The Express.
London, England, 1849-05-24 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 24, 1849.

one of the female defendemb wee aequeinted. We reported
the trial at considerable lenreb, and the tatty will, no doubt,
he limiter to oar readers. Ad the defendants were found
gad ,y, with the inception of lir. Moore, who pleaded
Peaty, and was then admitted as &wetness against the other
defeadants.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., now moved, on behalf of Mrs.
Lialey, la arrest ofjudgment, and for a now trial, but the
court refused to grant • rale.
Mr. Lush, on Debi& of Mr. Sickle), sin moved for a rale
la arrested judgment, and for • mew trial, on the ground
that his client was taken by surprise apes the admission of
Mr. Moore Se a witness, and also that Mr. Bickley merely
acted as the attorney for the parties, and conducted the ne-
gotiation between them without any guilty knowledge a, or
parddpation in, the transaerion. The Court granted • rule,
bat directed that It should not go into the new trial paper.
Fours e. BIMPSOII.—A TR/anises Llilt.
This was an action tried at Lewis, to recover 2.561., which
was claimed by the plsiatiff, for keeping and training three
race horses belongin; to the defendant. A verdict Bland
for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court. A rule
wee subsequently obtained to enter the verdict for the de-
fendant. Mr. Serjeant Slue and Mr. Bevil' were heard
for the defendant last term.
Mr. Wyatt now addressed the court for the plaintiff.
The question was whether the plaintiff had • lien
on three horses, which he had trained for the defendant,
and the ordinary cheep for which was two gullies.
each per week, inelading the keep of the animals.
The learned gentian= contended, on the autho-
rity of two eases decided by Lord Wynford (Jackson and
Comig, and Start and Morgan), that hems in the keeping
of a trainer were in his constructive possession, and, there•
fore, that he had a lien upon them. Mr. Baron Fake, in a
ales of Bevan and Waters, bad held a contrary opinion, de-
ciding that, as a horse in training was like • horse at livery,
the owner could take it away whenever he pleased, and the
trainer wield not, therefore, be said to have a lion apes it.
The leaned counsel argued against this ruling of the learned
bares, contending that a horse under training was seldom in
a condition to run, and, therefore, the rossiesion of the
trainer was not of so frail a character as that of • livery stable
keeper ; and, moreover, when taken to the rice-course to run,
the jockey was generally the servant of the trainer, and he
did not even then part with the possession of the animal.
In this case, although the jockey was not the servant of the
trainer, be was actually paid by Dim, end not by the owner,
and, therefore, pro has vice, he was the servant of the
trainer.
The learned conned submitt. d that, under these dream-
damns, the possession of the hones was neither restricted,
qualified, or conditioned, and that the plaintiff clearly had •
rum upon them. Mr. Ogle followed on the sane side.
The Court were of opinion that it was clear from the evi-
dence that part of the contract between the plaintiff and de-
fendant was that the defendant was to have possession of hie
horses whenever be liked, for the purpose of retuning at a
rice or otherwise ; and, therefore, it could not be said that
they were in the constructive possession of the plaintiff, and
that he could have a lien upon them.
The rule must, accordingly, be made absolute.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YESTERDAY.

ammo. no Rum*.

FRAMILIST O. AVE;;D:-:4370PP1P10 • Nova AT THZ
RUM.
This was an action on the case for maliciously stopping a
501. note at the Bank of England, to which the defendant
pleaded not guilty. At the trial • verdict pared for the
plaintiff, damages 1101. The plaintiff was the keeper of a
beer-shop, and the defendant a brewer. It speared the
plaintiff having. disposed of his business, the defendant
attended to receive payment of 401., due to him. The plain-
tiff on this occasion handed the 501. note in cines'ion to de-
fendant, asking him for 101. in change, which be was about
to get, but plaintiff snatched back the note out of defendant's
band. In sousequence, the defendant next morning went
with • pollens:um to the Bank of England, and gave
notice to stop payment of the note, on the ground
of its having been fraudulently obtained from him.
It was retained at the bank, and not given up to the plaintiff
until three weeks afterwards under an interpleader order.
A rule for a new trial had been obtained on the ground there
wu no evidence at the trial of malice on the part of defen-
dant; and secondly, because the damages were excessive.
Mr. Serjeant Chadwick Jones showed cause against the
rule, and Mr. Bushey, Q C., was heard in support of it.
The Court said there was no doubt there was evidence to
go to the jury of malice ; and ultimately the damages were
clued by consent. The rule tor a new trial was therefore

