The Express.
London, England, 1849-02-15 00:00:00

20LITAaY.

With edemas to a parsgrtph which we have seen
several ci oar oostempo to the elect that the 50th
7ocTr about to mem ham Dover to Portsmouth, sod the let baits-
lion of the slat Foot thaw to Dover, we see state that no sorb
inovesomit is at promed contempisted. In fact, the latter corps has
very.letely bees removed to Portalliaath hero (import, sad the
danwer distinguished regiment only arrived in Esiatasd in June lest
hum led* atter hasten been engaged In all the betties doling the
campaign at 11145-46 on the eatlej.

SPORTING.
BETTLNO AT MANCHEATES—TrisDAT.

LlTllll.ooLls2zier=i CBASZ.—i to 1 -art—The Curate
(t), 10 to 1 apt Prises °eons (t), 11 to 1 offered opt my other.
MBISOPOLITAX 11hxDICAP.-8 to 1 agst Caaesou, 9 to 1
apt Leger (t), 12 to 1 apt Plateateber, 14 to 1 apt Loupprou, 16 to
1 eget Claire (t), 16 to 1 apt Dothebors (t).
Cameras Ccr.-18 to 1 eget The Tartar, 20 to 1 eget
Joe P Bet, 27 to 1 apt Inheritress, El to 1 apt Blocher, IS to 1
apt Lady Wilde& (t), 40 to 1 apt Pape Day Boy (t).
woombrez. Dil,BY.-4 t• 1 ez t The Flying Datchataa, 7 to 1 agst
to Tadoor, 12 iel (t)„ 20 to 1 apt
Humid& (t), 20 to 1 apt OPer ,26t0 I apt Irougboe, (t), 41
1 apt colt out of Ilambestee (t), 1,000 to 12 apt
silt (t).

Satz *itteritgence.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,
YIIITZREid.Y.

Maude. prong were lad Brougham. Lad Dr, Dash-
*too. Elk 8 Brae. and Mr. ?embarks
WILMA" MOOIEFULL O. MUTHORANATZ MOOKCJIZIA.

This was an appeal to eat amide the decision of Mr. Robert-
son, acting 'ado of the Court of Budder, in BengaL—lt
appeared that after several atijadicsuons in favour of
the respondents in the inferior courts is &fugal, on
an appeal to the Court of Budder, upon the respective
claims of the appellant, who asserted that he war
the adopted son of °unshorn Mookuejia, vetoes property
formed Me matter in dispute, and of the respondents, Mu-
the:math and others, sons of Oolsrn Chundu Meokarjis,
also an adopted son of the testator, Mr. Robertson deid
that the witneeen who were brought forward
to prove the lad of the adoption of Raraithan
Rooker* were strangers, mad gave their evidence
in so unsatisfactory a manner that depsodenos could not be
placed on the verity of their statute sad that the dont-
clouts produced for the purpose of estlWLalag his adoption
seemed to be fabeications. The wart then confirmed the
denial= that had been already given in favour of the
respondents. The appellant now humbly submitted that
Mr. Robertson's view of the evidence adduced on his behalf
srsa altirely usoneous, sad stated that the fact of the adop-
tion was proved by the pretence of the Gooroo Purshita and

brothers, reatioas, and connexions, aad by the utmost pub-
licity being peen, and that the learnt d judge wee mistaken
la suppcsirig that the witnesses who demised to the adoption
Mae sppelant appeared to be 'tempi.' and inhabitants of
other pleas. The guardians of the appellant while he WM
In his minority petitioned the Said r Court for a
review of judgment, bot their mays, was rejected
and they obtained leave to appeal to her Majesty's council
in England ; and the appellant, w►o had since attained his
majority, now prayed the council to reverse or alter the de-
cision of the court of Budder. Mr. Turner and Mr. Mauls
appeared for the appellant, and argued at great length to
show that he was adopted by (Waltham Mookurji► with all
the necessary forms and ceremonies usual in such cases in

that country'.
Mr. Wigram ( with him Mr. Lloyd) appeared for the res-
pondents, and contended that the witnesses for the appellant
were not worthy of credit, and that the tact of their being
subordinates or strangers, when respectable individuals,who
would have had a greater opportunity of knowing the facts,
if true, which were attempted to be proved on the other aids,
could be called, and were nn called, was calculated to throw
much suspicion on the cue cf the appellant.
The hearing of tale case occupied the committee during the
whole day, and the arguments hadn't concluded when the
judges rose.

