The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-05 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 5, 1862.

"AID IntilligCntt•
EQUITY COURTS.—Nov. 4.
(Wore the Lord Chancellor.)
HANOL/P o. [HT/ON.

This was an appeal from Vice-Chancellor Stuart. The
suit was brought to obtain an account under the following
circumstances. In June, 1862, a line of railway was pro-
jected from Spalding to Norwich, and Mr. Harelip, the
plaintiff, was appointed solicitor to the company. Comma-
s's:adorn' were entered into with the Eastern Union
Railway Company, the co-operation of which with the pro
eted company was thought desirable. In the result Mr.
Kittoe, of Norwich, solicitor to the Eastern Union
Company, entered into an arrangement with Mr.
Hanslip, by which thay were to act as joint
solicitors to the Spalding and Norwich Company,
and an agreement to that effect was entered into on
3rd July. 1852, the profits to be equally divided between
them. The preliminary business was carried on by them
jointly, and an act of parliament was obtained sanctioning
the construction of a line from Spalding to Sutton-bridge
and liolbeach only, in August, 1853. The works, however, were
not begun until July, 1855, when they were proceeded with
and the line to Holbeach opened for traffic in 1858. Shortly
after this, disputes arose between the plaintiff and defendant,
and the question involved between them was whether the joint
conduct of the business of the company as solicitors con-
tinued until 1859, or terminated with the obtaining of the
&Mot parliament. This matter turns upon evidence, and
the % ice-Chancellor having made a decree ordering an
account, as prayed by the plaintiff, the present appeal was
brought.
Mr. Mali= and Mr. H. Shebbeare, for the plaintiff, sup-
ported the decree ; Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bird were for the
-The Lord Chancellor held that the decree of the court
below was correct, in holding that the account should be
taken up to 16th April, 1859 ' but, after that period, he
saw no reason why the account should be continued, or that
it should be brought down to the date of the decree, aa the
Vice-Chancellor had decided. Looking to the great and
unnecessary length of the pleadings on both sides, and the
introduction of a mass of irrelevant matter, he could give
no costa to either party. The decree would, therefore, be
varied by limiting the amount to 16th April, 1859.

Mr. Serjeant Pigott moved for a role nisi for a new trial,
and reed a number of affidavits impeaching the credibility
of the witnesses, on whose evidence the respondent had
bees found guilty of the offence imputed to her.
Sir C. Cromwell did not think there was any ground
whatever for granting the motion. Them was no doubt
whatever that the respondent had for • long time been
a poison of abandoned habits, and the affidavits did not pre.
tend to say that one word the vitamin's had established
could be disproval.
Rule refused.

COURT OF BANKRUPTOY.—Noy. 4.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Omlburn.)
_ nt HZ WICILENDEN AND MUNTALL.

The traders, who were drapers at Maidstone, had entered
into a deed of arrangement with their creditors, under
which three trustee, had been appointed and certain fu: de
collected. The trustees appeared to have Atisagreed among
themselves, and a petition had been presented praying for
the removal of one of their number and the distribution of the
fund, in hand. The matter has occupied the court at several
. . _

His Honour now gave judgment. lie refused the prayer
of the petition so far as regarded the removal of the
trustee, but directed that the fund in hand should be paid
over to the Accountant-General in Bankruptcy, that a divi-
dend meeting should be called uin bankruptcy, and that
proofs should be admitted.
Notice wu given of appsaL
PROCEEDINGS UNDER PRI BALL DIEM ACT.

A =mimosa had been taken out against a debtor, calling
on him to show cause why he should not be oommitted for
nonpayment. On inquiry it appeared that the attorney for
the plaintiff had served the original summons on the
defendant instead of a copy, and the copy, when produoed,
purported to be signed by " Wm. Fonblanque."
His Honour observed that that was not Mr. FonbLthque's
name, and called for the original summon'.
The debtor on whom it had been served was linable to
produce
His Honour said for aught that appeared it might be •
forgery, as it bore • wrong name. The summons must be
dismissed.

Mr. Rogers removed to the seat usually appropriated to
witnesses.

