The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, MARCH 23.
There were fourteen crown cases remaining for trial this
morning, though this is the commission day for Shrewsbury.
Some of these, being indictments for perjury, in which the
accused were out on bail, were ordered to stand over till the
neat assizes. Their lordships remained all day to try the
other rases. It wss said that Mr. Serjeant Talfourd or Mr.
Serjeant Allen would open the commission at Shrewsbury,
and that business will not commence there till Thursday, it
being intended to observe to-morrow with all the strictness
suitable to a day set apart for national humiliation.
Omni Comm—Before Mr. Justice Mimic.
MANSLAVOHTER.—B. Cooper woo indicted for the man.
slaughter of F. Taylor, on February 2.3rd.—Mr.Vaughan ap.
peered for the prosecution ; Mr. Meteyazd defended the
prisoner.—From the evidence adduced it appeared that at
four o'cleck on the morning of the day in question the de-
ceased woo engaged with a man named Thom is in sinking a
coal-pit at Wine:than, and the prisoner was employed as
" Wakeman" at the same time at the mouth of the
pit. It is a part of the duty of the banksman, upon
the " skip or bowke " being drawn up containing
materials sent up by the men in the shaft, to cover
the mouth of the pit with a waggon, and secure the
same with a pin, to prevent the waggon from slip-
ping, and so leaving a portion of the mouth uncovered before
the howke is emptied of its contents. On this day a bowls.
full of bricks had been sent up by the sinkers, and
on its reaching the mouth of the pit the prisoner drew the
waggon across the heading, hut omitted to secure it with
the pin : in consequence of this omission the waggon slipped
and left part of the mouth uncovered, through which some
of the bricks from the bowke, on striking against a part of
the tackle, were precipitated down, and falling upon the
deceased in the shaft caused his death. The horned judge
summed up and told the jury if they thought that from
want of due and reasonable care on the part of the prisoner
the deceased came by his death, he was guilty of man-
slaughter. The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and his
lordship sentenced him to be imprisoned with hard labour
for two calendar months.

l'Acebe Winkle was indicted for concealing the birth other
illegitimate male child on the 9th of November last. Mr.
Vaughan conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner was unde-
fended. It appeared that the prisoner was in the service of a
Mrs. Davis. and that on the day in question Mrs. Davis,
suspecting that she had been delivered of a child, asked her
whether the fact was so. The prisoner denied it. Her
mistress thereupon insisted upon going up stairs to her room
and examining her box, and therein found a new-born child,
quite dead. A surgeon, who made a past-Herten examina-
tion, said that the child had never breathed. The prisoner,
on being now called on for her defence, merely charged her
mistress with assisting in the concealment. She was found
guilty, and his lerdship, in parsing sentence, said the greatest
aggravation of her offence was her telling such a wanton lie
of her mistress • hut ax she had been already imprisoned so
long, he would direct her to be imprisoned ter only ten days
more. - _

Before Mr. Serjeant Caselee.
Edward Nightingale was indicted for forgery under the
following circumstances: The prisoner was a pan-h constable,
at Wedneebury, and came with a number of witnesses from
that neighbourhood to the last assizes in *his town, to prose.
cute a man of the name of Joseph Bate fur manslaughter.
After the trial he got an order in the usual form from the
deputy-clerk of assize on the county treasurer for the pay
meat of the witnesses' expenses. The order directed the pay-
ment of 171. Gd. each to (amongst others, two persons named
Daniel Harper and Samuel Egginton. It is the usage for the
treasurer to pay the order on having it presented to him
with the name of the payees signed on the back of it, with
the sum due to them opposite their names, as " Daniel
Harper, 17s. Gd. ; Samuel Egginton, 17s. Gd." The pri-
soner forged the above names and sums on the back of the
order, presented it, and got the money, and gave the par-
ties only 14s. each, telling them thd that was all they
were allowed. On their discovering the real circumstances,
a prosecution was instituted against him, and he was now
put to the bar to answer—first, to an indictment charging i
him with having forged Daniel Huper's name, with suteell
to defraud that person.—Mr. Kettle prosecuted, and Mr.
