The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-26 00:00:00

Coshem is sereldied Ise all his sapromits.

ASSIZE INTIILLIGENCR.

MIDLAND =CWT.-WARWICK, MAR= 23.
>FACIAL km
TVASIRS V. MOILIWOOD.

This was an action to recover compensation in demotes
far def.mation and assault. Mr. Me-relay, tic , and Me.
Hares were for the plaintiff; Mr. Kelm, 1.1 C., and Mr.
Morewood were for the defendant.
The plaint ff is the rector of Ladbrooke, in this county.
The defendant is the son of Mr. Morewood, of Alfret
Hall, in Derbyshire, and of Ladbrooke Hall, in this county,
the family name being Palmer, the surname of Murewood
h .ring been taken upo t Mr. Morewood'. accession to the
Derbyshire property. Previous to that time the father had
resided at Ladbrooke Hall, and been on terms of intimacy
and friendly intercourse with the plaintiff, the rector. The
parish of Laubrooke is in extent about 2,000 acres, most of
which is the property of defendant's father. The advowson
of the rectory is the proper y of Mr. Turner, the plaintiff,
which has attached to it about 40 acres of glebe, which
with other 40 acres, freeholds, also his property, the rector
farms. Upon Mr. Morewood, senior, leaving Ladliroiike
the hall was let, but upon the marriage of :he present de-
(cadent, that gentleman came to reside at the seat of his
fathers. Before his time the game bad not been preserved,
1),.t young Mr. Murewood being a very keen sportsman,
immediately upon his coming to Ladbrooke-hall, preserved
the game. It would seem that some differences had arisen
between the rector sad the young squire on account of the
game, that did mach injury to the lender the rector, and to
remedy the evil in some respects he had ordesed traps to be
set fee the derroying of the bares and rabbits. The defend-
ant being irritated against the plaintiff, did on one occasion
plaster some of the stiles leading through his fields, which
were public ways, with cww-Oung, which had the effect
of spoiling the dress of a lady, the friend of the
This, however, was apologised for by the defendant, sod
things went on pretty well until 1852, when, on the 20th of
December in that year, the plaintiff, with his son, a lad
aged 14, who had just come from Rugby School to spend
the "wades, went out into a field to look for a rabbit,
having with them an old Newfoundland dog and a Scotch
terrier. The plaintiff started • hare and shot at it, but
missed ir, and subsequently started a rabbit, which got
away into • hedge. The defendant came up, and address-
ing the plaintiff, said he wished he would not let his dog
go into Prew's turnip-field or haat the game. Turner
said he was not aware be was hunting there, hut if he
was he was sorry for it. The defendant said that he
(Turner) did everything he could to vex and annoy
him, aad that his conduct was disgraceful, and a dis-
grace to the parish and his profession, and that he had
told his father • lie about the trees in the farm-
Inyard. Whilst saying this, the defendant held his hands up
a threatening attitude, within hitting distance, and es if
with the intention to strike, and, according to ;the plain-
tiff's account, was in a tremendous rage. The plaintiff
said he had always undenteod that it was a perfectly under-
stood thing that clergymen were not to be insulted by persons
in the rank of gentlemen, the clergy having no opportunity
of resenting thee" things, and therefore they should not be
hushed. There was • good deal more passed between the
two parties, the defendant certainly using very indiscreet
language, and, in the result, he had a lawyer's letter from'
Messrs. Willoughby and Cox, of Clifford'sunn, London, in-
forming him that Mr. Turner had determined on taking
legal proceedings against him, and toting f,r the name of
his 'elicitor, to whom he could deliver process. Mr.
Moreareed sent a written apology to the plaintiff on
the Bth of January, but the plaintiff was determined to
proceed.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damage', 501.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.--STerrosp, MARcn 21.
(bows (bear.—lteroaa Ka. hones Witaasies.
RNOINA O. C ZZZZZ AND ANOTHIR.—CONSPINACT
Da/Dar • WRIT OF EXIICttTION.
As the following ease is rather uncommon, this being the
second instance is modern times of each a prosecution—the
first having occurred on the Home Circuit at the last
Bummer Assisea—it may be useful to state a few details re-
spoofing it :
Thomas Carter and JoAn Carter were indicted for being
parties to a fraudulent arid pretended role of the goods of
Themes, with intent to delay and hinder a writ of execu-
tion against his goods, contrary to :the statute of Elisa-
beth against fraudulent deers, alienations, tic. A. se-
cond count charged a conspiracy_ to commit the
statutsble misdemeanor, and laid as overt acts the
=Meiji the pretended sale, and so preventing the
sheriff from levying. A third coast charged, in addition
to a conspiraty.tocositait the statutahle

