The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-03 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

The judges who are to preside in this court, for the pre-
sent term, are Sir F. Pollock, C.B , with Barons Parke,
Alderson, and Rolfe. Mr. Baron Platt at chambers. The
arrear of business, which is considerable, and the number of
new eases in this court, give reason to suppose that the term
will be what is called in Westminater-hall a " good one ;"
however, none of the few motions which occupied the atten-
tion of the learned barons yesterday possessed a feature
worth noticing.—Mrs. Cobbett, whose forensic capabilities
have been so often tested, was heard at great length in sup-
port of a motion for the discharge of her husband, Mr. W.
Cobbett, who has been in the Queen's Bench Prison under
an attachment since June, 1840.—The court intimated that
they could not interfere as the applicant suggested, and that
he should seek redress by bringing an action.

ARCHES COURT.
Before Sir 11. J. Fuel

Dr. Featherstone Stonestreet—wM admitted an advocate of
tke court, by virtue of a rescript from kin Cirace the Arch-
bithop of Canterbury.

Tug Omen OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED ET BROOKS e
CRESWELL, Ctrax.—This wu originally a suit promoted
against the rev. defendant, charging him with various acts
of intoxication, and with being guilty of profane swearing.
At the hearing of the cause the learned judge pronounced
that the charges were proved, and sentenced Mr. Creswell to
18 months' suspension, requiring him to produce a certificate
of his good behaviour during that time, signed by three be-
neficed clergymen, and also condemned him in costs. The
peril! of suspension baring expired, and the certificate
being brought into the registry, the Queen's Advo-
cate opposed the relaxation of the inhibition, on the
ground that the costs had not baen paid.—Dr. Ad-
&m+, on behalf of Mr. Creswell, submitted that on
the production of the certificate, the requirements of the
court were so far complied with, that the rev. defendant was
entitled to be restored to his living. The promoter of the
snit died shortly after the time at which tke sentence was
pronounced; administration was taken Cut to him, since
which no means had been taken to enforce payment of
the cuts. . . .

The learned judge said that he was bound to receive the
certifirite, which stated that during the period of suspension
/Aver/swell had conducted himself with great propriety; and
there was no allegation to the contrary. The rev. gentle-
man was entitled on that ground to have the sentence
relaxed, and to be restored to WS ministerial office and duties.
The Queen's Advocate then applied to the court to issue
a monition, calling on Mr. Creswell to show cause why be
should not pay the costs to the representatives of the pro-
moter. Dr. Addams offered no objection.—The court
directed the monition to issue: . . .

KNIGHT V. KNIGHT.—This was a suit instituted by Mr.
W. Knight against his wife for a divorce, by reason of adul-
tery.—The learned judge suggested that the cage might be
disposed of without going into the details, which were of the
most disgusting chuaetcr.—Dr. Twigs, on behalf of Mrs.
Knight, contended that the case rested on the evidence of
the particeps criminis, which was not so confirmed that the
court could rely upon his testimony.
The learned. ; judge, without hearing Dr. Curteis, who ap-
peared on behalf of the husband, said that he was perfectly
satisfied of the guilt of the wife, and therefore was prepared
to sign the sentence.
Guts v. Gatio.—This is a suit instituted by Lieut. Geils
against his wife, for the restitution of conjugal rights, to
which Mrs. Geils sots up in her cruelty, adultery, &c. The
case having been opened, the arguments were adjourned to
the next court.

COUNTY COURT.

