The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-02 00:00:00

ihculortialup. reserved their judgment upon the ease.

COURT OF WREN'S BENCH.—YEsTERDAT.
131171114 S AT Nisi ran 1401/1, CAIII'ORLI. AMU Cori ox
Juana.
EIVAINILdif OF TUX COURT.

This was the 117stiay of —ihe.;i—tting--;iter term. There
are seventy causes set down for trial. Sixteen of these are
remassets, and thirteen special jury cases.
Bias-ww r. 11011010.—CONTILACT TO PCJICRABE

RACE HORSE.

This was an action to recover the snm of 1001. The
plaint,ff was the widow of Mr. Bristow, formerly a well
known breeder of race horses, who committed suicide soca*
time since. The actiou arose out of a contract made upon
tke purchase, by the defendant, of a horse named the
Baron Biel. There were two contracts in existence in re-
ference to that purchase, on.: held by the plaintiff (as repre-
sentative of her deceased husband), the other by the de-
fendant. In the piaantes copy it was st.ited that 3001.
was to he paid down to: the horse, 1001. at the expiration
of three months, and 100!. if it should be entered for andl
win the Goodwood ►takes. In the defendant's copy the'
stipulation to pay 1101 at the expiration of three months
was omitted. It was to recover that particularamount that
the action was brought,
Mr. l'etersdorf appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Serjeant
Wilkins (with whom was Mr. I'hipson) appeared for the
defendant.

The defendant was called u a witness, and swore that
the stipulation in question was not in the contract when he
signed it.
Lorl Campbell summed up, and the jury returned a ver-
dict ((albs defendant.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YEsTERDAY.
strm... sr Mai Pairs is Ilmosmism—Boon, IIL Jessica
T %LP .1,1, APO A Q,wsnu Jest.
COTO.); a NV ACYTMORI.—ACTION AOAf t TAM ATTORNIT

POI( ALLZORD Ni

This was an action againet an attorney for alleged negli-
gence, in this, that he bad suffered the plaintiff, his client,
to he arrested upon an attachment for not appearing to a
bill is Chancery.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Prentice appeared for tbe plain-
tiff. end Mr S•rjeant Bytes and Mr. Ball for the defendant.
3 he plaintiff, who ie about 80 years of age, was formerly
a rowixstper at Chelsea, and the defendant had acted as his
attorney for about 20 years. In May, 1850, the plaintiff
was served with a subteen' to appear and answer a bill in
Chancery, and he took it to the defendant, who appeared
upon the 13th May. The answer, however, was not put in
by the 11th June, when the time for answering expired,
and an attachment was consequently issued, and the plain-
tiff was arrested, and confined in a lock-up house for a
oght and part of two days. The action was brought to
recover damages for this unprisenment, and also about 61.
exocesto incurred in consequenee of it.
The defendant's case was that there wee no negligence on
his part. Mr. Watson, his managing clerk, stated that he
had on sevcral oecas;ins written to, and called upon, the
plaintiff, and urged upon him the neceuity of giving the
necessary information to prepare the answer, and he wanted
him that if the answer was not filed he would be liable to
be arrested for contempt of court. When the time for an-
swering expired be advised him to get out of the way for a
few days, or to keep himself within the house, and the
plaintiff said be would take care they should not arrest
bim. Firths, he could get no information of a satisfactory
nature from the plaintiff, he himself went through his
Par' and from what he gleaned in that way, and what
information he get ban a codefendant, the answer
woe at length gespend. He, however, did not apply to the
Master to ealiqpi the time fee appeeeing. and Imile mem
of the ease lib was the lads pedal felled epos by the
plaintiff's ammsel es show neglignase. Mr. Waimea stated
that he did ail make this appiimilei_ t,
_lmams to do so, it
would be asessemy to have an elliMvit that all due &li-
pase Ind boss mei is wpm the answer, and this
eillihnit the oireameteases would set justify kin in ad-
vising the plaintiff to make, we weld ho (Mr. Watson)
make it himself.

Tioinryiettiost leaving the hoz loud a verdict Sar the
defendant

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—YEsTERDAy.

'mime al Sus Parr. to Moms= sorsa Hussy Tams.—
SMOGS MILORD CHM LIASON •ND 00111101, J..na.
This was the Ent day of the sittings at nisi prism alter
trrm. The list contained 48 muses, 16 being set down for
trial by special juries. There were fifteen rename s. thir-
teen of which were special juries ; the number of new
Causes being thirty, of which only three are special
juries.
111ENzias r. OWEN.—DIPT.

'lids was an action to mover the sum of 2011., under the
following cirmunstanms
The plaintiff, &parliamentary agent, borrowed of the de-
fendant, s clerk in a banking-house, 461. in the year 1846,
on security of mac mining shares, and a bill accepted by
Mr. Collett fur 2.50/ Thu bill, on reaching maturity, was
dishonoured; bat the defendant subsequently found that
Mr. Collett (who bad been outlawed) was living in good
style at Bon! e, upon which he went there and corns
meneed psoeeediiffs against Mr. Collett, which resulted in
his obtaining the amount of his demand. The plaintiff now
brought his action to recover the balance, after deducting
the sum which the defendant had lent to Lat.
The delence was that the legal and other expenses which
the defendant had incurred left him • liner on the whole
transaction to the extent of 231. This having been proved
to the satisfaction of the court,

The Lord Chief Baron directed a soesait.
Mr. James and Mr. Biafora appeared for the plaintiff;
alffr Mr. Bramwell and Mr. C. Pollock for the deiendmt.

