The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-19 00:00:00

THE E ` PRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 19, 1848.

It •yal Free Hospital in the Orsy'oinn-rood, and dj,chirFed
aftt r the( e days, but was subsequently attendtd by a surgeon,
who had Ken her occasionally ever since, and who stated
that her spine had been injured, that she was now lame,
and migb. continue so during the remainder of le r
the defance it was pr,ved that the man who drove the rob
hired it of the defendant, paying him a certain sum daily,
and it was, therefore, contended that he could not be consi-
dered as the defendant's servant.—The !earned jadge, how-
ever, was of a different opinion, and so directed the jury, who
found a verdict fur the plaintiff, damages 101.

have satbfled them that the property belonged to him. Ti, •
defendants were justified, acting under the excellent rules id
the company (at a time when, with ell their precaution, they
had not b,•en able to protect the public from being robbed,
and when they told him it was more than they dared do to
part with the property unless it was described), in retesting
the plaintiff in his taking posiessi,ri of it by force.—The learned
Judge said that the question was, whether the plaintiff could
maintain an action of trespass against Evans and Brown ;
and his present impression was, that he could not. The port.
manteau was in the van under the care of the two defendants,
who !Add him (the plaintiff') that it was contrary to the regu-
lations of the company to deliver it up to him without he de-
scribed it. This he refused to do, although On ro were initials
upon it, and attemp'ed to seize the property; but no evidence
bad been given to chow that the porters need more viol, nee in
preventing him taking it (which he believed the plaintiff wes
not justified in doing)than wastieceseary. His judgment must
he in favour of the defendants ; but, as Mr. Parry wished
to refer him to come cases upon the question, and the other
side might do the same, he would defer giving judgment
I until a future day.—Mr. Clarkson said btu Honour would
1 c find plenty of came in the and Blackstone, liege 4 ; 8 Term
Reports, page l 8; and . Institutes, page 144. But he
begged to remind the court that the present was an action of
a.sault, and not one of trowel.. His Honour had given a very
strong exprission that his judgment would he for the deft n-
dents, and he was requested to say, on behalf of the company
whom he represented, that an they defended solely on public
grounds, he was sot to apply for seats.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

NEW rOttlq. —Before tbn Rem,ler.

TEE CARE or Mae. llowbev.—Aftley Rowley, 51, and
her son, ll', 11. Rawsmi, 28, surveyor, were indicted for ob-
taining from Mr. Croob, of 48, Pall-mall, drapery goods,
value 2.5 c, under false pretences On being placed at the
her, the prisoners milted the court t t postpone their trial, as
they wished to retain counsel to defend them. The Re-
corder did not see any ground (or the application, and
directed the canto proceed.—Mr Parnell then stated the
case, hut the facto, having been fully reported in the police
intellieence, need not be repeated. The alleged lalse pre-
, teems was, that the female prisoner represented that she was
the possessor of certain property at Leicester, and that she
was negotiating (or r loan upon it, on which representation
Mr. Cent'', agreed to accept a hill at three montliw'
date for twenty-five rounds' worth of goods.
Artie hearing the evidence, the Recorder intimate.' his npi
nion that the case was nit made out, and aft, r some argu-
ment his lordship informed the jury that there was no evi-
dence upon which they could legally convict the prisoners.—
The jury consulted some minutes, when the Recorder again
told them that there was nothing for them to consider ahout.
Ile directed them that there was no legal evidence to support
the charge—The jury again ninsulted, and then asked Mr.
Preston, a ',elicitor who was connected with the affairs of the
prisoners' family, shout the rroperty of the prisoners.—Mr
Preston said that Mrs. Rowley had prnperty at Leicester,
and she was concerned in a Chancery igait. At the
time she obtained the goods in question, she was
actually negotiating for an advance of sot ney —The jury
were again deliberating when the Rtcord,r Raid, with em-
phasis: Gentlemen, accuration is not proof, prejudice is trot
evidence; I direct you that there in not sufficient evidence
to iutietantiate the charge, hut es you refuse that direction,
return what veriFet you please. If you find the prisoners
guilty, I shall tine them a shilling and order their immediate
discharge.—Mrs. Rowley here went into en hysterical fit,
arid the court was much confused.—The foreman of the jury
gave a eereict of not guilty —The Recorder said he should
net a• prrsent enter upon the other cue against the prisoners.
When the prisoner,' were tried on the second indictment
they should he provided with counsel as they had rtqut teed.