Mr. Smyth said the charge which he had to prefer spinet I
the prisoner was of a most serious and distressing nature,
and be regretted to have to press inch a charge spinet a
gentleman of acknowledged respectability, especially being
a member of his (Mr. Smyth's) profession. It appeared
that the prosecutor, who was a gentleman of wealth and 1
position, had unfortunately got into company with some •
soldiers, one of whom was brought up at the Westminster
police court upon the charge of robbing Mr. lingers of his
watch. The soldier defended himself by making some
charge against Mr. Rogers. The case was adjourned, the
soldier being admitted to bail upon his own recognisance'.
That case was reported in the newspapers. After the appeer-
ance of that report Mr. Rogers received several anonymous
letters, one of which would be shown to bays been written
by the prisoner. That letter contained &proposal of an in-
famous nature. It commenced:—" If Mr. Bogen really de-
sires, &c.," and it closed with a proposal that Mr. Rogers
should, on the following evening at six o'clock, present him-
self at the top of Constitution-hill, under the arch, wearing
a pair of white kid gloves, when the writer would introduce
himself. That letter was directed to the addreesll, Queen's-
road West, Chelsea, which Mr. Rogers bad given at the West-
minster police-court, and which had appeared in the papers.
Mr. Rogan had, in the meanwhile, removed to the Gros-
venor Hotel, and the letter was forwarded to him there. It
bore the post mark 25th October. A second letter, in
the same handwriting, bearing the post mark 30th
October, was received by Mr. Roger.. The writer said
he presumed other engagements had prevented Mr. Rogers
from keeping the appointment, and he proposed another
;rointmeersntittdt samovars
the two ttt r sixa air7d thel evening.
Mr
nymous letters he had received to the police A third
letter was received, in which the writer expressed his regret
at learning that Mr. Rogers had been ill, and proposed an
appointment on that day at the same plus and hour. Mr.
Rogers delivered that to the police. After this Mr. Rogers
had occasion to write to the Times newspaper a letter which
appeared in that paper, and in which he gave his address
at the Grosvenor Hotel. On Monday Mr. Rogers received a
fourth letter, in the same handwriting as the other three,
addressed to him at the Grosvenor Hotel. The writer Bug-
&cited that Mr. Rogers's change of address might be the
came of biz not keeping the previous appointments, and pro-
posed for that night (Monday) a fresh appointment, at the
same place and hour. By the advice of the police officers Mr.
Rogers tept that appointment. He was accompanied by an in-
spectorof police, a wrtgeent of polies, a person named Maloorne,
Tocommended by the polka and one other person. Malcome
was concealed at a certain place in the enclosure within the
rails, and near the archway. Mr. Rogers remained under
the archway until the prisoner, after passing him several
times, raid to him, " Are you Mr. Roger.? Mr. Rogers
replied in the affirmative, and 'mind the prisoner if be was
the writer of the letters. The prisoner said he was. They
then walked arm in arm along Coustitution-hill to the spot
wh-re Malcome was concealed, and a conversation took
place which Malcome overheard. In the course of that con-
versation the prisoner proposed that he and Mr. Rogers
should dine together on the following day (Tues-
day) at an hotel, where they should pass the
night. Mr. Rogers then asked him whether he was the
party who had written the letters? He said "Yea." Mr.
Rogers produced one of the letters, showed it to the pri-
soner, and said, "This is a matter requiring great confi-
dence • will you swear that youllwrote this letter and the
other letters in the some handwriting!' The prisoner said,
"Yes, I will swear it." The prosecutor then asked the
prisoner for his name and address, which the prisoner wrote
down in the prosecutor's pocket-book, " F... C. Whitehurst,
6, Lower Belgrave-place." The prosecutor then gave him
in charge.
Mr. Rogers was then called, and deposed to the facts as
abovestated, with some further detain of the conversation
utterly unfit for publication. He also produced letters the
substanceof which we suppress for a similar reason.
Edwin Malcom*, commission agent, formerly a police-
constable, but having left the force for 20 years, and lichee.
Racially =singer of an omnibus company deposed to that
part of the conversation which he had overheard.
Mr. Lewis severely cross examined both witness's.
The case was adjourned, the defence being maned, with
an intimation from Mr. Lewis that the case would be fought
out to the last. The defendant entirely denied that he
had been guilty of any impropriety.
Mr. Smyth had several other witnesses to call.
Mr. Lewis said he believed Mr. Smyth was about to apply
for a remand. The case might as well be remanded upon
the evidence now before the court.
The as was then adjourned, Mr. Whitehurst being ad-
mitted to bail in two sondes of 2504 each, and his own
recognisance' for 5001.
Substantial bail, approved by the prosecutor, was pro-
vided.