Iluddlestone defended the prisoner.—lt was proved that
it was the custom in the office of the county tummy
to Ipay the money to the person bringing the order, en
seeing the names of the parties written opposite the
sums directed to be paid to them. If the constables did net
bring the order with the names on, it would not he psi&
Harper proved that he had not written hie name on the
order, or any one to do so. The prisoner gave him only 14s.
altogether, but did not say anything as to how much weal
due to him. After paying that sum, be desired the prosecutor
to meet him at the railway station in order to get a ticket
home, but did not say who was to pay for it. The charge
for it would be 2s. Mr. Huddlesume objected that the
' document in question wan not a receipt or acquittance as de.
scribed in the indictment, but an order for the payment of
money. That even if it were in fact on the evidence
a receipt or acquittance, yet as it did not on the face
of it purport to be either a receipt or acquittance, the I
indictment was bad for not stating bow it was a receipt.
Mr. Kettle having proceeded to answer the objection, was
stopped by—his Lordship, who said he bad no doubt on
the question, but, if necessary, would reserve it for the con-
sideration of the judges.—Mr. Huddleston having addressed
the jury, contending that there was no proof of any fraudu-
lent intention on the part of the prisoner, as he meant to apply
the remaining 3.. 6d. towards the expanse of taking the pro-
secutor home.—His Lordship summed up, and the verdict
was .VolGialty.—The prisoner was again charged on a similar
indictment, charging him with an intent to defraud
Samuel Egginton. The evidence was the same as
in the last case, except that Egginton said the
prisoner told him the fourteen shillings was all that
was coming to him; that the prosecutor paid his
own fare from Bescot to Stafford ; that the witnesses
walked from home to Bescot station on corniest° the *raises,
and that the prisoner did not say a word as to taking the
witnesses back home in a cart from Bescot Station.—The
I prisoner was again acquitted.
iod=Cooke Thomas Wright, and Elijah Moore, wine
for cutting
and wounding Thomas Hughes, a Pla
lkw-easetable, at Stoke-upon-Trent, on the 25th of Num.
bee Huddlestone conducted the prosecution; Mr.
Meteyard appeard for Cooke ; and Mr. Woolrych for the other
two prisoners.—lt appeared that on Sunday, the 2.5t1 Nov.
last, at twelve o'clock at night, the prosecutor directed •
man named Rhodes, whom he called • suspicions character,
to go home, and on his refusing to do so collared him, and
ems thereupon assailed by seven or eight men, and received
from the hand of one, who he swore was Cooke, • wound
en the cheek, from which he bled so profusely that his life
was endangered sad the side of his face paralysed. He
swore that Wright was one of the party, and struck him with
a stick, and that another of them resembled Moore. Wright
was seen a mile and a half off, at Fenton, half an hour after
the outrage. When the prisoner Cooke was taken into cus-
hotly there were spots of blood on his jacket and trousers; and
conversations were deposed to by two policemen, which were
overheard from the passages between the cells where the pri-
men were confined, and tended to show that the prisoners
wars together on the night in question when the attack oe
the prosecutor was made, and were concerned in it. Cer-
fain were also proposed to be given in evidence
which had been elicited by questions put to the prisoners
separately, when in custody, by the superintendent of the
police ; but the learned judge expressing disapprobation of
soak a made of obtaining evidence, the counsel for the pro-
secution declined to give them in evidence. It was elicited
es eniewexamination that two policemen had been put into
the IPA cells with the prisoner disguised—one in a smock-
beck the other also in some ordinary dress—for the purpose
of entering into conversation with the prieoners, and obtain-
kg evidence against them ; and it was suggested, on the part
of the prisoners, that they pretended to have been committed,
one for a felony, the other for disobedience to a bastardy
eider. Hughes swore he did not strike Rhodes when he
was wounded. Mr. Meteyard addressed the jury, contending
that the prosecutor was mistaken as to the identity of Cooke.
