The Express.
London, England, 1847-08-02 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, AUG. 2, 1847.

nese tiankrupta who *ere date merchants st Stratford,
estne up for and paned their lastexamisstion without opposi-
tian,—E•, DusW, of Ards, WO of Wight, hairdresser, had
his eertiticots suspended for six months, with protection, on
the ground of not baying kept a sub hook.

WESTMINSTER COUNT
rWLEsinY COURT.—SATUADAT.
Before D. C. Wo, Sedge.
AlltilLOLT:-Tllll RIOitT HON. VZIOMIT BORT v. Cs nn.
—This was an action to recover thionethm, which ware laid
at 201.—the extent of the jurisdiction II the court-6r an
assault. It hew the ninon he the plaintiff
that he (LardVlsattrastosi hymns Mho re in
the shop whim the ilininf, a veneer, in Jermyn-
Myrrh witlwag the gin whoa, Rhilliortteimer inspection
that the whin wen net Wine, In told the de-
(cadent therms net wok as he wend, that he wished
to know if Om defendant had WOW eta better quality. The
hthadeat wend that he had not ; they were good enough
at the rein The plaintiff replied that it was not
(peados of price; he wanted • better article, not
trumpery . things of that kind. The defendant said.
"Trumpery, intend; you are a trumpery fellow, and I
desire you will quit my shop." His lordship made some
observation on the offensive and uncalled-for nature of the
defendant's reply, upop which the defendant, more excited
still, threatened to turn him out of the shop, and actually
desired his boy to go for a policeman. His lordship quietly
waited in the shop fur the boy's return, and seeing a police-
man approaching, and supposing this was the constable who
had been sent for, he went out and explained to the con-
stable what had passed. The policeman accompanied hint
back to the defendant's shop, and his lordship went in to re-
monstrate in the presence of the constable with the de-
fendant on the impropriety of his conduct, upon which the
defendant rushed from behind the counter to where kis lord-
ship stood, and laying his hands suddenly upon him, without
saying a word, he thrust him violently backwards out of the
shop into the road.—The defendant attempted to palliate his
conduct, and to show that he had some grounds f,r t' e pro-
ceedings he bad taken.—The learned judge considered
the defendant's conduct was wholly inexcusable. In the
exercise of a just discretion, he felt he could not do otherwise
than give judgment against the defendant for the whole
of the emowit at which the damages were laid.—Mr. Chas.
Dad, whe Ira professionally retained for Lord Bury, stated
to the wen that it was needless to explain that his lordship
had hen cubs anima in the course he • had pursued by it
dant to leash the defendant a useful lesson. His lordship
fin hat taws weld frequently occur where complainants
mall haver duke to put damages into their own pockets,
and that, es many instances must come under his Honour's
notice where great poverty and distress existed on both sides,
and where the court must have, in consequence, very painful
duties to perform, his lordship begged that the 201. damages
might he considered as placed by him at his Honour's dis-
pool, and he trusted it would prove the first contribution
towards a charitable fend, which would help to soften his
Honour's more painful task, by enabling hint to offer pecu-
niary aid or relief in deserving cases. Mr. Bad added, he
felt the utmost pleasure in communicating his lordship's
IPicral request; and his Honour expressed his unqualified
satin/action at assenting to the proposal.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD CIRCUIT.--11EREroRn, JVLY 30.

CIVIL enw..--Befure Mr. Justice Coleridge.
At the rising of the court last evening, at half-past six, the
whole of the causes had been disposed of.
MASTER. AND SERVANT, UNCLE AND Niece.—Puce r.
MATTHEWS.—This was an action of assumpsit brought by
Hester Price against her uncle, upon an implied contract to
remunerate her for services rendered as servant and house-
keeper. The action had been commenced so far back as the
year 1813. There were several counts in the declaration ;
but the course of pleading left only one issue to
be decided—namely, the liability of the defendant
to pay. Mr. Greases (with Mr. Yenables) appeared
for the plaintiff; Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Hooper
represented the defendant. Previous to the year 1842 it was
proved that the plaintiff was in the habit, from time to
time, of visiting the defendant. In February, in that year, ,
a son of the defendant requested the plaintiff to attend upon
his mother, who was than lying ill, and who died shortly
afterwards. After ber decease the plaintiff still continued
a resident in the house of the defendant, and attended to its
management up to the close of the year. Fur this period of
service the claim in question sus made. It was contended,
on the part of the defendant, that no contract of the kind
ever existed, or was contemplated on either side. The plain.
tiff, u a relative and friend of the family, had only rendered
such services as gratitude for past kindness, and the
ties of consanguinity would require, and that the proceedings
since the action was commenced, in 1843, showed that she
had never contemplated requiring compensation for services.
