The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-05 00:00:00

Nab) InteMarna.

MITROYOLITANOOI72ITY 0017178.
!albs days &waisted far the primal wink.
waraccursa, St. Mattin'stase.—Tuesday, May 6; Wednes-
day May 7 ; Thur, May 8 , Friday. May O.
Biennium, sadecesl.—Wedneeday, Nay?; Thursday.
May 8; Friday, May 9.
B 909199011• Wklieheacregreee.—Wedneeday, Mal 7; More-

d maim
gataagNiss4Dad.wErronam".
G—WaHdayms
prwoudrol6. May I; Frirta, 9.
moyy, ;
trey
8:
Thur.
day, 8; Many, 9.
Soortreng„ Bwanedrsot.—Tussday, Way 0; Thursday. 8;
FrWay, 8.
LAMM,Qmbanell ifsw-road.—Tasaday, May &
Owerwww.—Wednesday, May 7.
WooLwire.—Thursday, Way &
Crrr or Loner, Oulldheli-bollffings.—Wednseday, May ;
&atria, 10.
114131 TY OOURTB.-2ray 3.
Carfare Vim-Chancellor Wood.)
MOWER 9. BAMEIT—TIig MI MS 01 • HOLIDAY.
The dries of the courts on the Ist May for the par-
rem of the Exhibition gave rise to • curious state of things
fa this case. The defendant was remitted some time dun
for want of an answer. Under an act (blown as Sir Ed:
ward &lOW, act) he was entitled at the expiration of
30 days to be breed np on the plaintiffie notion on habeas
sorpes to the bar of the ooert in order to the further
with his car, the statute providing, in favour of the aliberty
the subject, that I. default of • plaintiff omitting to take
the aroressry step the imprisoned defendant should be set
at liberty. In this particular case the thirty days expired
on the day of the opening of the Exhibition, and the court
being closed the defendant wee not brought up. He was in
feet detained in anotoUolhas sines been brought np be-
fore the court by i the
The Vice-Chancellor rid rat the ordinary general order
of the court, preinding that where an act was to be done or
• limo robed cm • " closed " day such act was to be dons
or sufb time extended to the day when the offices opened,
could not, be thought, be extended to a case specially pro-
vided for by an act of parliament. He could, therefore,
make no order ou this occasion, and the gaoler moat do r
be thought fit.
The gaoler thereupon did the simplest poldtl;paeL:ist
to him—nothing, and the defendant speedily •

r, My S; Thursday, 8

COURT OF COMMON MEAS.—MAY 3.
Sittings in Banoo.—(Bolas Fustier Willis and Bytes.)
LUNT O. FAlL—sal 0111? OF PILACTICIL
Mr. Coleridge said that this cue was tried helots Mr.
Justice Blackburn at Devise., and hie losdeldp stayed me-
cation until the bth day of teen, so se to suable a motion
for a new trial to be ma& within the usual four dam ; but
the endorsement upon Mr. Kingdon's brief was mistaken fur
the fifteenth day of term, and therefore the motion we. not
mode within the usual time.
Xt. Justice Willem maid that this* was a double mistake,
for even if execution had been stayed until the fifteenth day
of term, that would not have enlarged the time for moving
beyond the first four dam.
Mr. Justice Byke—The judge had no power to enlarge
the time f moving.
Kr. Coleridge submitted that the court had power to
relax its own rules.
Mr. Justice Bytes observed that hie experience extended
tack for an unpleasant number of years, bat he never knew
the rule relaxed.
Mr. Coleridge said he should have thought that the same
power which made the rules would relax them when injury
was sustained in consequence of a bona fide mistake.
Mr. Justice Willa inquired what the present motion was
for.
Mr. Coleridge—For a new trial upon the ground that the
damages were moss/ire. It was an accident case against a
trustee of some property, and 1,2001. was given as damages.
Mr. Justice Willie recollected one case in which the
motion was allowed to be made after the four days bad ex-
pired, but in that instance the matter was mentioned within
the four days, though the affidavits were not then ready,
and the ground of motion went to the root of the proceed-
inp, for it was said that there was a conspiracy to set up a
fictitious muss of action.
Mr. Coleridge submitted, upon the authority of " Arch-
bold," that where a party had been milled the court would
grant him relief.
Mr. Justice Willes—All we can do for you is to say that
you may mention the case again when the court is full, but
as the court is at present constituted, we =Dot yield to this
innovation.
Some other motions were heard, and one or two amain
the new trial paper were then celled on, but in the absence
of the other two judges it was found impossible to get on
with the business, and their lordships consequently rose at
an early hour.
Sittings at Nisi Prim in London—(Before Mr. Justice
Williams and a Common Jury.)
COUNSZL AND ATTORNIT.
In the course of the day a ems was called on in which the
plaintiff claimed to recover 211. 17s. for work done as an
accountant in reference to the estate of a lunatic, and the
question was whether the defendant, the gentleman who
I had been employed as solicitor in the wetter, was person-
ally liable for the amount ; but some difficulty was experi-
enced in consequenceof the plaintiff's counsel not being in
attendance.
Mr. M. Chambers, the defendant's counsel, proposed that
without any speeches being made his lordship should hear
what the witnesses had to say, and should himself deter-
mime the matter without the assistance of • jury,
and and this
serangement having bees acceded to, the plaintiff his
dr* were examined by his lordship and crom-examined by
Mr. Chambers.
Subsequently the defendant was called to give hie version
of the affair.
Mr. Justice Williams, however, said that he foresaw this
difficulty, that if Mr. Chambers examined his client the
I plaintiff's attorney would ask to cross-examine him, and
this could not he allowed without establishing a precedent
Wilily prejudicial to the bar. He could not permit it to be
said that because counsel was not there the attorney should
take his place. He had himself examined the plaintiff's
witnesses, but it was impossible that he could cross-examine
these for the defendant.
Under theme cimunstaasse acme dimension took place
which resulted in as errangement that the further hearing
should take place on Tuesday mast, when counsel on both
sides would be present.
CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL.—MAT 3.
Motors Lord Chief Justice Mile, Baron Mortis, Justice
Blackburn, Baron Chansell, and Justice Keating.)
MN UV. H. S. FLETCHER AND TM NW= 'soma RANK.
The prisoner was tried at the lOW rise. for Stafford
before Kr. Baron Channell, under the 20 and 21 Vic., cap.
54, commonly known as the Fraudulent Trustees Act. In
the first count the prisoner was indicted for unlawfully eon-
=Ldto his own use with intent to defraud certain monies
for the benefit of the depositors in the Balaton
&Kap Bank. The prisoner was treasurer, and afterwards
Imams secretary or actuary to the bath. The prisoner was
eeemeta, and the learned judge reserved the point raised
at the trial, whether or not the prisoner was a trustee
within the massing of the statute.
Mr. H. Matthews appeared on the part of the prisoner;
Mr. Dowdsswsll appeared in support of the conviction.
The Lord Chief lunges wee of opinion that by the rules
the prisoner es tressaner, ks, we. sot to receive this may
and pet la bibs his pesbei. He had a dined duty to pur-
ism whisk Rude tit • kart.bot jar. said a trust mastereated by as
it will or a deed. The set of pulla.
malt eosld and a deed fir will, neither scald the
min. He ray samilidnebted how an express trust woe
mated is thb nen
Altarbestasi lie arguments of the loused earned at
elawifiniekla kg".