—Mr. Woolrych, for Wright and Moore, urged, first, that
the wound was the act of one person, in which none of the
others were implicated; and secondly, that there was no
evidence to connect Wright and Moore with the transaction.
Several witnesses were called to prove that the policeman
struck Rhodes on the night in question. That person had
been found soon after the affray, near the spot, covered with
blood. A number of witnesses gave ell the prisoners good
characters —Mr.H uddlestone replied.—His lordship summed
up, and all three prisoners were convicted, and transported
for ten year.
The proceedings of the assizes were finally brought to a
close at half-past sax o'clock.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—LEICESTER, MARCH 23.
Before Mr. Juana" Pontoon and a medal jury.
FALSE IMPHISONMENT.—TYLER AND WIFE V. THE Rev.
JOHN DUDLEY AND ANOTHSH.—Tbis was= SCUM CO recover
damages for false imprisonment —Mr. Hurofrey, Q.C., and
Mr. Macauley, were for the plaintiff.; Mr. Whitehunt,
Q.C., and Mr. Bantaby, were for the defendants.—The
defendants, Mr. Dudley and Mr. Danvers, are two of the
magistrates of the Loughborough district of this county;
Mazy Anne Tyler is the wife of the other plaintiff, who is a
labourer, living at the village of Wymeswold, in this county.
I This woman happened to have a difference with another of her
own see, and epithets were exchanged, the nosh of which was
en application to the magistrates against the female plaintiff.
She acknowledged she had made use of the offensive epithet
imputed to her, and expressed her regret at having done so.
The magistrates, the present defendants, said they had no
' jurisdiction in a case of bad language, and cautioned her to be
careful for the future, &miming the complaint, and ordering
Mrs. Tyler To pay the ceeta to the amount of 11. 18e. The poor
woman said she could not pay—eke was told the must pay in
a week, or go to prison. At the next weekly meeting plain.

tiff attentlid and stated she bad a family of small children,
she was poor, and could not pay the costs imposed, and that,
if it was insisted, she must go to prison. To prison she
accordingly we nt, for costa in • case in which the magistrates
said they had no jurisdiction ! It seems that one of the
visiting magistrates (liodgenn)seeing this person in the gad,
and being struck with her cleanly 'appearance, inquired the
reason of her being there, and upon being informed, lie made
it his busbies, to see the commitment, and feeling it was
bad, he communicated with Mr. Frere, the clerk of the peace,
whoconfirmcd Mr. Ilodgeon in his previouslysformedopinion.
It appeared from the commitment, that the magistrates in
this very ease, in which they dismissed the complaint for
want of jurisdiction, had actually sentenced this woman,
whose charm-ter was without spot or blemish (save in this
particular instance), to fourteen days' imprisonment and
hard labour, merely for default of payment of fees which
they had no right to impose. Upon application to the
Secretary of State she was released. Actions were then
brought by the plaintiff, Thomas Tyler, for the loss of his
wife's services, nod • second action in their joint names. In
both, five pounds had been paid into court, and •
plea entered of no further damage. In the action by the
husband alone, the 5/, had been taken out in satisfaction,
but the jcint action was proceeded with. This case would
hoe been tried at the last selves, but for the application of
the defendants vi postpone it, on the ground of the ►bsence
of a material witness. Since that time they had made the
case asp:•ciul jury one. The learned judge, in his summing
up, told thejui y the muiv rates had clearly mistaken the law.
1 hey had nn jurisdiction in the case brought before them,
and the only question for the jury was, whether the five
pounds paid into court were a sufficient compensation for the
damage austained.—The jury gave, for the plaintiff, fifteen
pounds over and above the sum paid into court.