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—YrsuRDAT.
errroros VI BANCO.

HASSELL V. THZ MERCHANT TRADES SHIP LOAN ASSO-
CIATION.-THR JOINT STOCK COMPANIES WINDING-UP
ACT.-LIABILITT OP INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS POR THE

DINTS OP ♦ COMPANY.

The plaintiff in this case effected a policy of insurance for
1,0001. with the defendants upon a certain vessel which was
afterwards lost. The company refused to pay the amount of
the policy, whereupon an action seas brought against them,
and judgment for the sum claimed recovered by r. Hassell.
Soon afterwards they became bankrupt, and their affairs were
raunder the management of the Bankruptcy Court. The
gtent remained unsatisfied, as the company had, as such,
no property whatever available for that purpose, and the
present application was made for leave to issue a wire facia
against Earl Talbot, who (whilst Viscount loestre) had be-
ams the proprietor of a great many shares in the under-
taking.
Mr. J. Wilde, in support of the application, coatended
that the plaintiff ought to be at liberty to proceed against
the shareholders in their individual character, and that the
judgment obtained would never be realised unless they were
made personally responsible for the debts of the company.
Er. Martin, Q.C., and Mr. Creasy, were heard at great
length against the application. They contended that Earl
Talbot was not penman, liable. At all events, that he was
not liable until the plaintiff had exhausted the remedies
afforded him in the Coast of Chance , wader the provisions
of the Joint Stock Companies Win -up Act (11 &12
z 1
Viet.. e. 45). By the terms of the icy effected by the
plaintiff he had undertaken to hot the property of the
company, and not that of the shareholders or director, indi-
vidually, responsible for such claims as he might have. And
it WY also expressly provided in the policy that no indivi-
dual shareholder should be liable for the contracts of the
emeepaay beyond the amount of his subscription on the
tiaras held by him. As the plaintiff had snouted to those
terms, he should be obliged now to look to the assets of the
essepany, and net to the members of it individually.
Mr F. Pollock, C. 8., said, as the questions raised involved
Me eonatruction of a very important skeet parliament. se hich
wee only recently weed, and as many other cues might be
materially affected by the decision in this, the court would
take time to consider their judgment.
Stxotrannons Struiroe ATTIE TERM AT GUILD-
MALL AND WESTMINSTER.
Several case, which had been struck out of the demurrer
and new trial papas on the last day of the Sittings in Banco
after last Term, were restored yesterday on the application
of counsel.
Nisi Passe •T WrIIIIIIIIITRIL—Btrozz MI.B•ILON EMS AND
• MIDDLIIM COMMOX Jour.
This was the first nisi prigs sitting in Trini7 term. The
paper contains the average number of causes. Several of
those undefended were disposedof yesterday morning.
LACEY v. ROOERS.—FALSE IMPRISONMENT.—PLZE Or

RIAIONABLIBI7SPICION.

