The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-04 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 4, 1848.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER
TILIAL AT 9.41.--6eerre Baron. Parke, hone, and Platt.
TOR ATTORNET-ORNERAL e. HALUITT.—FOREST OE
WALTHAM.—INTRUSION ON FORESTAL It Op CROWN.
—This was an information filed by the Attorney-Generi 1, :n
which the defendant was charged wills infringing on the
royal forest of Waltham, by encloaing a certain vr, od
therein, called Knighton Wood with a fence and ditch. The
defendant pleaded that the wood in question was not part
and parcel of the (west —The Attorney-General stated the
ease on behalf of the crown, which he said} had appeared to
him to las one of sufficient importance to require the tecu-
liar and solemn tribunal in which the jury were now
assembled." It regard. d the Rghta of the public, through the
crown, and it was the duty of the Woods and Forests, to
which office the jurisdiction of the ancient Chief Justice
in Eyre had been transferred under the 57 Geo. 111., c. 61,
and 'lO Geo. IV., c. 50, to take care that those rights were
not encroached upon by persons in the situation of the
defendant, who, having bought a freehold estate of seventy-
threo acres le the parish of Woodford, within the forest,
in 1843, had proceeded to enclose that portion of his purchase
called Knighton Wood, consisting of about 50 acres, in the
tanner objected to by the crown. The plea of the defend-
ant raised two queetiens—flat, was this wood within the
ambit of the forest of Waltham ; and next, if an, was it sub-
Jett to forestal rights t It might be admitted that there
were mesas manors within a forest, and freehold lands,
which, however, were subject to forestal rights. Over these
lands the owners exercised a restricted con'rol, for they could
not enclose them bodily, so as to restrain the deer from re-
sorting to them, nor could they grub the wood up and culti-
vate them—nor could the
p. y build on them—as appears from
alanweied's Forest Law, 304. That being so, it was the
duty of the crown to show that this wood was in the ambit
of the forest, and subject to the forest law. This would be
done most clearly by ancientgrants and perambulations. The
first document would trace this property up to 1062,
when Harold granted it to the Abbey of Holy Cross at
Waltham, th..t grant being confirmed by Edward the Con•
(emir. The name of Woodford, as was natural, would ap-
pear to have arisen from a ford in a wood, and the road now
existed on this wood on which the ford occurred, a bridge
ing now erected. Doemsday-book also mentions the
wood as one in " Woodford Walk," which was in the centre
of the forest, and an ancient map would show its exert po-i-
-lion. Besi. es this, " perambulations " would show that it
was within the forest, which comprised twelve eutire
parishes and parts of nine others in Essex. The next ques-
tion would be whethe r this wood was subject to forestal
right., and on that subject it would he proved that Richard 1.
in 1198, granted to the abbot of holy Crow the privilege of
cultivating thirty-two acres of land at Woodford, while
Edward 1., in 1276, conferred on the abbot the privilege of
enclosing a part of the forest in Woodford with • low he ge
and little ditch, so that " the beasts of the fore et "
might leap over while cattle were excluded. In a
subsequent reign • right was granted to the abbot of
" hunting the hare, the wolf, and wild cat," in Emit, and
of not cutting the feet of the dogs; while in 1631 a worthy
knight, named Sir Tuby Cage, w.a prosecuted and lined for
keeping a gun in his house at Woodford and shooting in
Woodford, the same not being a musket for the defence of
the realm. Then, again, in 1630, a gentleman named
Holden claimed a tight of way over " Knighton Weed in the
forest," and ollier elocume nts would clearly show that this
wood was treated as being part of the forest. It was devised
by one party, "o' serving the forest laws. ' N. at, permis-
sion to alien it was recorded, and one person was actually
tined for inch sing it with a high fence and digging a deep
ditch, so that the venison could not range over it ; arid, if
anything were wanting to prove this issue fir the crown, it
would be supplied by tho conditions of sale under
which the defendant purchased, the wood being
there described as " forest land." Besides these
decuinents, however, m.,ny witne,ses would prove
that this wood had ever been treated as part of
the forest; for it would be s hewn that it was a favourite re-
, Wit of the Asir, which arc frequently shot there, and holly
and other trees had been cut there Sul beet." tinder these
circumstances, he, theAttorney-General, felt justified in saying
that this was an undefended cause, and he was confident
' that the jury would gladly give their 'verdict for the crown,
the only object of there proceedings being the vindication of
the public property from private encroachments. A vast
body of documentary evidence was then gone into in support
of this statement, and at 6 o'clock the further hearing of the
case was postponed till to-day.
