The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-18 00:00:00

ILabi inteifieence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAT.
Pitmen Tim Leas Courciruira.
IN MN MATTE& 07 ST. JOHN'S
_ll osruAL, BATH—

CH AKITADLII Timm.
The question brought by petition for the opinion of his
lordship in this caw was, whether a chapelry annexed to
the mastership of the horpital, was vested in the corpora-
tion of Bath for their own benefit, or u a charitable trust,
His lordship, after hoaring Mr. Wood and Mr. Prior,
contending that the appointment was in the nature of a
charity, and the Attorney-General and Mr. Slice fur the
corporation claiming it beneficially, decided that it was a
charitable trust within the 71st section of the Municipal
Corporation Acts, and he made an order referring it to the
Master to appoint trustees.

COURT OF QUEE.I"B BENCH.—TESTYRDAY.
.trews AT Niai Parrs so 0111.1:11•11.—Taroas LORD CANIMILL
AND • TTTCLA I. SCUT.
OLUSRSII•W r. BERTAFORD.—ACTION to RECOVER. Pon-
sEssltoN or • )LIctTE SOME.
Thi. was an action in tremor brought by the plaintiff,
who was the solicitor of a railway scheme which had now
been abandoned, which bad been called the Reading and
Iteigatc Atmospheric Junction Railway, and he brought
the prownt action against Major Beresford, as the chair-
' man of the company, to recover posses.sion of a minute
honk which he required for the purpose of maintaining an
action which had been commenced against another director.
Esidence was offered nn behalf of the plaintiff to show
that he was entitled to the posse,vims of the minute-hook.
On behalf of the defendant it was contended that tho
plaintiff was not entitled to prooession of the book, and evi-
dence was called to support this view of the case.
Lord Caniphell then summed up, and the jury returned •
verdict for the defendant.

Lord Campbell then, addressing the jury, said—Gentle-
men, I fed it my duty to say that this is one of the most
disgraceful actions ex er brought into a court of justice, and
I regret to think that the plaintiff is nt present on the rolls
ran attorney. What was the conduct of the plaintiff ?
He inilueed Major Bert xford to become a mem-
ber of the company by giving him an under-
taking to indemnify him against all expenses, and
then he sues him for a large sum, 2,3001., which
he was obliged to pay. Thin having got the minute-
hooks into his possession, on a promise that he would deliver
them up when the company required them, he brings an
action for troves against Major Beresford, into whose hands
they had ultimately fallen, he himself having absconded to
avoul his creditors, and without doing anything whatever
to realise, as he had prombeil to do, the assets of the com-
pany. Notwithstanding this, however, he brings this
action into a court of justice and before a special jury. I
was anxious, if possible, that his reputation should not be
exposed. I gave him a hint which I thought would have
been taken, hut it was his pleasure to proceed to trial ; and
I am not sorry that he has pmceeded, because the result has
shown him to is- a very unworthy and dishonourable per-
son, who is seeking to enforce a demand which he must
know to he unjust.
The remarks of his lordship were followed by some alight
applause.

COURT OF FICIFIEQUER.-7YERmnpAy.

Vat Pmts.—Banat Bu F. Pounra, emu Bases, Aso a Mums
•

of SPICIAL

Tea ATTOK.NST-ORNEKAL V. THE LONT/ON Dock Con.
PANT.-111P0 AAA N T RETENVI CAtVV,

This cause was resumed yesterday morning at ten
o'clerek.
Mr. William Spencely recalled and examined by Mr.
Peacock, Q.C.—The witness enumerated several casks of
cocoa sweepings which were mixed. Those sweepings had
been collecting in =all quantities during two years. I had
certainly not given any authority to any one to remove that
cocoa without payment of duty. I know Fox and Compton.
Fos was the iiiaa man for deliveries and Compton was the
foreman. They have both left the service of the company.
Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General.—l have been 7
years at the South Quay. Compton was under me. He
has horn dismissed and prosecuted by the Customs. I think
I can always get cocoa into original packnore*--into hags,
certainly, and I think casks, too. I remember the cargo of
the Muss. I don't remember (having had ten overtaken.
(A MOCII.I of the docks was produced by the Customs.)
Patrick Toomey, examined by Mr. Maeauley,
have been in the employ of the South Quay since 1840.
Coffee, cocoa, and rice see the principal articles which arc
brought to me to pick. We put them into casks when
cleaned for the purpose of supplying deficiencies. The four
casks had been picked since I had been to the warehouse.
I never saw any clean fresh cocoa, taken from the bulk, put
amongst the sweepings. None of the 23 parcels were clean
picked.
Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General—l bad been
picking in 02, at the end of the floor. I know Gislellard. I
don't remember his having started an original bug of cocoa
into those sweepings.
James Jennings examined by Mr. Groves—l have been
nine years in the employ of the docks. I have been em-
ployed sweeping up the floors. I never knew an instance
of a hag being taken from the pile to be placed amongst the
sweepings.
The witness was not cress-examined.
_ _