BEADLT V. ORRNHAIL—DISPUTED PRICE OF A LOT.—
The plaintiff in this ease, a lady, summoned the defendant,
the auctioneer, of Oxford-street, to recover a deposit paid
upon a lot.—The plaintiff stated that on the 6th of October
Last she attended a sale at the British and Foreign Institute,
in George.street, Hanover-square, and bid for six rosewood
chairs to the amount of 71., at which price they were knocked
down. That being the only lot she purchased, tho clerk
asked for a deposit. She gave him 21., at the same time toll-
ing him that she would pay the other 21. when she fetched
the chairs On going for them on the following Friday, the
clerk told her that the-price they were knocked down at was
71. I7s fel., and that she had to pay 61. 17s. 6d. more. This
she refused doing, sa she was convinced they were knocked
down for 71., and now sought to recover back the deposit she
had paid.—Mr. 0 xenham, his clerk, and a gentleman who was
present at the sale distinctly proved that Mrs. Headly bid
7j guineas for the chairs. Three catalogues were pro-
duced, in all of which the price 71. 17s. 64. appeared, which
entries were sworn to have been made at the moment the
hammer fell. Mr. Oxenhani farther stated that the money
derived from the sale had been paid over, and 71. 17s. 64.
allowed for these chairs. It was solely on principle that he
defended the action, for if auctioneers where once to admit
that articles were knocked down for leo than appeared in
their books, they would be constantly called upon to make
a reduction in the price for which they ware sold.—The
learned judge said he never had a ease where a defence was
so satisfactorily made out as the present, and it must be dia.
missed.—At his request, Mr. Ozenham consented to keep
the chairs for a week without any additional expense to
Mrs. Headly.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

re the OCEEMOII
TUEIiT.-Vlthe pom:

non Berjeant was sittmg to the grand jury room, which had
boon !armed Into a third court an Saturday, Mr. Presider-
rot madesagneTplication with reference to • ease in which
fa woe . The jury were in deliberation at the time
is sr come, and while the cart was so angered, the
anichriberiff celled out, " 8110nen ;" and urns this Mr.

Prendergast, it appeared, became very angry, and said that '
the under-sheriff had no right to interfere, and that they
were merely door-keepers, and had no right to interrupt
eennsel.—Mr. Prendergast now applied with reference to
the same ease, sad ke complained that the trial hod been
postponed without the sanction or knowledge of the
defendant, for whom he appeared, and who was
anxious to take his trial at the present erasion.-
-Mr. Huddlestone, who was instructed for the prosecution,
said that notice had been given to his learned friend that
application would be made to postpone the trial.—Mr. Pren-
dergast denied that he had received any such notice, and Ite
complained that at the time of his making the application to
the court on Saturday he was interrupted by the under-
sheriff in the performance of his duty.—The Common Ser-
jeant said that he considered himself quite justified in post-
poning the trial, and the learned judges, whom he had con-
sulted, concurred with him in that opinion.—Mr. Under-
Sheriff France begged to explain the course he had taken
upon the occasion alluded to by the learned counsel. It was
a very small room, and while the jury were engaged in de-
liberating upon their verdict Mr. Prendergast addressed the
court, and the jury intimated that they were disturbed by
the proceeding,upon which he certainly requested Mr. Pren-
dergast to desist until the jury had delivered their verdict,
and he then insulted the under-sheriffs by saying that they
were only in the position of doorkeepers, and that
they had no business to interfere.—Mr. Prendergast
admitted he did say so, and he repeated it. They
were merely a superior kind of doorkeepers, and
it was no part of their province to interfere with
the proceedings of the court.—Mr. Wire here made
some observation which was not distinctly heard, to which
Mr. Prendergast responded by a remark in which the word
" vagabond" was distinctly audible, as well as same obser-
vation about pulling a nose.—Mr. Wire told the learned
counsel that he was protected by his position, and that he
would rot have dared to make such an observation out of
court —The Common Serjeant postponed the trial, and this
stopped further altercation.

