The Express.
London, England, 1849-11-07 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLRAR-TESTEADAY.

arm= ix ItAisoo.—Biroaz Loin CIUMP JOIITICI Wnsm, Ms. Jcs-
imm MAusa, Ma. Join= Vin.u.um, lob Jla. 'mum TUJOVID
Braim v. WAAD.—NALLWAY LIABILI7I2II.
'

This was an motion which was tried before Lord Chief
Julio. Wilde at the sitting at nisi print in Malan
after last Trinity term, when • verdict wen found for the
ssiatiff—daisages 961. The defendant was Sir Geo. Henry
Ward, the Lord High Commissioner of the follies Igen&
and skeins= of the provillosa oontatittee of the Worcester,
Warwick, and Rugby Railway Company and the plaintiff
sought to recover the sum of 951 for having attanda before
a sewsmdttee of the House of Commons respecting the above-
'mentioned railway.
Mr. Serjeaut Bytes now moved for a rule to show cause
why there should not be • sew trial on the ground that the
verdict was against the evidence. He (Mr. Merjaant Biles)
eight almost say that the verdict was • perverse oafs. The
principal witaam Whet was a pathos of the assegai Coo, we!.
swore that stGuildhall.etaimbsts the defen.daulgar! kith a

peosm sad laid him to take** Mr. Elrod* thisolisitor to
the anspeay, and tall that gentlemen to take aim that the
wigwam were in windings at the cenuelasit of the
Siam of Commons. The harped serjerna now sub
MOW that this witness was not entitled to &edit,
beams It was slatted from his, on ems exemiplisa, that
be bet sworn is one of the county coma Mil gamey was
oaks Is him, and spot hie Written reselpt Wink he had
been pedaled, he had admitted the ammonst to be
fa alb upon which the j:!2tlsolied against
Wm Alter Mr. had left the witness whoa he was
mandaed in the mos in which the serjeant now
moved, sad as he was leaving the court, he said to • clerk of
• Rimelie's, the defeadant's attorney, " Now, I think I
ham done you with regard to the 61." The third circum-
stance which impeached Kr. Coe's credit wee. that having
same other cairn maim* the Worcester, Warwick, and
eittißailway Coaspasy, he had gem to Mr. Rlnalie's
although he knew Mr. Biesthe was sailor to the
essamay, and offered the clerk 20 per cent. upon the amount
▪ rimmed, if he would act as his legal adviser in ming the
mammy. Mr. Coe also swore that Mr. Blsslie had said
to him that he was a necessary and material witness, al-
though, on mommandnatics, he admitted that he had
never been examined at all, the bill having been thrown
out by the committee. A witness of the name of Counsel
was also alined at the trial on behalf of the plaintiff, but be
merely proved that he had seen the plaintiff about the com-
mittee rooms of the Home of Commons. Oa behalf of the
defendant Mr. Wasik was called, end he had denied that
he had ever told the plaintiff that be was • neemeary wit-
nem, and that he could not get on without him as was
stated by the plaintiff. Mr. Blasi* also swore at the trial
that he never told him to attend the committee, and that
be had paid the plaintiff other accounts, and that he had
sever made any demand of the sum of 951. for attending •
committee of the Rouse of Commons as a witness. The
learned 13erjeaot was about to state further facts is the
ems when he wee stopped by the Lord Chid Justice, vita
saiithat he found • note is his book, that he was die-
'&118114 with the verdict, and the court would grant a rule

--•
Rule aid (mated.
11Immix v. Tmi Dais OF BRIINSWICL.--APPLICATIOX
ON 1111•1. F OF TUB BxIRIFF TO AKIN') ♦ RITUILN TO

♦ WRIT OP FL FA. OR TO °LIMIT. IT.

la this ease Mr. Bramwell 'moved for a rale to show cause
why the sheriff should not be at liberty to take bis return to
the writ of fl. fa., whisk had been issued in this case off the
file, or why he should not be allowed to make a return of
nulls bona; the return at present on the file, being that the
sheriff bad levied, which return was incorrect. The learned
mussel stated !hat the present applicati.m aureola of the cam
of " the Dake of Brunswick v. Slowman and Others," which
was an action brought against the sheriff's officer who hart exe-
cuted the writ of fi. fa. in the cue of " Munden v. the Duke
of Brunswick." The action was brought on account of the
sheriff's officers having broken opium outer door in executing
the writ of fi. 4. A vordict was returned agairistthe defendants
for 7201. damages, 6001. for the illegal entry and 2202 the
amount of the execution, which the Duke of Brunswick had
paid under protest. Mr. Justice Williams had wade an order
that judgment for 3001. should be stayed, and that judgment
for the 2201. should be stayed until the fifth day of Michael-
mesterei, 1949, in order that an application might be made
to the court. Mr. Showman had paid the 2201. to Mts.
Munden, and it was now submitted by Mr. Bramwell that
unless the court granted the sheriff the relief he prayed for,
he would be at the lom of that sum, the sheriff being liable to
be made to return the 2201. to the Duke cf Bruimmek,which
he had paid ti Mrs. Menden, and then he would have to
make it geed to her.
The Lurd Chief instil* said the proper form of the rule
would he • rule nisi calling on Mrs. Munden and the Duke
of Brunswick to show came why the sheriff should nut canal
his return or amend it, for it could not very well be taken off
the file.—Rule nisi granted.
Mr. &unwell also applied fora rule to s ay the proceedings
in the case of " The Duke of Brunswick v. Blow:sae," unul
the rule which had just been granted was disposed of.
The court refused Me application on the ground that no
notice of it had:Wen given to the plaintiff.
MODALS V. MARBDIII.-1.1.111111TY ro ray • Tvaxpika