The Express.
London, England, 1849-11-17 00:00:00

SPORTING.

TATTERSALL'S—FRIDAY.
The Mowing It a =atom of the transactions yesterday :
LIVERPOOL BTEKPLECILABE.
12 to 1 apt Vittoria.
The OW la etvalebed fur this ram.
CHESTER COP.
LOOS tc. JO apt VOW wit • !mu to 20 and 1,000 to 15 apt Lady
Evelyn; 2,000 to 20 apt colt by Maley Moloch oat of Pendalton;
LOP to 10 Pe or ate Baas awe tteledy ; 3,000 to 45 and 1,000 to 10
apt Idle Boy (sr. Parr's); 2,000 to Ile apt Kanningtcat ; and 1,000
Ito 15 apt Canaan.
TSB DERBY.
200 to 10 spina Pushed (taien).

HUNTING APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. Lumley's tweeds, Monday, Oahorten ; Tuesday,
Sandboak Park; Thursday, Heaton Roberts; Friday, Bole
Guido Post—at half-past 10.
Raiford hounds, Monday. Eirklington; Tuesday, Orion
Vallsse ; Thursday, Ototagton ; Saturday, Walesby—at ha' f-
past 10.
Mr. M. Ingram's hounds, Monday, Blythobcry ; Thurs-
day, Etntalstan ; Saturday, Blythellsid—at quaeta fo 11.
Daks of Rudand's hounds Monday, Crouton Park;
Tuesday, Anteater; Wedaesday, Piper Hob; Friday,
Weever's Lodge—at half.past ton.
Sir R. Sutton's hounds, Monday, Shearsby Inn; Tues-
day, Bwithland Slate Pm; Wednesday, Wymmwould;
Thursday, Stanton Wyvillo ; Saturday, Kirby Gato—at IL
Holdersass hounds, Monday, Bonningholme Hall, Tues-
day, North Dalton Whin ; Thursday, Witharnwick ; Fri-
day, Cavil Hall—quarsr to 11.
Sir Tattoo Sykes's hounds, on Monday, Whinmoor Build ;
Wednesday, Aldby Park; Friday, Birdsall House—at heli-
port 10.
Lord Henry Bentinek's hounds, Monday, Barth:key ; Tues-
day, Thorney ,• Wednesday, Carlton Is flatland; Tnuraday,
H,ekthora; Friday, Somerby Hall; Saturday, Langworth
Bridge—at 11.
Lord Ifastsorough's bounds, Monday, Swallow Village;
Wednesday, Elsham Hall; Saturday Bevendale—at 11.
Brahasi Moor hounds, Monday, St'Aickeld Park—at half-
p,si 10; Wednseday, arlion Swath —at 11; Fri,lay,
Wig-
hill Park ; Saturday, Searthiegwell—at half-past tea.
Mr. hounds, Monday, Feather's Ina, Staunton ;
Friday, Bosbuty Village—at half-past ten.
Wormetenhiro hounds, on Monday, Hinableton; Wednes-
day, Bailey Dines; Friday, Chadwick, am Bromagrove—
at half-past 10.
War oicksbire hound., on Mouday,Orove-park ; Tuesday.
Whatnots ; Thursday, Donthurelt.
Cotteamore hound., on Monday, Wittiam Commas; Tun-
day, Thistloton ; Friday, Lula Dalby ; Saturday, Little
Bytham.
South Weld hounds, on Monday, Cawkwell ; Tuesday,
Thinableby ; Thaind.y, Burgh in Hain ; Saturday, Orman-
field—halt-pest 10.
Choshin hounds, on Monday, Arley ; Wednesday, Broom-
kiwis; Thursday, Cholmondeloy ; Saturday, Wrenbtry—

- -
halt past 10.
Brighton harriers, on Monday, Fatcham ; Wednesday,
Racecourse ; Friday, Dyke—quartet to 11.
Brookside harriers, on Monday, Newmarket Hill ; Thurs-
day, Talmud» Tye—heli.past 10.
Crawley and Horsham bounds, on Monday, Rowfant
Hoene; Wednesday, Kingsfold ; Friday, Tilgate Lodge—
quarter to 11.
Duke of Baautort's hounds, on Monday, Trouble House ;
Wednesday, Compton Bassett; Thursday, Fate Turnpike ;
Saturday, Stanton.
Mr. A. Smith's hound', on Uneasy, Quwi Mill; Tu,s-
das Oar. Hill; Wednesday, Whitewall Wood; Thursday,
tbarethourei Tarrant; Friday, Stratforitsub•Castle ; Satur-
day, Roche Court.
Her Majesty's staithownds, on Monday, Farnham Coin.
mos; Friday, New Lodge, at 11.