COURT OF

.-YESTEEDAL

DOOMS Ma. COMENIIIKIIII2 110110 TD.
IN as BOLTON.
This was the certificate meeting in the case of (3. Bolton,
watchmaker, of Albany-street, Regent's
-park. His debts
were 1,400/.; assets estimated at 3601. or 4001.
Mr. Cooke opposed, for the wiliness ; Mr. Burr supported.
The bankrupt, in Examination, stated that he had called to-
gether his creditor, in MR, when, his debts being 2,0001.,
be agreed to pay '2os. in the pound, on being allowed time.
Finding himself unable to do this, he again called them to-
gether in 1850, when they speed to accept 10s. In the
pound, 6e. down, and es. at six months. He borrowed
2LOI. of Mr. Harris, solicitor, the sasignee, to enable him to
pay the at. ; M subsequently borrowed 126/. of Mr. Harrit,
giving Idosuessurity in the ober of a power of attorney and
bill of sale. Of Memo sum 1751. had been repaid.
Be had ooveasated with Mr. Harris sot to sell his stook
without his 00•96114. Ono Greater, Mr. Prior, who had
Vto aosept 10s. 1a the laud, bad beta paid I.
gaiiis had boss his salts r la 1868 sad IWO, sad he

had anted irripli •illy on hi• adv'ce in effecting tho arrange-
M,Uti hia ir.dttnrs. dial new r had ;ioseessioa of the
Pv?erd connected with these serene. 'taunts. He had re-
vel:et' no need rewire from Mr. Harris on payment of
*.re ler. in the pour, 1. Mr. Harris's law charier, for
eifecting the first arrdnuernent were 1371. ; for the second,
531.; and substqui nt law charges, 481. Never received a
hi lof costs from Mr. H,.rris. Ilia balance-sheet commenced
with a deficiency, but this arose from his former composi-
tion. Soniu of the creditors in 181)0 were creditors mow.
Mr. Harris's bill included charges for defending several
actions.

By the Cimmissioner—ln 1850, when the last composi-
tion was made, my affairs were looked into by Mr. Harris
and myself. Mr. Stringer, a creditor, also went through
the accounts, and saw that I hail not enough to pay 10s. in
the pound.
Mr. Cooke submitted th:it the bankrupt had brought
himself within the penal section of the act by deliberately
falsifying his cash-book, it appe►ring that the payments
ent,red excLidi the reei ilits by a considerable sum; and
it was coon card that this had been done with intent to
deceive hi. creditors. It was also urged that the bank-
rupt had, by fraudulent represeutations, obtained the for
bruises of Mr. Ilarris as to his debt, which was, in
the view of tl.e law, the same as contracting a debt by
fraud. _ . . .

Mr. SLUT denied that there was any evidence of fraud.
The recessive entries were mcrely the result of error. The
opposition was entirely a personal matter on the part of Mr.
llarris.

His Honour said that no bine could be more foolish than
the course taken by the bankrupt, commencing the
composition of ISIS. Nut only w.re bankrupts in fault in
such cases, but the creditors also, who could only hope to get
paid out of new creditors. They ought to beware of pints-
ing for too lupe • composition, knowing that it
could only be paid by new creditors, end that they
themselves might be made the victims in another
case. Hut, at least, care outtht to be taken that all the
creditors accepted the composition, and that some were not
paid in full, otherwise the new creditors must suffer se-
verely. This the bankrupt was bound to look to and err-
vent. Here the bankrupt had entered into a composition
which he could not terry out. His payments and trade
expenses eseeedid Vie profits of his trade, end of necessity
he had lived upon his creditors. The discrepancies in the
bankrupt's euh-book were not such es to bring him within
the penal section; there was nothing to show that the en-
tries had been made in contemplation of bankruptcy, or
with the intent charged by the act. In obtaining the for-
bearance of Mr. Harriii's debt, it appeared that his inten-
tion was to carry out his promise. Considering that Mr.
Harris was as lieitor, end had advised the bankrupt in both
his compositions, he h 01 not much personally to complain
of. Had he advised the bankrupt to stop earlier, it would
have been better. At the same time the bankrupt was not
justified in making a promise and then breaking it. Still
less was be justified in coming into court and alleging that
he had signed documents without knowing their effect.
Such a line of defence cast no credit on the bankrupt.
Taking into account the injury the bankrupt had brought
on his new creditors, the court was bound to suspend the
certifies., fur twelve months; when granted, to be of the
second class. There seemed no reason for withholding pro-
tection, which would be granted for three mouths, renew-
able at the end of that time, unless cause were shown to
the contrary.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-YESTMDAT.

Boom Ma. CONEMBIONIM Law.
IN THE MATER& Or Jolla! HENRY CROMWELL Rcesn4t.
This case, which had been before the court on several
former occasions, again occupied the entire day. Mr. Sar-
good opposed oa the part of four barristers, and Mr.
Nichols and Mr. Caoke supported the application for dis-
charge.
The insolvent was an attorney in Gray's-inn, and in
1845 was solicitor to a railway project, called the Thelma,
Southend, Northern and Eastern Junction Railway Com-
pany. Ile alleged that the opposing creditors were pro-
moters of the affair, and had advanced money, for which
he gave his acknowledgment. Ile denied his liability,
but was sued, and they obtained judgment against him.
He made a post nuptne settlement of his interest in the
Cheshunt Park estate, which was now complained of .on
the part of the opposing cr..clitors, and went abroad, where
he resided for a long period, and on coming to this country
Ee)same urgent matters, was arrested, and had beea in
prim since May last.
On the present occasion, amens other things, the insol-
vent was asked respecting an annuity of 131., as a Commis-
sioner of Bankrupts of the Canterbury district.
Mr. Sargood said the assignee would require the insolvent
to make an affidavit in order to receive the annuity.
Mr. Commissioner Law observed that it would pass under