Ntol Pares, at Cuildtiali.—"- •

—.......—8ef0re the Chief Baron and a Common
Jury.
TATTERSALL V. ORANT.—EDITORIAL ENOAOEYENTri.
The plaintiff in this cue, Mr. Tattersall, is son of the indi-
vidual of that name so well known in the sporting world.
e defendant is Mr. Grant, the bookseller, of Bt. Paul's
Churchyard, and for some time proprietor of the Era news-
paper, and the action was brought to recover twelve months'
salary, at the rate of twelve guineas per week, alleged to be
duo under the circumstances stated by the learned counsel.
The defendant having become proprietor of the Era in the
month of May,1846, an engagement was entered into, by which
the plaintiff agreed to undertake the editorship and general
superintendence of the sporting department of the journal at
a salary of twelve guineas a week, subject to the following
deductions. The plaintiff was to pay one guinea a week to
the repor er of cricket news, 11. 10s. • week to the reporter
of yachting intelligence, and a certain sum to a person to be
employed in taking the time of the running at the principal
horse races. Should the business of the sporting depart.
ment turn out heavier than the plaintiff could properly
undertake he stipulated to engage and pay for the assist-
ance of a subeditor in that department. Amongst the stipu-
lations of the agreement was this, that the plaintiff should
weekly furnish the Era with two columns of original matter
on sporting affairs. Under this agreement the plaintiff con-
tinued to oischarat the dutiee of sporting i dicer till about the
pet iod of the 0 oodw3od races in the same year. In the interval,
however, the defendant had ceased to be the proprietor of
the Lea, which was transferred to Mr. Strutt. • solicitor.
Mr. Strutt, on examining into its affairs, was of opinion that
the literary department was paid for too extravagantly, and
be accordingly introduced a new system of remuneration,
the result of which was that the plaintiff'smilary was reduced
to the sum of five guineas • week, at the same time Mr.
Harrison, the previous sporting editor of the paper, better
known by his sporting titl, of " Vette," was associated with
I him in the editorship of the sporting department. The
plaintiff and " Yates" both attended the Goodwood meet-
ing, and both gentlemen it appeared forwarded accounts of
the races to the office of the paper. In the succeeding number
that of " Yates" was inserted, and the plaintiff considering
that this was a gross invasion of editorial privilege, immedi-
ately discontinued his contribution!, and commenced the
present action.—Mr. Horace Mayhew and other witneues
having proved the original engagement between the plaintiff
and defendant,
Mr. Martin addressed the jury for the defendant, contend-
ing that the plaintiff, by his craning to send in to the paper
the stipulated contributions, after the occasion of the Good-
wood meeting referred to, had discharged himself, and that,
under any circumstance., he could only recover under the
second engagement—that entered into with Mr. Stratt—
which was at the rive of five guineas • week, subject to a
week's notice.
Mr. Strutt was called, and supported the statement of
the learned counsel, stating that on his becoming connected
with the Era he had effected a considerable reduction in
the salaries paid, as well on account of their extravagant rate
as that there was a considerable decline in the circulation of
the paper.—Mr. Miles, the sporting subeditor, who had
joined the journal about the same time as the plaintiff, said
that berme the plaintiff went down to the Goodwood meet-
ing he had told witness that he should not return to the
Bra as editor. Witness also stated that the plaintiff had on
one occation previously a.ked him to join him in purchasing
a newspaper called the Englittli Gentleman, and assist
in
making it a sporting paper.
Mr. Ledger, the printer, stated that the plaintiff bad been
most irregular in turnishing his copy, and during the
Goodwood races some of it came so late that it could not be
used, and • portion of it was merely the list distributed on
the racecourse.—ln cross examination, he added that he had
returned tee plaintiff's "copy " of the account of the Good
wood meeting, intimating that he had done so as he had
been informed by the rub-editor that it was not plaintiff's
intention to report the races, and because he (witness) had
already received another account.
The jury, after • brief consultation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff for a week's work and a week's notice, at the
rate of five guineas, making the damages 10 guineas.

EXCHEQUER.—JUDOES• CHAMBERS.
Before Mr. Baron Platt.