SAW fntellisence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YESTERDAY.
At the sitting of the court their lordship' gave judgment
in several cases in which motions for new trials had been
made in the earlier part of the term.
Tie Duce or But/ne wton Ileateza.—Tait WRIOLLY
DISPATCH.
The rule In this cams was moved on the 2nd inst. It 'SM
an salon of libel brought spinet the prop: ietor of the Wee*
Dispatch newspaper. The declaration set out libels in 1830,
and also in 1847 and 1848. To that of 1830 there was a plea
of the statute of ns ; there was no tion
within six year&limitat io
The peperthat containing that libelpublication
hadca been
sold to a person employed by the plaintiff to buy it, and it
wee contended on moving for • new trial that this war the
same as if he had purchased it himself, and therefore
it could not be held that it was a sufficient publication for
the corpus of a civil action, and that the judge misdirected
the jury on this point. It was Who urged that the damages
(6000 were excessive, inasmuch as even if there was • pub-
Umtata of the libel of 1830, the jury ought only to have
assessed damages for those of 1847 sad 1848. Tbe motion
was also ramie on affidavits, that no paper of 1830 could have
been bought at the office at the time of the alleged pur-
chase, as there was no copy there thee.
The Coat were of opinion that there was • sufficient
publicatioa of the libel within sic years by the purchase by
the spat of the plaintiff, inasmuch as that fact was calcu-
lated to lower the prineipel in the eyes of the spat, and
that the sat was complete by the delivery to him. With
regard to the damages being suusive' it was said that the
Joy dimild have given damages only for the 'dual
tea ant of injure peeved, which was limiest' to a single gob-
Ileiden, but If this were allowed, it would have the Abet of
the counts of the declaration, which was mi
=l:lle.gie four last contained reference to the forme
Heroic', which which was thus incorporated wilt the latter. The
jury were sufficiently informed on the subject, and drew
their owe conclusions, and Lord Deumaa was satisfied with
the damages. There would, therefore, be no rule on either
(lithe points, but there would be a rule upon the affidavits.
IKACINANA/LL v. O'CONNOR.-110LICITOR'S DIAL.
Thh case was moved on the 3rd inst. It was an action.
against Mr. Peeress O'Conaor, M.P. for Nottingham, oa a
**licher% bill incurred for the 'defence of the chartist pri-
soners arrested foe natio* In June ,;1848. It was contended
that the verdict was spinet evidence, and the question
tamed ea whether
W O'Connor had made himself ro
of
who or whether the liability rested on a numb
peeenas who had associated themselves as a defence com-
mittee.
The wart new said that they had consulted Lord Den-
man who had Wee) the cave, and he said that a strong case
had been made out in evidence on both sides, and althought
might not have bees the verdict he should himself have I
returned, he was not prepared to say that the 07 were
smug. The case had she ken moved on affidavits,ut
b
they did not disclose any new matter. There would, there-
fore, be no nth.
WATAWAT O. FROST.—AN ATTOHNIT ACTING lITTHoTT
INSTRUCTIONS.
The motion foe • new trial in this case was made on
the 6th inst. It was an action brought by • lodging-house
keeper at Plymouth against an attorney, for wrouglully ap
peering for him in an action brought against him by a third
person, and defending it without his authority, the result of
which was a judgment against him, on which execution had
been levied.
The rule had been moved for on the ground of misdirec-
1, don and excessive damsel.
The Court were of opinion that there should be no rale
with regard to excessive damage' as it was impossible for
them to measure the damages which ought to be paid for an I
execution put Into the house of the plaintiff, and the learned
judge told the jury that they ought to assess the da at
the amount actually levied, which he was entitled agest
Basin v. RMS.—BRIBERY.
The motion for a new trial was made on 9th inst. It was
ea action to recover penalties under the Bribery Mt for
bribing a voter at the last Harwich eleettea The
learned judge held that as a promise had been made to
pay a «vain sum for the recovery of • boat from a auditor
of the voter's, together with the expenses, and the dodge*
don did not allege the promise to pay the expenses, there
was a material variance. This, it was contended, was •
misdirectioa, and it war also contended that be should
have amended the declaration, which he declined to do en
' Om ground of its being a penal action.
The court now decided that there should be • new trial on
the ground of misdirection, but no rule on the ground of the
refusal of the learned judge to amend the declaration. He
had been consulted, and stated that he had never doubted his
power to amend, but that he did not think justice would be
done by it. He had, therefore, exercised his discretion which
they would not interfere with.
SMITH v. ARCHIBALD. —ATTORNEY'S BILL
This cos was moved on 6th inst. It was an action brought
by an attorney against a director of the Staffordshire and
Shropshire Railway Company, to recover the amount of his
bill. The question turned on whether as a shareholder he
was entitled to recover, whether he looked to a fund which
had been raised for the payment of the liabilities of the com-
pany, and re
whether he was gadded to recover for ea-