The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-08 00:00:00

P:?A'ORMATION 01 JUVENILE CRIMINALS.
•. -

BIRMINGHAM, WIDITZSDAY.
Preparations are being made for the eaderenee to
he held here on the 20th inst. on the subject 'lithe refer
nation efj evenile offenders. A preliminary meeting has
been held hers this amnion for the parr= of maiden
arrangentents, the spirit of which may be less by evilness*
to suss advertising c-ilumns. This meeties was Weeded by
the nitric and a large number of talbsemdell sad
the tone and character of the letters reed asirissel7 Indi-
cate the large amount of ieterest taken it the prepiesdl gem
ferram by philanthropists in all parts of the ammtly
prent. .
of whom have lopsided their intention to be The lienAcial results of the seeds sown at um whence two
year* Moor have already been very considerable, sot merely
in thahuman evidences of retirmation which the little in-
@tastier' ia this town has atiordsd, but in the fact of its
having avowed public attention to the subject and imparted
vital; ty to Weathering hservoleisce.
The little reformatory asylum in the Ryland-road, in
this !owe, started sad mativainesi almost exclusively by
Mr Joseph Stew, has already expanded into an instits•
tier.. still however, upheld by comparatively a small tint*
of individaals, whx have at least the satisfaction of tape-
We sting bow reach good may with small means be accost.
piuVed. In the estatilis!intent which Mr. Ellis is superin-
tending there near at the present time twenty-four
children it44od from time, and wretchedness, and
ruin, to be fad, inlet:tied, lodged, and taught the
wry to obtain a living. There are scores of others
&Dittoes to oht.tits admission: from the cruelties sad the
marmites of oar gaol have ded thither your.g criminals
craving shelter in that re uge for the destitute, and in
es.', incase: where their prayer has been granted the
re.alt hes afir,,raed a orsetical and am. sworn:tory elect
dation of kris much good any be effeetsd ray reformatory
natel• With such fiats bef re it it proposed to hold
this conference, with the object of ailing in bringing 'boot
a gelation of the qesstion—What is to be done with out
juvenile criminals . .

In the morning For I.ihn Pakington's bill will be dis-
cussed, end in thp ►tening the puihe meeting will take
Place in th° town-tril:; the eff,et of tv-ith will, it is hoped,
to to impart a stimulus to this most important and truly
Christian movement, which unhappily has been too long
wanting

FATAL ACCIDENT IN QUEEN-STREET, CIIEAPSIDE.
—Thu. Blackwell, aged 46, • laboirer in the employ of
Messrs. M'Murray and Co., wholesale rtationers, wu raising
• bundle of paper by • pulley to an upper story, on Monday
lut, whim the rope slipped from his heed, sod the bundle
falling upon his head, killed him upon the spot. An inquest
was WM
anal yeeteeday, and • verdict of " Accidental death"
tet.

JLaw futtlitgence.

EQUITY COVIITS.-YEiTERDAT.
rI Fort INS 1.01.101 .1r,r5t.,31 Or I..
•L1.,./rr v. COOMIIES •N LP Ell trr.R.

The argument spots this appeal from the decision of the
Master of the Rolls, restrainiag the defendanU by injunc-
tion from selling as " Ailsopp'e Pale Ale" beer of an infe-
rior quality, or any beer not of the pliintiff's manufacture,
and from using for the purpose of such sale bottles and
labels, being enleurabla iiaitations of those used by the
plaiatiff, was this day concluded. The facts of the ceo
appear in the report of the argument in the Doily News of
the 26th of November last.
Judgment reserved.

111170111

HI:I.HIV4 V. LCIII.V.Y.