This was an action In trespass by which the plaintiff
sought to recover compensation in damage, from the defend-
est for having given him into custody, de., on a charge of
felony. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and that be bad
good and probable cause of sumiciou that the plaintiff had
committed the felony.—Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Willa
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Lush
for the defendant. The cue wu one of considerable in.

toast
abases
Mr. Willa, in the temporary ases of Mr. Chambers,
stated the ease. The plaustiff is a gentleman's servant at
present out of employment ; the defendant, a Mr. Peter Ro-
gers, a awn retired from basins., and living near Ra-
vesstock hill, The plaintiff was in dehodant's service last
year as footmen, but was discharged (as the defendant's
counsel subsequently admitted) oaly on account of his not
being able to shave his =agar properly. Same time after,
the defendant's house was entered at night and a felony
was committed under the circumstances detailed in the evi-
dence ; and the defendant suspecting that the plaintiff had
committed the burglary and foamy, caused him to be taken
into custody on a Saturday evening, and he was kept at the
police station-house till the Monday nternieg, when he was
taken before the sitting magistrate at Worship street, who
after inquiry diem' sed the charge. The defendant hanne
refined either to admit his error or to make reparation for
the injury thereby infiitted on the plaintiff 's character—an
injury which prevented him from earning a livelihood by his
calling—the present proceedings were commenced.
James Mason, • polioe-coustable, deposed that on the 25th
efßaGeuttocark,.thltin. and e dayatked if h
rtherolre he saw Mr. &igen at
kaary,
miassion
of
any
one.
Mr Rogers replied that he had suspicion of Lamy, who had
•
lived with him a month previously as footman, and that
during that time he had missed a 61. note from his desk, add-
ing that he now lived soisewhere about Petticoat lane.
Winters was thermos directed to take him into custody,
but he did not succeed in finding Laity's lodgiogs till Ss-
turd., the 28th. unii, on being informed of the purpose
of the visit, expressed his readiness to go along with the Tao.
liesams, aad at ones showed his boxes; and a female who
was present invited the officer to *such the house, but no-
thing was hued. Lacey was than taken through the streets
to Mr. Roger's howls, a distance of from four to five miles.
Mr. Rogers sold ha was quite satisfied that Lacey was the
man he had seen in his bedroom on the musing of the
robbery; he haw him by his voice. They thee mane
the station.honse in Albany-street, about a mile a&
Kim, the sareeest on duty, mid as it was a sena=
wine • man it would be was for Mr Bogen to
the matter before he mesa the aerie. Reams maid he
was quite positive es to Ike nen, sad be *ma make the
charge. basy was accordingly locked up till Monday
mendag, when he was taken before the magiwate, end the
charge wee dismissed.
Crosausmined by Mr. Cockburn.—Wituese examined
the bees, at Uaventock-hill. The robber had got in by
bessMig a pane of kiss* in the back kitchen window and
aides Mes slater. The shatters elide rep and down, and the
seam whist' should have fastened them together was not
hullalanheg. A desk and a cupboard-door had been brolun
ILL Rogers stated that between 5 and 8 o'clock is
=Denim he was awakened by a noise in his bed-room,
ea he bend that a man was snaked's to remove his
tremors. Re jumped out of bed, and approached the sea
for the purpose of setting bias, but the man threw a assaher
Misalil at him, exclaiming " D— you, I will do for yea."
Begets stated that the man lad a cloak cape over his
LIMN but he knew the voice as that of Lary. The man
surd, locking Mr. Rogers In bin own room. Mr. Rogers