EQUITY COURTS.-YLITEILDAT.
before the Vice-Chancellor of England.
Ix RI TIM BAWL OP BNOLAND.-PIACTICE AS TO

iNJUNCT

Mr. Bothell applied to the court under the following cir-
cumstances. It appeared that an injunction had been
granted by the Vice-Chancellor in his pnvate room, in a case
the particulars of which did not tranipire, but it was under-
stood to relate to a foreigner of exalted rank. The hermit
' counsel now complained that the injunction, .as drawn up by
the Clerk of Records and Write, wee not so extensive as
was intended by the court, and that the writ of injunction
engin to have been so framed as to extend to the Bank of
England. The Vice-Chancellor add he well recollected.
upon granting the isajunction, that he marked with his own
hand that it was to restrain the Bank of England. Kt.
Betray, the clerk of records and writs, afterwards appeared
in court and produced the order, upon inspection of which it
appeared that the terms of the order were such that the
officer of records and writs could not issue a writ of injunc-
tion against the Bank of England. Thu Bank could only
be restrained by the order. It wee net usual to restrain the
Bank by writ of injunction, but only by order.—Toe Vine-
Chancellor directed that if the parties desired it, the order
might be altered so se to attend the writ of injunction to the
Bank.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BERME—YESTERDAY.
Nw Pairs.--ffskre Lord Demean and Special Juries.
TVCILIA O. CHAPLIN.—ACCIDENTI COMPIMATION ACT.
This was en action brought by • Mrs. Tucker, Ms widow
of a carman, who had been in the employ of Messrs. New-
some, carriers, against Mr. Chaplin, the first partnerln the well-known firm of Chaplin and Horne, the
canters, to recover compensation in damams for the
injury and lira she had sustained by the death of her
husband, in consequence of* accident which, it was Alleged,
had occurred through the negligence of the defendant. The
action was brought under • recent act of parliament,
called the " Accidents Compensation Act."
Mr. Serjeant Shee, on stating the case to the jury, raid
the deceased was a carman in the employ of Messrs. New-
some, and on the 21st of March he was sent with a load of
crockery goods to Hembree Wharf, which belonged to the
defendant and his partner, Mr. Horne. For the purpoee
of placing the goods in the wirehaise it was necessary to put
them in what is called a " crate," which was held by a
hook fasten* to a chain, and by that means
the crate and its contents wen raised from the
ground. The sort of hooks used by Messrs. Chaplin and
Horne he (Mr. Serjeant Bhee) should prove were not made
in such a manner as firmly to grip the crate ; and that
was the negligence ellegod against the defendant in not
having proper aad safe machinery to carry on ha business.
On the occasion in question the deceased man was standing
under the crate, when, owing to its not being securely held
by the hook, it fell down whilst in the act of being raised,
and, descending upon the deceased, knocked him down and
smashed his right foot. Tucker was immediately taken in a
cab to the Madre* Hospital, and upon his arrival it was
found necessary to amputate his foot, which operation was
at once performed. After the foot had been amputated fever
and delirium tremens ensued, and the patient expired on the
26th, four days after the accident had taken place-1n sup-
port tag the plaintiff's cue,
Mr. Limb, a commercial traveller, was called, and ha
staged that he had been for 2a years connected with different
Marinas's in which crates were need, and the hook now pro-
duced was not safe to use, because it did not sufficiently grip
the crate.
Warner deposed that he was a porter in the employ of
Messrs. Chaplin and Horne. Remembered the deceased
coming to tLe Hantbro' Wharf, on the 21st of March. The
deceased was knocked down by the crate, which smashed his
right foot. On croseexamination this witness raid that
Tucker had placed himself in a dangerous position under the
crate, when he had no business to be. He was twice told by
witness to remove from the perilous situation in
which he had placed himself, but he did not heed the
warning. There was pre* of time between the two occasions
upon which TAMMY told him to get out of the way tor him
to have done so. The chain to which the hook war at-
tached had got twisted upon Tucker's fastening the book to
the orate. The same kind of hook was uesd now by
Messrs. Chaplin and Horne that was used then. That
sort of hook had always be n in use ever since witness had
been in their employ, which was two years and a half.—
Mr. James Dixon, one of the surgeons of the Middlesex
HospitaL proved that deceased had beau admitted into the
hospital on the 21st of Much last, and that, owing to his
right foot being smashed, it war necessary to amputate it,
which was done; but fever and delirium tremens followed,
and the patient died on the 2dth.
Sir F. Thesiger, for the defence, contended that it was
clear, from the evidence adduced on the part of the plaintiff,
that the accident had occurred through the deceased not
choosing to heed the two earnings which were given him to
remove himself from a &aprons position. With regard to
the hooks, there we. no taua to be found with them; but it
was most likely that the chain, having been twisted by the
deceased in attaching the hook to the crate, was the
reason it had not been securely fastened, and thus *a crate
had fallen down. Under those circumstances he submitted
that the plaintiff, unfortunate as her position might be, was
not entitled to recover any compensation.
Lord Denman, in summing up, left it to the jury to say
whether they *hued there had been any want of We for
the public safety on the part of Messrs. Chaplin and Horne
in using hooks like those now produced, as also whether the
deceased had been unity of any imprudence or negligence by
which he had himself put his life in danger.
The Jury, after a short consultation, r glared to know
whether the delirium tremens, deposed to by Mr. Jamie
Dixon, the surgeon, as having caused the death of the de-
ceased, was the result solely of the amputation of the foot, or
whether It arose from the habits of Tucker.
Lord Denman having put that question to Mr. Dixon, be
replied that he had no cause whatever for believing that the
delirium tremens was not entirely brought on by the opera-
tion which had been perforated upon the deceased.
The jury then returned a verdkt for the plaintiff, damages
1001., at the sum time observing that they did not consider
the hooks used at Hambro' Wharf were of a safe or proper
kind. _ _

