the face, which gave hi r a black-
eye, and he was chi eked from further violence by the ser-
vant interfering. In 1831, Elia ibeth Moseley, who was
then living in the family, testified to these facts, and that
the life of Mrs. Wilson was most mi.erable ; she was at times
compelled to leave her climate r, and go to that of the ser-
vants to protect herself from his violence, and nothing was
set forth by the husband to shake the truth of this witness's
statement. A gross charge had been made against this wit-
ness which was not juatified, and the court regretted that
this was too often the case where parties had a bad cause.
It; could wish to ace this course changed. Several
other witnesses hail deposed to the game effect
of his cruelty towards Mrs. Wilson. The court
thought nothing could be more cruel than the conduct
of Mr. Wilson to his wife during the period of 1831 to 1833,
and no plea had been given in by the husband to contradict
these allegations; it must therefore assume they were
proved, for there was nothing to palliate his conduct. In
1833 they agreed to separate, when he allowed her the small
sum of 4.51. a year, which, it appeared, had not been regu-
larly paid; since then, in 1840, lie had become possessed of
considerable property, left him by a relation on his taking
the name of Wilson. It was stated to be 1,8501. a year, his
name then being Hunt. On her ietura home to cohabita-
tion with her husband, in 1847, he renewed his gross attacks
upon her, particularly in reference to a person of the name
of Workmen, whom he charged her with acting towards
with gross indecency. If this were true it should have been
pleaded; but it was not, therefore the court felt this conduct
was most gross on his part, and the manner in which be re-
peated these charges proved the animus that acted upon his
feelings towards Mrs. Wilson, and the malignity of his
mind, having no cause for such a charge. His
general conduct to his wife was that of insult.
It was stated she was not alarmed at his violence. Now
there was no proof of this, for she stated to her servant that
she dared not show it, for fear it might increase his wrath.
lie would at times place a candle before her ;face, and in-
sultingly say, " What a pretty thing you were once, but how
you are altered." At times he would clench his fist and
strike the table with great violence. This the court thought
was enough to alarm a female: it felt the conduct of Mr.
Wilson towards his wife proved the malignity of his mind.
She was also charged with having acted improperly with
a Mr. Harrington and a Dr. Davis, which charges were
denied. if this was not physical violence, it was legal
cruelty. At other times he would throw her bed upon the
floor amid the wet which had been spilled on the chamber
floor by himself while washing:and thus causing great incon-
venience to Mrs. Wilson. The court could not entertain the
charge that she was in the habit of drinkino. Mr. Wilson
had stated he would not strike her, but he would go as near
as he could to it. The court did not consider that there
should Ise a blow struck; tho alarm excited by his violent
passions was enough, and terror and alarm were enough to
injure health. It therefore pronounced for the divorce.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
lkfore Mr. Secondary James.
WHAPSHOTT T. DRIMORR.—BETTINO ON I FOOT-RACE.
—This was an action to recover 201. under these eircum-
stlrces : In 1846, two pedestrians, named East and Powell,
were matched to run a race, and it was arranged that it
should come off in the neighboi.rhood of Sudbi.ry, in which
town the plaintiff kept an inn. The defendant, a licensed
victualler in Drary-lane, went to see the race, ant the
plaintiff having made a wager ter 201. with a Mr. Upton in
favour of Powell the defends, t was made stakeholder, and
the 40/. was placed in his hrnds. The race was run, but
both ..ides claimed the victory, and ultimately Mr. Dowling,
of Bell's Life in London, woo was made stakeholder for the
race, returned the deposits to the depositors, and
all beta were considered drawn. The plaintiff claimed
toe restoration of his 201., but the defendant refused to pay
either him or Mr. Upton, and in cmsequence the precut
action was brought to compel payment. The fact of the
race being run was proved, and Mr. Drinkwater, a publican
in Long-acre, deposed that Powell wan by 60 Or 70 yards.—
Mr. Dowling was called. He could not pr..duce the articles
signed by the competitors, which had been deposited with
him ; but it was proved that search had been made for
them.—A discuasion ensued as to whether secondary evi-
dence of the contents could be given ; and in the end the
learned Secondary ruled that the production of the articles
was indispensable, as by them alone the jury could see upon
what terms the race was run, and consequently who was
entitled to the money. The plaintiff was therefore non-
stilted.

f oney.

AMSTSIDAII, JUNE 6.—Dutch Act. Dent Two-nada-1151f per 022141.
424i;6 tjmiprt,tl.o4y.rabroiv-ilerr Cen.tuailf9
taev.„.; !itit.t..36'4luset
}E oI entin64.4
dia
EM,s,, lour es, (Ante.. CO4 e 4.4. Excbango on London, 11.11 ; two
months. 11.67. On Hamburg, 34.76: two months, 34.37. On Hamburg.
64.13; two mouths,

AMSTERDAM, JUNE 23.—Inland funds were in demand
at the openiag of the Bourse; but, subsequently, fell to
yesterday's notification. Spanish-Portuguese were declining.
A slight improvement in the Austrian funds. Russian and
Brazilian in demand. No particular change in the other
foreign funds.

= I " 1 Par AKOROI.
?ARIL Jos• • IlLoy. 0N... i pent. i lArreat. i Clwiaa•
3 per Conte .... 1 . i .. . ..
3 Do.Newil ..
I
6 Do.
46 Do. .. .. .. .
4 Do.
SZOOIIIO 06 LOSEOII : NO7illandiall."
Belgian 6, 1840. , „ Money. , Naples Rental.. „ Money
Do. 6, 1641
Do: 2 ..... 1 .. _z.
.1, TB/T34.. 1izt0.12.3e.
11, ~