The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-14 00:00:00

prulaions of the act more than any one the, and it was the
Intention of the tct to relieve iuch person'. He did not,
however, suppose that any one would take the
benefit of the
let in question who was not pressesed of haltiverows. and
even if he only had that sum it would be sufficient.—Mr.
Juatice Coleridge : Althonh a man may not have any m-
ust estate he might acqUre some -afterwards for diMiliu-
tiora.—Mr. Knowles so regarded it, and contended that the
10th seethe of the eat was aa absolute bar to the action.—
Rule granted.
Tics Qua= C. CZAILIITIN Lien *minus. —Mr. Cock-
burn, Q.C., en being called on to move, said that in the ease
of "The Queen Charritle and others," tried before Lord
Denman at the sittinp after last term, at Guildhall. notic•
had been given that the defendants would be brought up for
judgment and as he represented one of th.m—Eir W.
Young—he begged to give notice that when be was brought
up for judgment, he should move misdirection, aside the verdict and
for a new trial on the ground of and that the
verdict was against the evidence.
Ex PARTS COSISITT.—HAIRAS COW:M.—Mts. Cobbett
applied for a writ of habeas corm to iss directed d
t beforeo the
keeper of the Queen's prison, to bring her husban
their lordships, in order that he might be discharged, on the
ground that he had been on Christmas eve fosubly taken
out of the plum in which he had been for a long time con-
fined, and placed in a felon's cell. He bad been removed
from No. Ste No. 1 in the prison, without an order from
any court.—Lord Denman (having first tent to inquire
the decision of the Court of Exchequer on a
similar application by Mr. Cobbett to that court), said that
he found the Court of Exchequer had remanded Mr. Cob-
bett to the custody of the keeper of the Queen's prison, for
the purpose of determining a point which they had now
under consideration ; and as he might obtain the relief
which he sought for from the Court of Exchequer, he
thought the Court of Queen'. Bench could not interfere
until the other court had Riven its decision ; and if that did
net afford the required relief, Mrs. Cobbett had better make
mother application
—Mrs. Cobbett thanked the court and
, retired.