CRIMINAL Cot.,
HoMe STEALlNO.—Jarnes Brown, aged 23, and Robert
Brown, aged 24, were charged with stealing three horses on
the 11th, the property of a Mr. Wells. Mr. Barnaby was
for the prosecuti at, and Mr. Mellor aad Mr. King were for
the defence. The prisoners (who were brothers), were very
gentlemanly-looking men, and what is more, they seemed to
think so. The tucts deposed to were—that three mares and
a horse were locked up in a stable at Plunger, on the day
previous to the (mein question, and, on the following merit-
ing, two mares and a horse were missing. The priaonein
were seen, on the afternoon previous to the robbery, within
three miles of Plunger, they were inked by a person
who met them where they were going; they re
plied, "To Melton," but they went in a con-
trary direction The prosecutor stated he knew
George Brown, who wan formerly in his service. The pri-
soners were seen the morning after the robbery with the
hones in question. and offered them for sale at Great Glenn.
They were juut eh.iut concluding a bargain for the sale,
when Mr. Goielyer. the superintendent of the county
arrived in search. The prisoners gave so salirfactory account
how the animns came into their possession. 'I hey were
convicted, and sentenced to seven year's transportation.
The commission for the southern division of the county
of Warwick was opened this day at Coventry.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—EXETER, MARCH 23.
Not Pates.—before Mr. Justice Cceinwril and a 'annelid jury.
BERCOURE e. ASHPITAL.—CHAROR OP FRAUD AOAINST
• RAILWAY COMPANY.—Mr. Batt, Mr. Serjeant Kinglake,
and Mr. Oreenwoo: f-r the plaintiff; Mr. Crowder Mr.
Cockburn, and Mr. Montague Smith for the defendant.—
The plaintifii. this case wan a merchant in Exeter, and he
sought to recover from the defendant, who was a gentleman
of independent property, residing in London, thu cum of
262/. 10s., being the amount of deposits paid by him on 100
shares in the Metropolitan Junction Railway Company, of
which company the defendant was • provisional committee-
man. It appeared that the original promoter of the scheme
was Mr. J.hn Barber, the attorney for the de-
fendant in the present action. The project was
commenced in July, 1845; and Mr. Barber, having secured
the co-operation of three other persons, won himself ap-
pointed solicitor to the company ; and the first prospectus
was provisionaPy registered on the 9th August, 1845. In
that prospectus the re were no names of any directors, or pro-
visional committee, or committee of management ; but the
particulars of the line were fully described. The object of
the company was stated to be the formation of a railway to
circumscribe the metropolis at an average distance of 20
Milos from the town. The capital was said to be 2,500,0001.,
is 100,000 shares 4251. each, the deposits being 21. 12s. 6d.
on each share. On the 29th September, the second pro-
,pectue was registered, and in that prospectus the defendant's
name appeared an a member of the provisional committee,
and described as a " magistrate for the county of Middlesex."
On the 14th of October, 100 there' were allotted to the plain-
tiff, and on the 20th of the same month, which was the last
day fixed for the payment of deposits, he pail 262/. 10s. on
these share*. He afterwards discovered that the company
had allotted only 6.5,000 shares, having kept in reserve
3.5,000, although it was their duty to allot the whole of the
glares mentioned in the prospectus. They, however, pub-
lished a report, stating that the amount of deposits which
had been paid was 27,0001, although it was necessary, in
order to satisfy the standing orders, that 10 per cent.