The present claim was entirely groundless.—Mr. Justice
Coleridge, in summing up, minutely remarked on the evi•
dente adduced in support of the plaintiff's claim, and left It
to the jury to say whether the relation of muter and servant
ever existed, and whether there was any implied contract
to compensate for the time expended.—The jury consulted
fora lengthened period, and after being locked up found
at length a verdict for the defendant.
In the Crown Court, before Mr. Justice Erie, so ease has
occurred to-day worthy of a report. The grand jury ignored
the bill against Lucy Powell, charged with the wilful mar-
, der of her child. The business of the usises was brought to
a clue fleetly at half-put three.
The commission will be opened to-morrow at Monmouth.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.--Trawien, JULY 30.
Nisi calm—Before Mr. Junk. eattesol.
BREACH OF COVENANT FOR QUIET ENJOYMENT.—YouNo
AND ANOTHER F. RAUCOCIL—Mr. Andrews, Q.C., Mr.
Serjeaut Byles, Mr. O'Malley, and Mr. WorHedge were
counsel for the plaintiffs, who sued as the executors of a Mr.
H. S. Young, to recoverdamages for the breach of a covenant
for the quiet enjoyment of a house sold to their testator by
the defendant and his wife. From the evidence it appeared
that the house, which is situated in Bury, devolved on the
defendant's wife, as heir-at-law of her mother, Mrs.
Anne Hopley, who died in 1827, leaving a will, inoperative
for passing real property, because not sufficiently attested.
In the year 1811, the defendant and his wife agreed to sell
the house to the testator of the plaintiffs for the sum of
3751. After an investigation of the title, certain defects of a
formal nature were discovered, which led, on the completion
of the purchase, to tha entering by the defendant into a
bond of indemnity, in addition to the similar covenant usual
in purehaee-deeds, against all personselaiming under the de-
fendant, or Anne Hopley, from whom he professed to derive
title. The testator, Mr. Young, had occasion shortly after-
wards to raise money, and he handed to his solicitor the
title deeds of the property which had been purchased from
the defendant, in order thatthe sufficiencyof that property for
securing the loan might be ascertained. The defects mentioned
were again pointed out; the importance of them was affirmed
by an eminent counsel in London, and the testator deter-
mined on taking steps for settling his doubts. Ti,e result of
certain inquiries instituted by Mr. Samuel Young, the
testator's brother, was, that Mr. Peter Hopley, a blacksmith
in Cheshire, turned out to be the real heir-at-law of Anne
Hopley. After some interviews with Mr. Rol:4y had taken
place, Mr. Samuel Young received instructions to bring eject-
ment against the testator. Those instructions were com-
plied with, but the conduct of the cause was soon afterwards
transferred to Mr. Walker, a solicitor at Chester. The
testator gave notice to the defendant that he might, if he
pleased, defend the action of ejectment. That notice was
not acted on by the defendant; and the testator had to de-
fend unsuccessfully the ejectment, an action for means pro-
fits, and an action of detinue for the recovery of the title
deeds, of which latter two also notice had been given to
the defendant. This action was then brought on tho cove-
nant in the deed, and the plaintiffs sought to recover thereby
not only the purchase money of the house and the costs of the
several actions, but the costs of the original conveyance to
their testator, and the value of certain remits done to the
house out of which he had eventually been turned. Wit-
nesses were celled who proved the facts above stated, and
also the special damage; the evidence of the repairs being
objected to on the ifround that the expense of doing
them was not within the provision of the covenant,
and the learned judge himself intimating a doubt whether
the expense of the conveyance was included thereis. Mr.