THE QVIRN e. CHANDOII.—PIRJOILY.
This was en indictment against the Marquis of Ckaudos,
the eldest son of the Duke of Buckingham, preferred b
two persons of the name of Hitchcock and Waters, whirl'
charged him with having been guilty of wilful and corrupt
perjury.
Ten only of the special jury answered to their names, but
Sir Frederick Thesiger, who appeared for the defendant,
having prayed a ' tales," two common jurymen were
sworn, together with the special jury.
Mr. Petendorff; who was counsel for the prosecution,
called for a Mr. May, who, however, did not make his ap-
pearance.
Lord Denman, after waiting soma little time, inquired if
any party was appointed to conduct the prosecution, and if se
weed intended to be proceeded with ?
Sir F. fledges' replied that his learned friend, Mr. Peters.
dorff, wee counsel for the prosecution, and he (Sir F. The.
cigar) appeared for the defence, and was quite ready to pro-
ceed with his case. He wished to know disk learned friend
was prepared to vm hie case.
Mr. Peterederff stated that arrangements had been made
for the production of certain documents in court. The attar.
trey was gone for them, and, ea he was not in court, he did
not think that he (Mr. Petersdorff) would be justified in
commencing thecae*.
Sir F. Thesiger—Then, I submit to your lordship, 1 am
entitled to claim an acquittal.
Lord Denman said the court knew nothing of any circum-
stance which might cause the attorney for the prosecution to
be absent. The court could only take cognisance of the fact
that there was no evidence offered in support of the indict-
ment. The jury most, therefore, return a verdict of not
guilty. There had been full opportunity of bringing the case
forward.—The jury then, under the direction of his lord-
ship, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON P.........""11.—Y1NTERDLY.
fiasco.
' Yesterday being the last day in y
fixed for the sittings in bunco
altar term the court gave judgment in several cases. The
following judgment for its importance is plead foremost.
SNITE KENRICE.—RIGHTS or OWNERS Of COLLIERIES.
The Court in delivering judgment said this was an actioa
oa the caw tried at the B?nng Amite', at Chester, salon a
verdict ?assed for the plaintiff subject to a special rase. The
declaration in substance alleged that plaintiff was pew:seed
of a colliery, called Pim Bennioo, in the county of Denbigh,
and that one Jones was formerly possessed of the aejacent
colliery called Avon Either Colliery, when Josue, in ea.
meting coal, made large holes in a vertical seam of
coal which acted as a barrier between the two minas;
that the defendant succeeded Jones in the possession of the
Avon Either colliery, and that by reason of Jones's acts the
plaintie's mine became liable to be inundated with water
, trom the mine of the defwenthdheenanrebytehaa; that;:athpbuieiondtiewiefentitsudowlbyt
I reason of his possession of the neighbouring mine, was
I bound to prevent the wationnwet:dranifreodmabileowabliaialgaineitoanth:apealalioe.i.t:frlas
pcesessicn of Ples Been inn
adfrisialp.peayeagare,cmiedaa.
ibtdrielclindt:efeclaraerdobad
bean
in
innanammanagelatteryiearsftepooth,utantherydaquanethw,reeiered(lutfeeenaavedfanrhe4alcholi.ef:AmTivobeebveentelbaEctniihthu:n.;iteSen.bacfethoinnwie7re.eran:
the two collieries was a vertical seals of coy, part
of the plaiatiff's mine. When the defendant took
✓n
of Avon Either, there were thset large
oles galled "curlings" through the bcundary sea 111
of coal; which had been Improperly made by Jones.
In the defendant's colliery there war, a large senerranean