upon three-fourths of the capital should have been
subscribed. A return was also filed, announcing
I that the company had received 19,800!., and that their
lia-
bilities amounted to 17,200!., leaving a balance in hand of
2,6001. They moreover stated that they had expended
between 3,0:501. and 4,e00L in buying up 1,195 shares at a
premium, and upwards of 6,000/.ln th, purchase of letters
of allotment. These disbursements were the avowed cause
of the company'. stivieg that they had received only
19,8001. The members of the managing committee were
thirteen in number, and of these only four paid any depo-
sits, and four others, in executing the parliamentary deed,
alleged that they had each paid the amount of their
deposits, when, in point of fact, two of them
had not paid anything. It appeared, however,
that they paid at a subsequent period. Towards
the latter end of October the scheme was abandoned, and on
the 30th of that month a prospectus was issued announcing
the commons usent of a new undertaking, and stating that
the capital hal be. n reduced from two millions and a half to
two milliner, and the shares from 100,000 to 80,000. The
original provisional committee was changed, but the name
of the defendant still appeared in the prospectuses a member
of the managing committee. A proposal was made that the
promoters shauld have 10.000 shares allotted to them, and
one of those gentlemen was reported to have said that " If
the share* had come out at a good premium they
would have made 10,0001. by the job." They then
commenced bu3ing up the shares, and in that man-
ner they spent upwards of 11,0001. out of the
money which had been subscribed. The shareholders
l.eginning to suspect that the proceedings of the committee
were of a fraudulent ebaractor, caused an inquiry to be
made, and they discovered that the first cheque, drawn for
the purpose of buying up the shares, in which 11,0001. had
been expended, was signed on the day after a sub-committee
had been appointed. This committee was formed, it was
said, not for any legitimate purpose, but in reality to " watch
the stateof the market." Complaints were made against the
directors, and they alleged, in answer, that with respect to
the" 10,000 shares" said to have been allotted to them, the
arrangement had been spoken of, but not determined upon.
And as to the charge respecting the appointment of a subcom-
mittee, they stated that it was usual to have asub-committee
to watch the interests of the company. As to the number
of shares purchased by the directors they stated that they
amounted to 1,195, and that they had bought them with a
view to raise the value of the scrip. They did not attempt
to justify the conduct of the two gentlemen who had signed
the parliamentary contract without paying their deposits;
but in reference to the charge that the company was dis-
solved, they stated that the scheme wan not abandoned, but
that they should be prepared to go to parliament in the
mires of the next session. In order, however, to prove that
the scheme was abortive, evidence was given to the effect that
in the month of Jan., 1846, the promoters issued. circular to
the shareholdenstating that they were employed in arranging
the affairs of the company ; and in the month of April following
another circular was published, in which they stated that
" the failure of the scheme must be attributed to the non-
payment of the deposits," and that they must call upon each
shareholder for 6e. in order that the expenses might be paid.
In July, 1846,the directors issued. statement to the effeetthat
" they could not but advise a eliesolution." Under all these
eiscumetances, the plaintiff sought to establish the fact that
the scheme was tainted with fraud from its commencement,

the object of the promoters being, as it was slleged, to " rig
the market," or, in other words, to attach a fictitious value
to the shares . .

For the defence, Mr. Barber was called, and also Mr.
Moorsom, an engineer, who stated that the line in question
was well chosen, and, if properly managed, was likely to be
remunerative to the subscribers. It was contended, 'more-
over, that the scheme was a bond fide undertaking, and
that there was no fraud in the proceedings of the company.
It was also urged that the plaintiff had not signed the par-
liamentary deed, and that he could not by refusing to
execute it, place himself in a better position. He bad
written • letter, requesting an allotment of shares, and
stating that he was willing to swept the same, " "abject to
the provisions of the subscribers' agreement" He also
undertook to execute that or any other agreement, and to
pay the deposits when called upon. The deed gave the di-
rectors power to dispose of the funds as they might think
proper for the interests of the company, and the plaintiff
could not, because he had refused to sign it, object to the
way in which hO money had been expended.
Mr. Justice Cremwell, in summing up, told the jury that
if they were of opinion that the undertaking wee abandoned
at the time the action was brought, the plaintiff would he
entitled to their verdict. He would beg them to consider
this question in the first instance. The jury, after s
moment's deliberation, returned • verdict for the plaintiff
foe the full amount of damages. His lordship then re-
quested them to answer the following queries:—let. Was
the scheme originally a bona )(de project, as far as the defen-
dant was concernel 2nd. Whether, at the time the depo-
aits were paid up on the 20th of October, the directors had
any honest hope or expectation of going on with the scheme?