Prendergast, with whom were Mr. Daunt and Mr. Couch,
for the defendant, then opened that the action of ejectment
and the consequential actions had been brought at the insti-
gation and by the procurement of the testator, and that the
wife of the defendant was in fact the heicat-law of Anne
Hopley. In support of the last proposition a recital in the
deed of convey aims to the same effect was relied on; but the
learned judge was of opinion that it amounted to nothing
against the purchaser under that deed, though it would bind
the vendor, and might bind the purchaser also, should he in his
turn become a vendor of that property. In support of the Bist
proposition, it was shown that Peter Hopley had become
aware of his rights through Mr. Samuel Young, the testa-
tor's brother; that there had been an agreement between
Peter Hopley and the testator for the purchase of the house
by the latter, after the itermination of the action of eject-
ment; and that Peter Hopley had stayed at the house of the
testator, at Bury, pending the action in ejectment. In cross-
examination, however, it was proved that ail the legal pro-
ceedings had been conducted hostilely, and the jary, under
the ection of the learned judge, found a verdict for the
plaintiffs in respect of every item claimed; with damages-9001.
JULY 31.
_ _

VYBB V. THE EASTERN UNION RAILWAY COMPANY
AND WILLIAMS.—ASSAULT NY A SUPERINTENDENT OP
RAILWA.T POLICE.—MT. PTOOdSTESAV, Mr. Dement, and Mr.
O'Malley were counsel for the plaintiff, who sought to reco-
ver damages for three distinct assaults, alleged to have been
made on him with great violence by the defendant Williams,
on the 30th of May last. The defendants denied the assault',
and then put on the record three sets of pleas, which in sub-
stance set upthe answers—l. That the plaintiff had obstructed
the defendant Williams, he being an officer of the company,
in the execution of his duty at the Ipswich station of the
Eastern Union Railway Company, and therefore bad been
removed from the station. 2. net the plaintiff had been
in a state of intoxication at the Ipswich station, and therefore
had been removed from it ; and 3. That he had been a
wilful trespasser on the premises of the company, end there-
fore had lean removed which removals constituted the
assaults complained of. From the evidence adduced
on behalf of the plaintiff it appeared that he was
the conductor of the omnibus which, in pursuance of
I an strangement with the railway company, Is sent by the
proprietor of the White Horse Hotel, at Ipswich, to meet
each train. On the morning of the 30th of May the plain-
tiff acted se driver of the omnibus. He was quite sober when
he relished the station, and, after he had backed the omnibus
against the platform at the place assigned to it, got down
from the box to await the train. Shortly afterwards the
defendant Williams, who is the superintendent of
the police at the station, beckoned the plaintiff to
him, and, on his approaching nearer, mewed him of hav-
ing been drunk at the station on the previous evening.
rhe plaintiff denied that he had been drunk, and attar an
interchange otacerationa and denials told WDliams hat to

tell stories of him. On this Williarakeollsred the plaintiff,
and peaked him off the platform with such violence that he
fell to the ground and sprained his thumb. Whets on the
ground the plaintiff—so Laid two witnesses, who, however,
were not confirmed by the others—was kicked by Williams'. I
When the plaintiff got up, Williams ordered a police con-
stable,
earned Trustee., to remove him from the premises of
the company. Truelove according) y took the plaintiff by the
arm, and haling led him to the highway left him there.
The plaintiff sat down on the road for a short time, end
then went to a neighbouring beerhouse by a path which
skirts the premises of the railway station, and is not, though
formerly it was, separated from those premises he any fence.
As he was going up the path he was seen by Williams, who
at once ordered Truelove to take him again into custody,
and to the statiov-house, and to tell the superintendent there
that he (Williams) would attend to prefer a charge against
the plaintiff. This order was executed ; Williams did prefer
a charge; the plaintiff was bailed by the owner of the beer-
house ' • the charge was heard the next day, and it was dis-
missed by the magistrates. From the day on which the plaintiff
was bailed to the present time none of the railway porters or
constables have been permitted to go to the beer-house,
though previously it had been much frequented by them.
Mr. Serjeant Byles (with whom was Mr. ltodwell) contended,
for the defence, that the plaintiff had been drunk and
insolent; that he had been properly removed in the (trot
instance, because he was obstructing the °SCE'S is the exe-
cution cf his duty, and it was a substantive offence for any
one to be on the station in a state of intoxication ; and that,
on the second giving into custody, the plaintiff was a tree-
passer, b:cause he bad returned after having been removed,
and was not on the path when apprehended. Witnesses were
than called to make out this case, and all contradicted the state-
ment that the plaintiff had been kicked when on the ground.