BAIL COURT.
Before Mr. Justice Erie.
QUICK. O. WOHJILAT.—Sti Imo IN a PZIONID NAME.—
Mr. Miller applied for • rule to show cause why Messrs.
Kingdom and Shepherd, attorneys,. should not be called
upon to answer certain maiden in the affidavit of one
Mr. T. Quick, of Lee-terrace, Blackheath. From the
affidavit it appeared that in July, 1847, a Mr. Bar-
rett applied to Mr. Simpson, • solicitor, to bring
en action against Mr. Worsley, the defendant in this
case, on a bill of exchange far 2001. Mr. Simpson handed Mr.
Barrett over to Messrs. Kingdom and Shepherd, who sued
the defendant on behalf of • Mr. T. Quick, of Lee-plane,
Blackheath, who was represented on the trial to be the
holder of the bill. The affidavit went on to state that the
deponent was not the holder of the bill, nor in feet did he
know anything about it; that he resided at Lee terrace,
Blackheath, not Lee-place, se stated at the trial. The
learned counsel submitted that although Mr. Quick had not
been injured by the use of his name; yet, had the:verdict been
found for the defendant, he would have been liable for the
costs, and could not have pleaded that his name had been
used improperly, so as to prevent execution from being
issued. Under these circumstances, he thought that the
court would teke notice of the irregular conduct of
its officers.—Mr. Justice Erie thought no rule ought
to be granted in this case, which was en appli-
cation against an officer of the court by • party
who sought redress. He thought it should be first esta-
blished that Gush party had received some damage. Mr.
Quick had sustained no damage, and he made this applies.
lion because, under some circumstances which did not occur,
tmight have done DO. Then he only assumed that he was
e party whose name hail been used, because it was the
same Christian name and surname, and nearly the same
residence. It seemed to bins, therefore, that the learned
counsel was calling for a swat extraordinary interposition of
the powers of the court, which the facts did not warrant.—
, Rule refund.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sitting. in Bozo.
BCHON e. DINMVC—The trial at bar in this case we.
fined, yesterday, upon the application of Mr. M. D. Hill,
Q.C., for the 14th of February neat.
LAW V. DOOD.—RIGHTS or DUST CONTRACTORS.—This
was an action of trespass fur assault and false imprisonment
brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, who was dust
contrac.or of lloundsditch under the provisions of the
37 Geo. 111., e. 29 (the Metropolitan Paving Act) At the
trial, which took place at Guildhall, during the last sittings
before the Lord Chief Baron, it appeared that the plaintiff,
who was servant to a person who carried on the business of a
metal refiner, was discovered removing a quantity of cinders
and stuff which seemed to be common rubbish from the
brass foundry of Mr. Ellis, in the vicinity of Houndstlitch.
Ile was given into custody for violating the paving act, and
unlawfully depriving the defendant of the rubbish
I which he was found in the ant of removing.
The result was—the present action was brought,
and a verdict baring passed foe the plaintiff for 40s.
damages, Mr. Godson, Q C., moved yesterday for a rule,
calling on the plaintiff to show GAM why that verdict should
not be set aside, and a new trial had, on the ground of mis-
direction. The stuff which the plaintiff was removing was,
it appeared, known by the name of " wash dirt." It con-
sisted of ashes, cinders, coke, odd pieces of metal, and
drippings of castings. Upon its subjection to a certain pro-
cess, small pieces of metal were extracted, and thereby some
profit realised. Mr. Ellis was in the habit of giving it as a
perquisite to his servants, of whom the plaintiff's employer
purchased it at 2s. 6d. a load. On his behalf, it was con-
tended at the trial, that the stuff was en article of trade and
commerce, to which the defendant was not entitled, under
Lis contract as parish dustman, and on the other hand, it was
argued that it fell within that description of rubbish to which
he was entitled.—The Lord Chief Baron told the jury
that the defendant was not entitled to claim " wash dirt"
under his contract if they were of opinion that it was a sub-
ject of sale for the purposes of commerce or manufacture.
The jury adopted that suggestion and found for the plaintiff.
—The le irned counsel submitted that as Mr. Eli, admitted
that wash dirt was mere refuse, and composedamongat other
stuff of the contents of the ash pits, it became the property
of the defendant by virtue of his contract ; and even Mr.
Ellis had no right to sell it or give it to his servants as • per-
quisite.—The court thought the points were properly left to
the jury and that the verdict should not be disturbed. The
-'- refused.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
Before Dr. Lushington.
THE CHRISTINA.—TowAos.—This was a suit commenc,
by the owners of a steam tug against the Christina for 81.
earned by towing the barque from the Lower Hope to the
City Canal, in Limehouse Reach. The Lass of Gowrie the
tug in question, performed the service up to the Rach,
when she threw off the rope and the Christina ran foul of
the Mary Clarke a collier lying at the buoy at the entrance
of the canal. The owners of the Christina refused the claim,
and contended that the cause of the collision was the fault of
the tug.—Dr. Addams and Dr. Twins appeared for the tug,
and stated that the fault lay with the pilot, who, after the
rope. was thrown off, ought to have ported the helm of the
Christina and gone to the westward, by which the collision
would not bare taken place. The pilot, too had ordered
the towage to commence before daylight, contrary
to the express rules of the Trinity House. The
Queen's Advocate and Dr. Jenner for the Christina
submitted that as the orders of the pilot were not obeyed,
the tug bad no right to compensation. The learned judge
held that there was an implied contract that the tug should
take the brig safely to her destination ; and owing to the
throwing off of the rope, contrary to the orders of the pilot,
the claim to compensation could not be entertained. Claim
dismissed with costs.
THE OSCAR.—SALVAOI3.—This was a cue of salvage per-
formed to the Oscar on the 3rd of September last, in getting
her in Yarmouth harbour. The action was entered at the
sum of 5001. The evidence was most contradictory, as usual
in very many cases of this description. There were two sets
of salvors, the Oscar having &rat been run into midships in
the Wold, when the aid of a steamer was signalised for and
obtained. One plea was that the captain was intoxicated,
but this was distinctly denied. The arguments in this cause
were only in part heard.
Assignations were subsequently disposed of.
SHERIFF'S COURT.
Before Mr. Undereheriff Borchelt.
SMITH AND Win V. PITT.—COMTENBATIoN TOR DUCAT
DONE BY DRIVINO.—This was a writ of inquiry to assess
damages in an action to recover compensation for injuries
sustained by this plaintiff, Mrs. Smith, by reason of the de-
fendant's conduct. The circumstances out of which this
cue arose have already been reported in the Express.
The defendant, the Hon. Horace Pitt,, a major in the army,
and brother to Lord Rivers, was driving to the Nine Elms
railway station, and while passing over Vauxhall-bridge his
vehicle came into violent collision with a chaise-cart in which
were the plaintiffs. The consequence was, that great per-
sonal injuries were sustained by both Mr. Smith and his
wife, and serious damage done to the cart. Mr. Smith
brought an action in his own name to recover compensation,
which he did to the extent of 801, and the present action
was brought by him jointly with his wife, to recover for the
personal suffering endured by the latter. The same evidence
as given on the former trial was again gone into, and the
jury awarded Mrs. Smith 301.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commissioner Yaw.
IN RE COATEB AND HILLARD, AMERICAN MERCHANTS.
—These bankrupts were American merchants, of Bread-
street, Cheapside, end other places, and this was a meeting
for the choice of auig sees. The failure, including claims by
the American creditors, amounts to about 70,0001., and to
meet this sum it was understood that there was about 6,0001.
worth of assets in this country, and about 14,0001. in Ame-
rica. Several proofs were tendered, including one by Mr.
Peabody of 8,0001.—Mr. Reed objected to this proof, on the
ground that it required investigation, and that he became
possessed of certain securities under circumstances which
would require explanation.—The learned commissioner or-
dered the proof to stand over. Debts to the extent of about
42,0001. were proved during the day, and the assignees
chosen nitre Mr. John Dillon, Mr. Twentyman, Mr.
Browitt, aud Mr. Baker, of the firm of Baker, Tucker,
and Co.
- -

WESTMINSTED.C.M C
oshe, Esq. OUNTY COURT.
Before
PROCTER O. GRUISTONE.—GRIMBTONE.B Eye EINII7P.—
In this cue the plaintiff, a snuff and tobacco manufacturer,
sued the defendant, the inventor of " eye muff," for
61. 17s. Sid., for, according to the plaint note, " goods
sold and delivered."—Mr. Roberts, for the defendant, on the
cue being called on, took en objection to the form of action,
on the round that it was brought " for goods sold and deli-
, vered,' when it should have been " for money bad and re-
ceived," Mr. Procter seeking to recover back the value of
goods ld by Grintstane, and returned by the former to the
latter.— -The plaintiff's clerk amid the goods were returned