3rd. Whether they continued to entertain such hope or ex-
pectation on the 3rd of December, when they ten-
dered the deed for execution, and proposed to
exchange the letters at allotment for scrip ? The
jury retired, and after a short absence returned into
court with the following answers "That the scheme was
concocted in fraud, but that there wee no evidence that the
defendant was aware of it at first; although by his mbar-
quent conduct be became implicated with the promoters et
the scheme." The two remaining questions were answered
in the negative, and the learned judge said he should Area •
verdict to be entered for the plaintiff on all the points.

Cam Coom—Beibins Mr. Jrtire

THE PIT/if:HI:4O A.I7IAY.Z-Henry WOeven, convicted of
manslaughter yesterday, was arraigned this morning for
feloniously shooting at Robert Rendell, at Coombeinteignhend
on the 6th of September, under cireumstanees similar to those
of the previous case. No evidence was offered in support of
this indictment , and his lordship sentenced the prisoner, for
the offence of which he had been found guilty, to transporta-
tion for life.
The amine terminated this evening.

NORTH WALES.—MONTGOMERYSHIRE. MARCH 23.
These assizes were held at Welava,' on Wednesday,
Thursday, and Friday last. The criminal easel were of
alight importance, but a special jury cause, reported below,
excited great interest.
Dux: DEM : POOLE O. VAUC TIAN. EJECTMENT. —Aa
action of ejectment wan brought by the Rev. Wm. Jukes
Poole, perpetual curate of Llanflhangel, in the Isle
Anglesey, the lessor of the plaintiff, to recover possessdon
real estate, which had been taken possession of by yohe
Vaughan, Esq , of rentnaen Dovey, Montgomeryshire, but
which, it was alleged, had been devised to the former under
the will of Miss Ann Vaughan, aunt of the defendant, dated
Dec. 2, 1843. The defence suggested that undue mean.
had been exercised by certain parties to influence and control
the testatrix—who, it was raid, was a person of very wee}
mind, of intemperate habits, and altogether incapable
making a will—in devising the property in question to as
entire stranger, while her only nephew, the defendant, was
living in the immediate neighbourhood of her resideces
Bart Cottage, near Machyrilleth, and who was on Ms
most kind and friendly terms with her. The sid,,
dcnce was extremely voluminous; the ease cub
mencing at eight o'clock on 'Wednesday morn%
and the arguments not closing till late on Thursday enema.,
For the plaintiff it was urged that the testatrix was pee,
fectly capable of making a will, and though not a pentad
very strong mind, yet sufficiently qualified to conduct big
awn affairs with discretion ; that though the plaintiff was
warily unknown to the testatrix, she sent for him, and rash
numerous inquiries respecting him. Several other strange
legacies were devised under the will which was dictated by
her. The defendant had taken possession of the estate as
and the present was an action of ejectment
For the defence it was argued that the testatrix was quire
childish, and much addicted to drinking, swallowing to one
' day as much as two bottl.s of wine, besides brandy and other
spirits; and that she had been drinking excessively about
the time the will was made; that after the had made
the will, she repented making it, and would have destroyed
it, only she was prevented by parties interested ; that, in
proof of her unsoundueri of mind, she had at one time in.
sisted upon her servants dancing with the cat, and other
equally insane manecu vres.—The defendant's CA ne haring
closed, the counsel for the plaintiff replied, and the judge,
Justice Coltman, summed up.--The jury then retired, end,
after being locked up till eight o'clock on Friday morning
without coming to a deciaion, were discharged; and the cue
now rests as it did before the trial commenced. The judge
certified it was a proper ease for a special jury.—Counsel Inc
plaintiff, Messrs. Yardley, Egerton, and Bevan; for defen-
dant, Messrs. Temple, Welsby, and Townsend.