mentioned a previous lets of 61 from his locked desk as ot e
of the circumstances that induced him to suspect Lacey. At
the police court Lacey proved that he was at borne on the
night of the robbery—a young man swearing that they had
slept together. The charge was, therefore, dismisses,.
On re-examination, the witness said that an attempt had
been made by the robber to esterby the clod w Uer door,which
was open • but finding a door in the passage bolted, the en-
trance had been effected by the back-kitchen window.
Sergeant Sing gave corroborative evidence, especially as
to the fact that be had cautioned Mr. Rogers to be sure as
to the identity of the man before he pressed so grave a
ch arg.
Mr .Cockburn then addressed the jury for the detandant.
Kr. Rogers did not say that the plaintiff was guilty of the
Alony which had been imputed to him, but he contended
that the house had Item burglarionelv entered; that the
way in which the entrance had been effected, by a window,
the shutter-bolt of which was known to be lost, showed that
the robber was acquainted with the place. Moreover, that
the lock-fast place, which had bern broken open, including
a cup board, • desk, in which Mr. Rogers was known
to be in the habit of keeping money, the robbery of
money from a drawer in which a female domestic
was known to keep money, and also the fact that the robber
attempted to abstract money from the troweera by the bed-
side, in which Mr. Rogers also was accustomed to keep
matey, all tended to skew that the robber was intimately
sequsinted with the localities. Added to these was the fact
that Yr. Rogers reenguised the voles of the man to his bed-
ews ; and coupled with the previous love of dl. while
Lowy wee in his service, all conspired to constitute reasonable
gawk for suspicion, and supported the plea of justification
lest the record. The learned counsel called witnesses to sup- I
port ilia averment,.
Mr. Chambers replied in a very earnest and argumenta-
tive address, in which be contended that all the fact. stated
for the defendant only went to confirm the V•intirs case
I that thew was no reasonable ground for suspicion. All the
evidence went to show that the robbery was conducted on
Me want plan pursued by housebreakers, particularly in the
Oak of entrance, and in the general ransacking of the
ewers of the kitchen. If there was any peculiar know-
ledge of locality evinced, it was a knowledge possessed in
sum= by the footmen who were received and discharged
mesthly from Rogers's service. With re spect to the ground
of suspicion connected with Mr. It genes alleged
previous loss of 51. from his dark,hich, if stolen,
must have been takea by m of a false
key, it was very improbable that, even supposing Lee, y to be
the housebreaker, he should have broken open the desk, with
such simple means at his commend. The learned counsel
ales dwelt upon the feet that the robber Ird not evinced a
knowledge oldie easy way of access by mean, of the holden
shutter, In magas the risk of discovery by the noise come-
' guent on breakfast the window. Oa the contrary, a first
attempt appeared to have been made to enter by the cellar-
door. Lastly, on the onlypossible ground of suspicion
arising from the alleged tion of the voice, the learned
counsel urged the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of
identifying a man solely by the sound of his voice, disguised
ss that necessarily was in the covering of a thick cape, and
that the more especially by an *ld man excited and alarmed
by the nocturnal Intrusion of a robber.
Mr. Baron Parke, after a minute summing up of the evi-
dence and lucid exposition of the law on the subject, lots it
to the Jury to say whether the alleged recognitim of the
plaintiff's voice by the defendant wee in their opinion
eufficiene, under the circumstances, to lead to an identifica-
tion, and thereby to constitute a reasonable ground of sus-
picion that the plaintiff had committed the burglary and
felony.
The jury consulted for a few minutes and returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, damages 201.

COURT OF BANKRUPT...ff.-YESTERDAY.
Ben": Ya. Comatose' Eva's.
SUSPENSION OF CIIILTIPICATE.
J. Smith, jeweller, of Regent-street, applied for his certi-
tisane, surported by Mr. Lawrence. He was opposed by Mr.
Orchard, the solicitor to the assignees, on the ground that he
had showed a creditor, named Sewell, who had advanced
him capital to carry on his business, to obtain a judgment, and
sweep away the whole of his property. The bankrupt had
been in business about twelve years ; his unsecured debts
amounted to 3,3561.; his profits had been 10,9701 ; trade ex-
penses and interest, 6.6001. ; domestic expenses, 3,6001. ;
meets, inconsiderable. On the part of the bankrupt it was
urged that he had no reason to expect Sewelrs judgment
would be enforced, or he would have came to the court on
his own petition. Had not the property been sold at a gnat
sacrifice, the estate would have paid nearly 20s. in the pound.
His Honour said the case was one of great suspicion,
though the evidence did not fully establish the charge of
fraudulent preference. But if a man conducted his business
so recklessly as to allow a creditor to get an ad.
vantage over the rest, he was highly blameable. Some erne
having elapsed since the fist, he would suspend the certifi-
cate for one yrar, without protection.