Mr. John Diston Powks examined by Sir T.
have hi Id the office of secretary of the Dock Company for
nearly 14 years, and lam also a member of • mercantile
firm in thi City. 1 has e become well acquainted with the
business of the company. They are accountable for all the
goods that are imported, and arc not importers themselves.
Wherever the merchant makes out a claim the company
satisfies it. There lens been no claim made against the
company in ISI7 for ten bags of sugar short shipped for
Antwerp. I never heard one syllable about it until I heard
it Millis court. I don't know myself of any such cargo.
Most of the directors of the London Docks arc importer% of
the largest class in London. and they are selected on that
account. The company hold 3.600,000/. Taking the aver-
age 4,000/. a year increase would add about 2/. per annum
to each of the 24 directors. I never remember • single com-
plaint of goods being delivered short weight. The London
Dock ('ompany have given gratuities to their officers in 11413,
Isl 6, and 1643. They have given from 1,6001. to 1,100/. The
net profits of the sweepings were 3,1091. per annum. That in-
cludes everything of every kind. The articles wool and
indigo form a large item. *We lose by the rummage sales,
for an Ortega(' of five years, 1,4001. • year. Except the
sweepings, which produce 3,11191. a year, we have no other
sources of revenue whatever. When asst the customs sus-
pected that something was wrong at the docks, I wrote to
Mr. Chandler to say. "open all the docks." (Letters were
read from Mr. Scosell, secretary of the Customs, and the
witness, by which it appeared that every facility was given
to the revenue officers.) Between 15 and 16 lbs. per hogshead
per annum is quite • reasonable quantity. About
26,000,0031. worth of goods passed through the docks Inst
rear. I could nut say what passed through the docks in
1849 or in 181$. I have myself written to the Customs ap-
prising them of the accumulation of sweepings. That has
occurred eight times in ten years. A committee of directors
sit every week.
Crow-examined by the Solicitor-General—The salaried
officers, except foremen, arc included in the gratuities.
Mr. William Dickinson, examined by Mr. Macauley,
Q.C.-1 am clerk in the employ of Meont. Manning and
Andersen. We import a good deal in the London Dock.
Cows-examined by the Solicitor-General—Mr. Manning
is a director of the Dock Company.
William Smith examined by Sir F. Kelly—l have been
foreman at the Eastern Docks for ten years. I searched
the tally sheets, and I find no evidence of Crisp being here.
I find Crisp was last employed in the mouth of February,
1845.

Cross-eaamineel by the Solicitor-General—l swear that
Crisp itas never employed in the Eastern Dock after 1845.
Ile might have been taken on by any of the foramen. He
was an era labourer.

examined by Sir F. Kelly—l have searched
hir Crisps name as tallyman from 1847 to 1819. It does not
allteii.ard Page, examined by Sir F. Kelly—l am examiner
of amounts. I have looked carefully through the hooks for
1847, and I can find no entry of the shipment of 900 bags
of cocoa for Antwerp.
Crosi-examined by the Soli&
tool! through 18460 r 1848.

Mr. Janies. Cook examined by Sir F. Kelly.—l am a
broker, and have had extensive transactions through the
London Docks. I have never had to complain of any defi-
ciency of anything imported. I have also imported
sugar through the West India Docks. There is no advan-
tage in one over the other.
Sir F. Kelly said he had a number of witnesses to exa-
mine on this point, but ss the witness was not cross-exa-
mined. he could not of course produce them.
Mr. It. William Graham examined by Sir F. Kelly.—l
have examined from 1843 to 1850, eight years, and find
that the company have paid 6.6041. 2s. fur weighing pack-
ages. It was my duty to pay any claim on the company.
The Solicitor-General called attention to a claim of
34/. Ss. which had been paid by the company fur some
error.

Mr. W. H. Wickes was examined by Sir F. Kelly to
show that the entry relative to molasses in ledger A was
Mrs. Richard Randall examined by Mr. Maeanley, Q.C.—
I gave no directions that in the event of any bags or pack-
ages in excess they were to be packed at once.—The total
number of hogsheads of sugar imported into all the docks
for seven years from 1843 was 206.588 hogsheads. The
weight sold was 28,282 cwt. For the same period at the
eastern docks it was 167,310 hogsheads landed and the
draining% 21,307 cat. The Ilarbadoes sugar forms a large
proportion of the cargoes at this dock. The quantity of
cocoa landed from 1839 to 1819, including the stock on
hand O'ov. 1839), was 1,901 packages, weighing 145 tom 7
cwt. Thutotal quantity was 87,889 packages. The com-
pany have sold 150 cwt. 19 lbs, as sweepings of cocoa. The
average price for exportation was 18s. per cwt. 455. to 50s.
par ewe. is the price of good duty pod cocoa. The duty is
3d per lb. on British, and 4d. on foreign.
The defendants' ease having closed,
The Solicitor-General addressed the court in reply. He
congratulated them upon at length arriving at a prospect of
a diminution of their labours, and be assured them he would
be no party to any further delay. The London Dock Com-
pany, the defendants, bad occupied the whole of the past
week in offering their defence to the information. He did
not regret that so much time had been devoted to that pur-
pose, because the delay had assisted very considerably to
abate and diminish those feelings of indignation which had
been caused in his mind, and also, perhaps, in the mind of
the public. He had listened with surprise and astonish-
ment to the address of his learned friend, for a more acri-
monious. or a more malignant, or a more unwarrantable or
unjustifiable attack upon any body of men it had never
been his fate to hear fall from the lips of say
asa. Nimes bad ke seard each ea attack upon