Russin.t. V. JONES.—PRIVILEOE OF BARRISTERS FROM
ARREST WHILST RETURNING FROM PRACTISING IN A
COUNTY COURT.—Th this case an application was made be-
fore Mr. Baron Platt, at chambers, by Mr.Philp,an attorney
acting on the part of the defendant, a barrister, to show
cause why the defendant should not be discharged out of
custody of the sheriffs of London, in this and several other
actions upon which the defendant had been detained, on
the ground that the defendant, at the time of the arrest, was
protected by his privilege as a barrister. It appeared that
the defendant, on Thursday last, having received a brief to
appear as counsel before Mr. Clive, the judge of the South-
wark County Court, had been in attendance there accord-
ingly, and whilst on his return from the court to his resi-
dence, he was passing through the City towards Holborn-
' hill, when he was arrested by one of the officers of the
sheriffs of London, upon a writ of ca. sa. for 451., issued at
the suit of the plaintiff, and conveyed to Whitecross prison,
when, on searching the office, it was found that then:
were several other detainers against him ; and,
although the defendant claimed hie privilege, the
Secondaries refused the discharge. On the part of
the defendant it was cond that, iasmuch
as the Southwark County Courtwales tablishedn by the
9 & 10 Vic., cap. 95, and was a court of record, and so re-
I cognised by the courts at Westminster, a barrister practising
and appearing in those courts at the lime of the sitting of
the court, under the provisions of the act, was entitled to the
same privileges, and protected from arrest in going to and
returning from such court, in the same mar nee aa a bar-
rister was privileged from arrest whilst attending in either
of the superior courts at Westminster during the sittings of
those courts.—Mr. Eady, for the plaintiff, contended, contra,
that the defendant was not privileged, and that a county
court was not a court to which the meaning of the pri-
vilege was intended to apply, and that it did not extend to
any case unless it was shown that the defendant was in
actual attendance at Westminster. " Newton v. Constable"
(2 Q. B. Rep., p. 166).—The learned Baron said the only
doubt he had on his mind was, whether the defendant was
entitled to be discharged upon the other detainers. A ease
of a similar nature had occurred before Mr. Justice Pat
*son, and, after consulting the judges, they were of opinion
that be was. There could be no doubt that the county court
was a court of record, and that a barrister bona fide attend-
ing such court was privileged from arrest ; and therefore, in
I this case, the defendant was entitled to be discharged as to
all the actions upon which he was detained. The Lensed
judge made the order accordingly, the defendant not tobeing
any action against the sheriff, and without oats.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. (Xxemiestaner Shepherd.
J. C. WFIPPIIItT'B BANKRUPTCY.—This WU the first
J. for proof of debts and choice of assignees in the case
of J. C. Weippert, music seller, of Soho-square. Note single
creditor appearing to prove his debt, the choice or anigneea
was. at the instance of tdr. Sturgeon, who appeared for the
bankrupt, adjourned till the next meeting. The debts are
said not to exceed 5001. oe 6001•

!NTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

aligns Gi•

MAItII4O FALBI6 CIIAROEB OP FORGERT.— Gir-
dleSiOrit and Char/es Swan were indicted with John Sawn.
ders, who surrendered, for unlawfully and maliciously con-
epiriog together to make a false charge of forgery against
three gentlemen, named Francis and James M•Gowran and
Barton, with intent to injure them and subject them to the
penalties of that offence.—The present indictment arose out
of some proceedings in this court at the May session, when
the above named gentlemen, who now appeared as pro.ccia-
tors, were indicted for having forged the will of Fran-
cis hi•Glowran, the father of the two gentlemen
of that name, sod upon that occasion when the defendants
appeared in court to answer:the charge, the witnesses on the
back of the bill, wbo were the present defendants, did not
come forward, and, after waiting for some time, the court
ordered their recognisance to be entreated, and the defend-
ants were acquitted, the learned judge who disposed of the
case at the same time giving directions that a copy of the
indictment should be given ti them as a step to ulterior pro-
ceedings, and in the rssult the present indictment was pre
tarred against the Faties now accused. Mr. Francis
M'Oliwran, the testator, whose will formed the principal
subject of the inquiry, was a gentleman of turtune, living in
the Wandsworth-road, his family consisting of two eons,
Francis and James ; two daughters and a niece.