Mr. Prendergast having replied, Mr. Justice Pattison left it
to the jury to say whether the defendaqta bad made out their
pleas of justification. It did not spar to him that the
plaintiff had in any way obstructed or impeded the defend-
ant, Williams, in the execution of his duty. As to the tres-
pass, it was clear that the plaintiff bad not been a wilful
trespasser in the first instance, because he was on the station
in pursuance of an arrangement between the company
and his master. He might possibly :eve been a trespas-
ser on the second occuion; but then the defendant, Williams,
was not the owner of the soil, and the fact that he was the
servant of the company did not show his authority to remove
by force a trespasser on the company's soil, any more than a
similar fact would show a corresponding authority in the
menial servant of a private gentleman. There remained
then the question of drunkenness. To be drunk on the sta
tion was an offence against the company's set and by-laws,
and therefore if they thought that the plaintiff had been
drunk on this occasion they would find a verdict for the
defendants. With regard to the damages, the kicking was
not made the subject of complaint, and therefore no damages
could be given in respect of it, even if the jury should think
that it had taken place, which he did not think. The jury
retired for about an hour and a half, and then gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, with damages 51. This sum carries the
costa under the County Courts Act.

WESTERN CIRCUIT—BODMIN, JULT 31.
C.C.Var. —Or Cote Chief Insiky

FOOD RIOT AT Sr. AUATELL.—Jus,ph Hors, Richard
Webb, Elias Netoconabs, Walley's Osborn, Richard JoJyan,
IVilliam Hancock, Matthew Roberts. John Payne. John
Bennetts, Was. Bunt, Philip Matthews, Jacob Hancock,
Talant, Charles Fault, Richard Kestell, and John
Cock, were indicted for • riot nt St. Aueteil on the llth of
June last —Mr. Rowe (with whom was Mr. Merivale), for
the prosecution, stated that the prisoners we re miners in the
neighbourhood of St. Au tell; and that, on the morning
of Friday, the 11th of June, they " rose from their
work," giving as a reason that the price of flour had
risen to 2!. 4e. per bushel on the previous uight, and
that it was useless for them to work any more,
as their wages would not enable them to procure flour at the
increased price. The men being assemble I together in a
tumultuous manner, some of them ex. 'aimed that they would
plunder the shops or level the town of St. Austell. They
were armed with stiesa or clubs, and their language was
violent, whilst they proceeded to carry nut their threats. In
the mean time the magistrates were on the alert, special
constables sworn in, and the military called into requi-
sition from the town of Bodmin. The soldiers, however,
were not allowed to interfere until their assistance was
absolutely necessary ; but the Isiah sheriff himself,
attended by Mr. Coale, the under-sheriff, used every
endeavour to disperse the mob. A cry was raised amongst
the men, "To Warne's mills," and the mob immediately
I rushed off in that direction. On their way thither they
attacked and plundered several bakers' shops. The sheriff
at length mounted a wail and addressed the mob, requesting
' that he might be informed of what they wanted. '1 he men
said they must have a reduction in the price of time, and
the sheriff told them that the magistrates could not
reduce the price, but that a subscription might
be raised to rs here their wants. The sheriff then
proposed that a deputation should meet him and the magis-
trates in the national echoed The men then gave their word
that there should be no snore disturbance ; but, after the
magistrates had returned to the town hall, they found that
another baker's-shop (belonging to a Mr. Pedler) hrd been
attacked. Upon receiving this intelligence, the sheriff pro-
Iceded to Peeler's shop, and in the Queen's name com-
manded the people to disperse. They sti.l continued very
violent, and the sheriff then seized two of the ring-
leaders and gave them into custody, but they after-
wards contrived to escape. About the some time, '
the prisoner Roberts endeavoured to strike the sheriff,
but was prevented. The sheriff and the magistrates
still exerted themselves to quell the disturbance by peaceable
means, and they received the deputation at the national
school, as previously arranged. They then repeated that
they could not lower the price of corn, but that they would
do all they could to assist them. The men were, however,
reckless, and still persevered in their violent conduct. At
this time the multitude had increased to thousands, and the
sheriff at length addressed them from a " leaping stone " in
the street, begging them to listen to reason. Ills remon-
strances were fruitless, and the men answered him with
cries of •' force for force," and " blood fur blood," and " as,
to the soldiers there were only 57 of them, and they would
meet them face to face." They also exclaimed " Give up the
men!" (alluding to these who had been taken into custody)
and their conduct assumed at last so violent a character that
the sheriff was compelled to read the riot act, but without
producing the desired result. The soldiers were then ordered
to load their muskets, and the streets were cleared three
times at the point of the bayonet The prisoners were ulti-
mately taken into custody at the instigation of the sheriff,
and as each man was seized by the constables, the soldiers
surrounded the others to prevent a rescue.—Mr. Kendall the
high-sheriff, Mr. Coode the under-sheriff, and several other
witnesses were called to weak to the various expressions
made use of by the prisoners, and to the general conduct of
each man during the riot. John Cock, it was stated, had
harangued the mob, insisting that the men who were in cus-
tody should be liberated, sad he exclaimed that if the con-
stables meddled with the people they would be the death of
them. He also called out " blood for blood," and " death
for death." Evidence was given that at the time of the riot
some of the men were receiving wages to the amount of 15
or 17 shillings a week. It was also proved that Faull and
Kestell had induced the other men to follow them in pro-
dining the riot, and that the latter had previously threatened
to create a disturbance, such as had been described.--Mr.