AoSAVLT PT A MAN IN FOOSESSION.—J, Gray, an old
man, was indicted for a misdemeanor in assaulting Mary
Anne Lewis, with latent to commit a felony, and in other
counts he was charged with a common assault —Mr. Parry
conducted the prosecution.—lt appeared, from the evidence
of the proseentrix, that her husband carried WI the business
of n musicseller in Cheapside, and in September he was
iu difficulties, and an execution was put in by the
sheriff, and the defendant was left in possession.
Her husband was absent from home enaearouring
to get up the amount of the debt ; and it appeared
that the defi.ndant had taken advantage of this circumstance,
and had insulted her, asking her to kiss him ; and upon one
occasion he seised her by the arm, and she was compelled to
barricade herself in her bedroom, to prevent him from ap-
proaching her. She communicated what had taken place to
• female relative, fearing to tell her husband, on a:count of
the difficulties in which he was already placed by his pecu-
niary difficulties, and that it would increase his excitement.
In the presence of that relative, the prisoner acted with
similar violence; and during one whole night he kept the
two females on the watch, and frightened them so, that they
were afraid to go to bed.—Mr. Lewis, the husband of the
complainant, said that, upon being informed of what had
occurred, be asked the prisoner for an explanation, and he
at first said it was all stuff; but, on being pressed, he said
that his wife had conducted herself in an improper manner,
and he made the statement in such offensive terms, that
witness knocked him down. Mr. Lewis said that he subse-
' quently represented the prisoner's conduct to the sheriff's
officer who had put him in possession, and he immediately
removed him from tke house.--Some other witnesses were
called, whose evidence tended to confirm the statement
made by the prosccutrix.—The prisoner said he ex-
pected to have been provided with the assistance of
a counsel and attorney, but they had not attended. He
added that Harker, the usher of the court, knew him very
well, and could speak to his previous character, and he wished
to call bim.—Harker said he hid known the prisoner a
great many years, He previously had an extensive business
as a livery stable-keeper, and had become reduced in his cir-
cumstances, but he heard anything against his charac-
ter.—The jury, after a short consultation, found the prisoner
Cuiley of a commonte to iep ass u—he Common
tosi
hard labourT
foromm three°n Serjeant
months.—The prisoner said he was • cripple, and could not perform hard
labour.—Common Serjeant: Oh, very well, then, the sen-
tence is three mouths' imprisonment without hard labour,
NEW COURT.—Befare Mr. Cocaroimoner Bullock, Aldermen
Hunter, Moos, Mr. Sheriff Cubits, Ac.
_

STISALINO A Panther, clerk, was in-
dicted for stealing a cheque, of the value of 91. Bs., belonging
to his master. Another indictment was preferred against
the prisoner, but it was not proceeded with, on the ground
of technical errors.—Mr. Covington, the prosecutor, stated
that he was a roaster lightermsn on the Regent's Canal, and
the prisoner was employed by Dim so clerk. On the day
named in the indictment, the prisoner was gives a eheque
for 91. Bs. to pay the property and income taxes. He,
however, only paid the property tax, and had kept the
amount of the income tax.—Mr. Conk'', an income and
property tax collector deposed that the prisoner called upon
him and said that Mr. Covington having some heavy pay-
ments to meet would be glad if he would take the property
tax and allow the income tax to stand over for a short time.
—The Landlady of a public-house in the City-road stated
that she cashed the cheque at the request of the prisoner.—
In his defence the prisoner said he had lost the money, and
never had any intention of stealing it —The jury found the
prisoner Guilty, and he was sentenced to nine calendar
months' hard labour.

THIRD COURT.—Before Mr. Commluipser Bt•!lock and Mr.
'Alderman Hunter.

81011[7.-W. D. Dailey was indicted for feloniously
marrying Mary Barry, his wife Harriet being alive. It was
clearly shown, both by parol and documentary evidence
that the prisoner married Harriet Oabally on Chnstmae.day;
1842, at the parish church of St. Leonard's, Shorediteh ;
and that he was married at St. George's, Bloomsbury, on the
29th of last December, to Mary Ann Barry.—The prisoner
said that his first wife, for the first ten months after the
marriage, was everything that hs could have wished for, but
after that time her motheracquired *powerful influence over
her, and she became id-tempered, and did all she could to
make him miserable. This drove him to drunkenness, and
in a drunken fit he was bamboozled into this second mar-
riage ; and he bad, the morning of the second marriage,
pawned his coat for 15s. to get drunk with. He was sorry
for what he had done, but he had been duped.—The jury
found the prisoner Gualy.—A Policeman stated that the
prisoner had been convicted of felony, and sentenced to
three months' hard labour.—The court then ordered him to
be kept to hard labour for two years.

L