This niece mania; the defendant Girilleetone, and
it seemed that he by the union expected considerable pecu-
niary advintage, and his dieappointment in this respect no
doubt led to his subsequent proceedings. Mr. Barton, it
appeared, in 18-11 was courting one of the daughters of Mr.
MtGowran. and he eventually married her. The testator
died in the same year, and by his will his niece became enti-
tled to a life interest in some property in Webber-row,
Southwark ; but, as it evidently appeared, in consequence
of the ill-treatment she had experienced from Girdlestone
her husband, her uncle desired that he should be deprived
from all personal interest in the property, and a reversion of
the interest in it was given to the children. From that pe-
riod to the occurrence which formed the subject of the pre-
eu nt inquiry, it seemed that Girdlestone had done all that
was in his power to annoy the executors, the Messrs. M•Gow-
ran, but he was dtkat.d in all his legal proceedings,
although it appeared that in one suit he had in-
flicted costs upon them to the amount of 3001.,
and after repeated demands for money he at length, it seems,
resolved upon adopting the step to charge them with having,
in conjunction with thee brother-in-lave Mr. Barton, forged
the will in question, the forgery consisting in their having,
as they alleged, taken away some of the sheets from the will
while it was in the charge of the authorities at Doctors'
Commune, and substituted others in their place. The evi-
dence now adduced proved in the clearest possible manner
the utter groundlessness of the charge so made. The will
was clearly traced from the moment when the testator first
gave his instructions to a conveyancer named Eldridge to
prepare it, Mr. Barton, who is himself a senator, having
from feelings of eelicacy arising from his pri jetted alliance
with the family declined, upon being applied to by the
testator, to do so, until the probate was engrossed,
and it was finally deposited in the strong room
at Doctors' Commons, and every one of the wit-
nines stated positively that it was in precisely the
same condition at the present time, and that no altera-
tion had been made in it. It was likewise shown by the
evidence of a highly respectable professional gentleman,
named Hooper, that some time before the testator bad given
him instructions to prepare a will of a characti r precisely
similar to the ono that he eventually executed, with the
difference only that in the latter the prom rly that was left to
the wife of the defendant Girdlestone was entinly taken out
of the control of the husband, and the reversion vested in
the children ; and the important fact also appeared, that
under the will which was alleged to be a forgery, those who
were accused of committing the offence took no greater in-
terest than they would otherwise have been entitled
to. The evidence against the defendants went to
establish these facts, and it was shown that Swan and
Girdlestone were both sworn and examined before the
grand jury in support of the charge of forging the will, and
that they had also made declarations before a magistrate, in
which they stated that they had heard the originil will read
at the house of the deceased, and that it contained a clause
giving the property in question absolutely to the wile of
Girdlestone, and that when they saw tile will at Doctors'
Commons, they immediately detected the forgery, It also
appeared that upon obtaining a true bill, Swan and Girdle-
stone proceeded to Hammersmith, where the Messrs.
Mg:lowan resided, and placed them in the custody of an
officer, and thy were confined in Newgate for forty-
eight hours before they could take the necessary steps'
to be trailed before • judge. In addition to these facts, it
was shown that Oirdlestone took a brief for the prosecution
on the clarge of forgery to the chambers of Mr. Huddle-
stone, the barrister, and upon that gentleman refusing to
receive it unless it came through an attorney, Girdlestone
took it away, and afterwards returned it with the forged '
signature of an attorney attached to it. The evidence against
Saunders was not of so conclusive a character as that against
the other two defendants ; but it was shown that he had at.
tended with them as a witness before the grand jury, that
his name was upon the back of the bill, and that he had on
several occasions been in company with them during the
transaction.
The Recorder, at the close of the ease for the prosecution, '
expressed his opinion that whatever suspicion there might be
as to the share that Saunders had taken in the transaction,
he did not think that there was sufficient legal evidence
against him to call upon him for an answer, and he theretore
directed the jury to acquit him.
Tho other defendants, on being called upon for their
defence, merely denied that they had made a false charge.
The Recorder asked them whether they had any evi-
dence to show that there was the slightest ground for the
charge they had made ? The other defendant, Saunders,
had been acquitted, and they might call him if they pleased
as a witness, if they thought he could help them.
The defendants declined to do so.