Mr. ilolt and Mr. Freeling =Geed for an injunction to
restrain the defendant from surrendering or doing any act
whereby the lease of Her Mejesty's Theatre might become
forfeited. They admitted that since the filing of the present
bill, and the notice of motion, an affidavit had been
sworn by Mr. Lumley, denying that lie ever bad any such
intention, but they contended that the plaintiff, who was •
creditor to the amount of 9,9001., and bad so other security
but t.e lease in question, had ample reason to imagine that
such had bees Mr. Lumley's intention ; and if se he was
entitled to the costs, even if the court should not make any
order on the motion. Besides the plaintiff's claim there
wire judgments entered up against him by other persons,
the whole amounting to 40,0001. And, in June, 18.53, an
action of ejectment was brought by the plaintiff, and other
creditors, and in Nov. 1933, s verdict given for the plaintiffs
in that action, suhjeft to some questions reserved as to
the invalidity of the deed on the ground of usury, the
allegation made being, that some of the advances were at
GOO per cent. The plaiatiff, in his first affidavits, alleged
that • threat hail been made by the professional adviser of
Lumley, to the effect that if Hughes succeeded in retaining
that verdict, Ise would lose his money, which he construed
into a threat of intention to surrender the lease. The de-
fendant and his solicitor, is the affidavits in answer, denied
ever having made any such threat, sod it was then stated
that the person alluded to was Lumley's leading counsel in
the action at Dew. That gentleman hail refused to make
any affidavit, but sent &Whir to the counsel who appeared
for;Mr. Lumley, stating his readiness to attend and an-
swer say gentles' that might he rut to him, and explaining
the circumstance alluded to by saying, that after the trial,
as he was leaving the court, Hughes mom up and spoke to
aim, and that he said to hith that be was sorry for the
course he had taken, as it might mud in his losing his money,
hut he denied that he ever intended to intimate that Lumley
thought of surrendering or forfeiting the lease, and that he
had never heard such a thing hinted at ; bat he alluded to the
question of usury wbich would arise on the security. It
WA., however, contended that looking at the perilous situa-
tion in which the plaintiff stood as to security, a very
slight thing would be sufficient to arouse Isis suspicion, and
justify him in coming to the court.
Mr. James and Mr. Chas. Roupell, for the defendant,
contended that there WY no ground whatever for the ap-
plication, that the whole thing was • malicious attempt to
injure the defendant in the eyes of the wotld; that the alle-
gations contained in the affidavits on the other side, se to
the insuffiziency of the security, and as to the non-payment
of the rent and rates and taxes, and as to the defendant
having allowed insurances to drop, so as to work a for-
feiture, were untrue, the fact being that the plaintiff him-
, self was now in possession, and had paid these sums.
The Via-Chancellor said, the only question about which
shad ever felt any doubt was about the costs; be could
certainly make no order ea statements so vague as these
in the original affidavit. lie was quite satisfied that Mr.
Lumley had expressed or authorised any one else to
express ony such intention as was imputed to hint. But
the question of the costs depended on the reasonableness of
the plaintiffs application, or the evidence that he had.
Looking at the insufficiency of the security, and the other
circumstances surrounding the case, he considered that very
slender evidence would be sufficient to justify the plaintiff.
He we, not surprised at the counsel refusing to make any
affidavit, and he bad wished to hear the contents of the
letter for his own satisfaction, with a view of considering
whether any further evidence was likely to be produced.
Under all the circumstances he should reserve the costs ;
probably in the end the plaintiff might have to pay them,
but still he might establish his case. He regretted ins mass
of irrelevant matter that bud been introduced ii.to the
affidavits.

Lt MLET r. lIVORIS.

This was a bill tiled by the defendant in the last cue
against the plaintiff in that cue to be relieved from the se-
curities which had been given.
Mr. Freeling, on behalf of the defendant, now moved
that the plaintiff might give security for costs on the ground
that be was described in the bill as of " Her Majesty's
Theatre;" that not being his proper residence. It ap-
peared, be the affidavits, that on inquiries being made there
the answer was, that Mr. Lumley was not there, sad on
asking whether papers left there would reach him, it was
said that a man called sometimes for letters, but that he hsd
not been for a fortnight; and it was further stated that the
plaintiff was keeping out of the way to avoid his creditors.
Toe affidavits on the other side stated that the plaintiff oc-
cupied a Louse No. 1, Pall-mall, which formed part of the
theatre; but, in reply, it was stated that that was a sepa-
rate house, held at a separate rent and andel a generate
lease, and that it was admitted that he had not been there
sines the Opera was closed, which was • year sada half aro.
Mr. James and Mr. Cherie- Roispell, fee the plaintiff,
relied upon the case of " Hant v. Padwick," before Lord
Qfttenham. The theatre was the place where the plaintiff
was best known, although be might not have been there
lately ; and all the securities made to the defendant de-
scribed him as of Her Majesty's Theatre. No. 1, Pall mall,
was in fact a part of the theatre, and it was Mr. Lunaley's
residence, although he might not have been there lately.
The Vice-Chaneellor said, what he should have thought,
but for therms, of " Hunt v. Padwiet," it was not neces-
sary to state ; but, on the authority of that case, he must
refit** the motion, but without costs.

His Honour the Vice Chancellor Kinder,ley did not sit
to-day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAY.

DODDIMPADE P. LADY PANE: AN lINFOTJNOND CHARGE.
The jury laving been sworn and the pleadings opened in
this rate, which wu as action brought against Lady Geor-
gians Faoe to referrer daauges for having given the plain-
tiff into custody en a charge of theft,
The Attorney-General, on the part of the defendant, said
he was very happy to say that thejury would lie spared the
trouble of trying the cue. It was one in which the defen-
dant haring made a charge of theft against the plaintiff,
now, through him (the Attorney-General), entirely with-
drew the charge, and admitted that the plaintiff was en-
' titled to full compensation.
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 2001.
DOWILL r. THE ONNItatL SYNtM NATIOATI MI COMPANY