eninpiral to -defraud the execution waiter of his inn
debt an prevent him from recovering,- and the fourth
rant varied the statement of the abase by merely
arias, all reentica of overt acts. The Mahan is question
—Xis 13th fthealthes, e. 6, sees. 2 amilihrovidse that, if
WV pima shill his party to any hamthient gift, grant,
sok the., of my bade, goads, at ithilthe, with intent to
fieKand creditors of their joie eiW anions, &e. "he
big thereof lawfully esayearkaa suffer ira;risen-
am& he em half-ram MONO bell se salamis." On
IM ilemillim IS the wires the Hese Om& het year,
the Nip Mg be bed tie optima bet te bagehma him for
the abilve pi rid. The defendants is the pant same
semi te matt other is the relatim of Mbar ma sum.
The basement was head mem* twee ran simetrat the
trial was pat ell hum time le tame *sammeat. Math the
&aesthete had given meths of trial he theme mims, bat
(Jens)
osthe son cry surrearlesel, the Esther, as Mr. Had-
who appeared fee blur, said, not being able to
sainsader, es he wee is jell is Lemke at the suit of the
presetors.
Mr n&leant Allen sad Mr. Milfelien eandueted the pro-
secution and Mr. Sorra* the defame el John Curter.
It apt:eared that at the Ikastas Amino, of 1860, a eer-
diet was obtained seeing Theme Carter, in an action at
the gait of Mien. Dimes* sial Co.;that a writ of men-
tisa wimmediately hexed, bat walla two days of the
trig time wee a male of all the property of Thomas, and
what the elmdlrs Mime arrived there wee sothiagl to
rise. Is mike to immesh the hem lidos of this sale it was
mew sought is give is evidence istamate of Thensas In-
fers the ea* thMee be was set es his trial they wove
boil ast Malemthie against the present defeMmal,
he mat I:= ham preset what they were math.
sad air sampulay having Dena pima&
The Moab( _ = wen aim relied ea m—thethee
the eel. the **Mane Jobs, wire ems them mit Ili
yam af sip, INNS ee a neighbour sal alba him la Shan
the meie, end buy some seven of psalm fee Yon. The
amialtime did se, sad paid for them with mosey millet
roba.Themas, sad isusediately shimmed' gave them alie
The Wm lashed elsegether upwards of 701. Mae
namisnese received at the sate may M. This lis4ren::
Thos, mad a wither proved am be get it from
ahlidiestire to elm it to the several parettesers in enema-
dm lis PM, M instance whom env paid, the defendant
Jam mall melee the iumiammt mil land it to amens
sad my la samersits, till all the mewled buyers had
he their MM. Jobs height at the eels EL worth of e
end firesitme, seal pail ter it with the messy thus Moil
is the martheasee, mat thea headed over to him. He we.
she puma te be in pernimisa of a great part of the
whisk bat losimpi la the hiker, alleging that In paid
he them with merry ~ he bad saved.
Ws lerlabik be eawilag up, said that the offence
siterged ia the third mil her* counts of this iudinnient
was ea came et amemsn law, and promithable as a mis-
dememaimer dm* the statute of Elizabeth had mew
bees =r that It was metseisi that it shield be immo-
rally that, than. a josses whim erpeatedi a welt
of manias te hese egalmst him Wit law's* nabs a
lend Ale sale of hi. property, yet it he =Me slily a
them sad proterled sale, merely Is defeat the writ of
execation sad defraud the creditor of his just debt, he,
sad all who assisted him, were guilty of an act not
merely void as against the creditor, but punishable by in-
dietateut at the common law me ea offence against the
public.
The jury, after eossulting from five to ten minutes, re-
tained • verdict of Nor titudy.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LrviarooL, MARca 24.
Nis lane Coatty.—Berea NA. Basses Means.
Taloa v. BIGWIG AND °TIMM. ACTION AGAINST •
Swum
The rieitheatima stshei ie dehadnats, m the brakes@
of the *INK ripleONGNlthat d
le him that they bed peuebensi
Mt bias 26 ems Kiska M. IM intim by • eartaia moth at
• amain prise, whereas the athmaate had net
pa=
the palm ail es the tams dmestaid, but *ma
terms..
The tlefewealts pleaded not runty.
Mr. Hugh Hill sad is,. Phillips appeared for the *Mali.
(David Them), ,and Mr. Knowln and Mr. Tomlinson M
the defeadeats son. John Biglaad and Co.)
The is a soup ateaufacturn, at Pendleton,
near Marichester, and the defendants are brokers es
Liver
MrHill, in opening the plaintire ease, said the defend-
mate had bees in the habit of purchasing for the plaintiff,
from time to time, palm oil, used by him is the wawa-
facture of soap, and they sent him Umbers giving; ea
aroma of the state of the markets. In October, 1863, I
Mr. Them wrote to the defendants stating that he
wired 26 tons of palm oil, when it was at • low figure.
On the same day the del adman smewered his letter, to the
effect that they weal* pnethame for him 26 tons of oil, os
the spet, on the her term Shay could, and that they
thought theshould be esamaking his interest if they also
26 purchased tons of Csaataemm, to arrive, as they found
that all greasy articles were leek mg up in the market. Oa
the 11th of October they wrote to Mr. Thom, advising him
of their having purebred for him 26 tons fleet quality of
palm oil, on the spot, for 291. 116., and that they had elm
bought for him 25 bons, to arrive hi the Ellen Oliver, at
301., and 26 tons from Messrs. amiss Ilorafall sail Co., to
arrive by the Selina at NU. It wee with respect to the 26
tom by the Selina that the present sedan arose. The
gtagr adopted and confirmed what the defendants had
Aeoording to letters seat by the defendants to
plaintiff, mad bearing date the 22nd, and another the 2'Jth
of October, oil appeared to be gradually rising in the
market. Os the 19th of November the price wu as high
as XL 10e. per too. At the end of November the
Sedan arrived. leforinatios of that fact was given by the
defendants to the plaintiff ea the 27th November. They
said, " The Selina, out of which vessel your 25 tons
of oil were sold, has arrived to-day. It is reported she is
sot quite full, and as your 26 teas were sold after the deli-
very of 860 tons previously sold, there may not be that
quantity ea board ; but, as she tanked oat at the last voyage
920 taw we hope to get you year total quantity." This
emmiesisation was answered es the 30th of November by
the *hair The defendants then wrote informing him
irk ea the Selina had not begun to discharge, they could
amt get the ell lentil 851 tons had been delivered, and that
aam what the captaia sail they Were afraid they would not
sit may, am !slid sot thiak the weal/ bate more than