The Recorder then summed up, and observed that it
appeared perfectly clear from the evidence that there was
not the slightest ground for the charge of having altered or
committ.d my forgery upon the will in question, and the
only point for the jury to decide was whether the two de-
fendants had eonspired to make that false charge, knowing
it to to false and without foundation.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.
The Recorder, in passing sentence, said that the de-
fendants had been convicted upon the clearest and must,
satisfactory evidence of one of the foulest conspiracies
against the character and reputation and the liberty of re-
spectable parties that he bad ever heard of. They had put
in motion the criminal law of the country to nasty their
own vengeance, and had attempted to crush innocent per-
sons by the weight of that law for their own vindictive pur•
poen. Happily they had not succeeded, and the attempt
would recoil upon themselves. Their offence was classed as
a misdemeanor, but in his opinion it left upon them the
taint of telo• y, and he considered their conduct had ren-
dered them utterly infamous and unworthy of belief for the
rest of their lives, as it could not be forgotten that they
must have committed perjury in order to carry out the
crime of which they had been convicted. The learned
iudge then sentenced them to be imprisoned for two years.

POLICE.—YEsTERDAY.
BOW-STREET.—ROBBERY RV A CLERK IN THE Or.
NERAL POST OFFICE—Robert Iflyan, a clerk in the inland
department of the General Post-office, was charged with
stealing two letters containing cash, the property of the Post-
master•general. About six o'clock in the morning the pri-
soner was engaged in opening the bags to dispose of them to
the different sorters, and he was observed by. Forbes, one of
the messengers, on opening the bag which arrived from Scar-
borough, to lay two letters aside, apparently among the re-
gistered letters•, but when he delivered up the registered let
ter, to the clerk, the two is question were not among them.
Tie prisoner then pretended to return to his table, but is
stead of doing so he went to the water-closet, and the cir-
cumstance was immediately communicated to one of the pre-
sidents. One of the letters was directed to the editor of the
News of
-thee, and the other to Edward Tatham, 5,
Americasq Tower-hill, and bore the Scarboro' post
mark, but not flint of the inland office, which should have
been the case.—Mr. Hodd, a president, proved that he fol-
lowed the prisoner down stairs, and finding the door of the
water-eoset fastened he went to the next one ; he got over
the partition and unbolted the do,,r, and took away the pri-
soner, while Peake, the constable, secured the letters.—The
primmer, who is respectably connected, declined saying any-
thing in his defence, and lie .. as ordered to be remanded.
WESTMINSTER.-11I0HWAY ROBBERV.—J. Harris
was finally examined, charged with highway robbery.—Mrs.
Ellen Day stated that on the evening of the 24th ult., she
was crossing over from Queen-street, past North. street,
Chelsea, when she suddenly felt a violent tug at a bag she
had on her left arm, and on turning round saw the prisoner
endeavouring to pull it away from her. She caught hold of
the bag with her right hand, in order to retain posaession of
it, but the prisoner pulled it so violently that in the struggle
she was thrown down on the ground twice, and the prisoner
having ultimately succeeded in forcing the bag awa from
her, ran off with it. The prosecutrix was so seriously in-
jured by the falls that she was confined to her bed for some
days, and unable to appear against the prisoner until now.—
The prisoner was pursued and captured by Policeman Wal-
lace, who found the hag, containing a 51. note, 51. in gold
and silver, a handkerchief, and some other articles, on his
person.—The accused was committed for trial.
SOUTHWARK.—Ma. CORBETT AND THE GOVERNOR
Or THE CallEEN'd Punios.—Mrs. Cobbett, the wife of Mr.
Wiliam Cobbett, who has been so many times before the
public in his actions against Capt. Hudson, the governor of
the Queen's Prison, atiended to make application for a war-
rant against the latter gentleman for an alleged assault upon
her husband. The applicant stated that her husband had
been for some months incarcerated in the Queen's Prison
Until lately he had been placed in that portion of the prison
allotted to first-elsas debtors; but, owing to some freak of
the governor, he was removed to a place less convenient.
Application was made to that court, se well as the Queen's
Bench, to remedy the unjust treatment, without effect, and
her husband was kept for a long tune in his uncomfortable
quarters. Much to his surprise he was a few days ego
again removed to another part, much worse than say he had
been confised in. Great brutality was used to force him
there, and her present application was for • warrant against
Capt. Hudson for the assault, as she considered he had no
right to place him in such a desolate part of the prison.—
Mr. Sakes said that he could not assist has in her present