John and Elizabeth 111;s, Man and wife, appeared
before Mr. Self. to answer a charge of assaulting Mr.
James Bellaire. _ _

without troubling after yours. You are very foolish to ask
such a question." He stood a fewseconds while I continued
closing my shop. After I had done I stood on the step out-
side the door in front of the chop. My wife stood imme-
diately on my left-hand side. I had scarcely stood still
before I beard him may, "There !" I immediately tamed
sharp round, and remised the charge in my side. I
beard him distinctly may "Take that !" simultaneously with
receiving the charge. I immediately said to my wife, "He
hu shot me!" He then walked away. I then went in doors,
thinking be might have another barrel. I rushed in doors
immediately.
Mr. Ingham—At what distance from you was he standing
when be fired
Witness—About two paces.
Mr. Taylor—Did you see what he fired from !
Witness—l did not ; I bad no time. I have no doubt be
fired at my other side. When he said " There !" I turned
sharply round, and instead of receiving the charge
in my left side it entered my right side. My wife
was standing so close that some of the gunpowder scorched
her face.

Mr. Ingham then asked the prisoner whether he had any
questions to put to the witness, and be replied, " Nothing.
air." He immediately afterwards rid it wan a pity that
the witnen could not tell the truth.
The evidence taken in the fint examination was then read
over by Mr. Taylor. It will be remembered that the pri-
soner with his brother and his wife were seen on the even-
ing in question walking to and fro in front of Mr. Cooke's
home. Shortly before 10 o'clock the prisoner inquired
of Mr. Fey, one of Mr. Cooke's neighbours, whether Mr.
Cooke was at home. He wan told that Mr. Cooke
went out at 11 o'clock in the morning. The prisoner
went away. Alter Mr. Cooke had been shot, the prisoner
walked into the Prince of Wales public-house, next door,
and spoke to Mr. Austin, the landlord. He took • pistol
from under his coat, and said, "This ie,what we kill, or
poison, the rats with." He also said to Mr. Austin, who
could not recollect the exact words, " I have shot him,' or,
" I have done for it." Police-constable Wright took the
prisoner Into custody at the public-house. When he
inquired for the man who had shot the other, the
prisoner got up and said he was the man. On being
searched five percussion caps were found upon him, and
also a packet of tea, bearing Mr. Cooke's name. The
brother gave the officer the pistol. He and hie wife were
also taken into custody, charged with being concerned in the
attempted murder, but they were afterwards discharged by
the magistrate. On the way to the station the prisoner
remarked that it was a beautiful night for the harvest,
and that they would work all night, but be (referring to
Mr. Cooke) would not. Stirling, another constable, searched
the prisoner's lodgings at Dorldington-grove, and found a
quantity of buck-shot, some percusion-caps, and bullets.
Stirling took possession of Mr. Cooke's waistcoat, which had
ten shot holes on the right side.
Mr. W. 11. %stouter, a surgeon, of Bridge-road, Bottu-
m', also repeated his evidence as to the finding of a spot
about the size of the palm of his hand at the base of Mr.
Cooke's right long. There were ten wounds from an inch to
half an inch apart, produced from the discharge of a pistol
about a yard or two off. He probed the wounds, bat was
unable to feel the shots, and he believed they were all
buried inside the man.

In answer to questions,
Mr. Kempster said that at the time Mr. Cooke was in
great danger, and it wee almost by a miracle that be bad
rccovered to a certain extent. The lower half of the right

lung was destroyed for breathing purposes.
This being all the evidence,
Mr. Ingham put the usual caution to the prisoner, who
simply answered, " I decline saying anything at present."
The prisoner was then fully committed for tiial at the
next sessions of the Central Criminal Court, god all the
witnesses were bound over to prosecute.