41
U

the 850 toes on board. Mr. Thom was annoyed. He ,
had entered into contracts for the sale of soap to a con•
'adorable extent, his stock of oil was nearly run oat,
and instead of the ahsolive contract, of which the de-
fendants had advised him, for 25 tons of oil, he found
that they hail made a contract for that quantity after
850 tons had been delivered. The vessel contained
not quite 850 tons, so that the plaintiff got none.
In consequence of this he was obliged to go into the
market and bey oil at 341. 10s. a toe. The defendants de-
clined to make him any compensation, and hence the pre-
sent action. The only question (Mr. Hill said) was, whe-
ther the defendants did not untruly represent the contract
which they had made. He did not charge them with
snaking as untrue representation with any frendulent
design, but they bad made an untrue representation, which,
he vintended, was a breach of duty, for which they, as
brokers, were responsible. The amount claimed by the
'plaintiff in this action was the difference between the price
:for which he could have purchased oil if the defendants had
given him true advice' as to the nature of this contract, and
the price that he was compelled to pay through being
deceived.

The plaintiff having been examined, and some written
oorrespondence put in evidence,
Mr. Knowles submitted that there was no care, no fraud
being imputed.
Hie lordship coinciding in that view,
Mr. Hill asked to amead, by substituting the wort
" negligently " for " fraudulently " where the latter oc-
curred. He submitted that it would then be a perfectly
good declarative. It was part of the duty of* broker to
give true advice' to those who employed him, and he said
that this was a breach of duty.
His lordship said that if the defendants bad not entered
into a contract they were only liable upon a misrepreca-
tation, ant that misrepresentation must be a fraudulent
one—mere falsehood would not do. It was his opinion that
he could not do this, for he was clearly of opinion it
would be a bad declaration on the face of it, for it would
merely show that it war a false representation without
showing any contract. Except there was fraud, the broker
was .mly liable upon a contract.
After a short argument the plaintiff was nonsuited, his
lordship granting leave to Mr. Hill to move in the court
above upon the deeltration and feet', it being taken as an
admitted fact that there was no fraud.