Slade addressed the jury for the prisoners.—Chief Juslice
Wilde, in his summing up, divided the case into as many
parts as there were prisoners, and went through the evidence
as it affected each man separately.—The jury returned a
verdict of Gulley against Joseph Here, Wm. Hancock,
Matthew Roberts, John Payne, William Bunt, Philip Mat-
thews, Wm. Teller°, Charles Faull, Richard Kestell, and
John Cock; and Acquitted the ether prisoners.—Sentences
deferred.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Letcsavr.u, Jun' 30.
The business of these empires commenced this day, before
Mr. Bann Rolfe, in the Nisi Prins Court, and Lord Denman
on the criminal ode. The borough calendar contained the
names of eleven prisoners, but all the charges were of a light
character. In the county there are upwards of thirty pri-
soners, and some of the offences charged are of a serious
character.
A LAWYER', BILL.—HOSKTNR C. WORRALL AND AN-
orirtm.—This was an action brought to recover 24/.
The plaintiff, a solicitor, resides at Loughborough • the de-
fendant, Wotrall, keeps the Bull and Anchor inn there.
The defendants, with others, had become dissatisfied with
the charges, &c., of the Loughborough Gas Company, and
had lent themselves to a scheme for creating a new com-
pany, of which the plaintiff was to be the solicitor,
and they gave him the necessary retainer, and
the new company was duly registered, but there it stopped.
The plaintiff, in the meantime, had run up a score for grog
and cigars at the house of Worrell, to the amount of five
pounds odd, for which he was sued in the county court, and
had to pay. The present bill, for services performed on be-
half of the propped company, was objected to, on the ground
that the retainer was a mere form, the understanding being
they were not to be called upon to pay anything if the scheme
was a failure, while, if it was successful,tse
it would pay ilf.
The jury found for the plaintiff far the amount claimed.

NORTHERN CIRCIIIT.—NawCavrt.E, Jt'LY 31.
Before Itr. Amine Wightmen.
ARSENIL.-31argaret Lennox was charged with having
caused the death of her husband, by poison. The pri•
noner resided at North bhields with her husband, who was
67 years of age, and gained a livelihood as a scullerman on
the river Tyne. On the 3rd July he went home to his din.
net as usual ; but :on returning to his occupation he com-
plained of sickness and a pain in the stomach, which in-
creased to such a degree that he returned home and went to
bed. The symptoms rapidly became worse, and at Eve
o'clock the same afternoon he died. The occurrence ex-
citod no attention until it became known that the wife of the
deceased had on the same morning purchased some arsenic
at a neighbouring shop. A post mortem examination brought
to light a quantity of anemic in the stomach and intestines,
and competent medical witnesses expressed a belief that
death bad been occasioned by that mineral. It was shown,
too, that the family partook of an Indian•meal pudding,
mete by the prisoner; and surmising that she had employed
that method of poisoning the deceased, a coroner's jury re-
turned a verdict of " wilful murder" against her. One ether
daughters was called as a witness for the prosecution to-day,
and she stated that she saw her father take out a white
powder from a medicine chest, and swallow it se medicine;
while, with reference to the pudding, she deposed that the
whole family partook of the pudding, and that neither she
nor any of the rest felt ill effects from the meal. The jury
Acquitted the prisoner, and she was discharged.