The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-18 00:00:00

MR. GAYA)! DUFFY

On Saturday, the deeds were produced granted by
Mr. °Mars sad Mr. lindson, in which Mrs Duffy's
quah-
Se resided. . .

Mr. O'Hara. solicitor, was examined, and said that, in
consequence of his entertaining a sympathy with the religi-
ous and political opinion, of Mr. Daffy, and understanding
that he wa, anxious to get into parliament, he furnished
him with the necessary qualification for the purpose.
Cram 'stained—lle did not intend Mr. Duffy to finger
the eit.h. _ _

The value of the property and its due qualification having
been proved,
Sir Thomas Redington was then called to prove intimida-
tion. He stated that he could not proceed with his canvass
in consequence of being " pelted " by the mob, and he was
obliged to fly from the town under an escort of military.
When he took refuge in ohmage the windows were shattered
by the mob. He withdrew from the contest, because other-
wise it would have been followed by great personal risk.
Mr. Costello, manager of the New Ross bank, deposed
that there were riots and disturbances, and the Riot Act
bad to be read. Mr. Duffy, on his being Presented with
his antics as to qualification, publicly tore it in pieces.
The room having been cleared,
The Chairman said the committee had decided "that
Charles Given Duffy, Esq., we, at the last election for the
borough of New Rase, on July 11. 18.52, duly elected."
The o nunittee reserved the consideration of costs from
do petitioners until Ilteaday.

IRELAND

Dvaux, APRIL 16.

The confusion which prevails among the enemies
of Mr. Keogh, both in the tory and the Tenant Right
camps, seems at this moment irretrievable. Mr.
Ennis, the Orange-catholic candidate for Athlone, and
whose connexion by property with the locality would
render his opposition formidable, has retired from the
field, seeing, of course, that the struggle would be a
hopeless one : and it is now said that thq interest of
his party will be thrown into the scale with that of
the Tenant League for Mr. Norton, a nominal whig,
in whom no party has any confidence, but who, for
factious purposes, would receive some support as an
opivaient of the Solicitor-General. On the other
hand, the Weekly Freeman announces, in a late edi-
tion this evening, and with a great flourish, that
"an independent candidate, devotedly attached
to the principles of the Irish party," will offer
himself to the constituency, and that the forth-
coming contest for Athlone will be one of the
fiercest on record. It is also stated that the tory
rty will yet be prepared with a man of their own ;
pa but the understanding between them and the tenant
ri,tht party would seem tube that, whichever party can
start a candidate with the most likelihood of success,
will have the co-operation of the other. Notwith-
standing all the threats and compacts there is, never-
theless, very little doubt of Mr. Keogh's success, and
his canvas so far, whatever may be said to the con-
trary, has been most satisfactory.

NAM futtitigtnce.
- -
EQUITY COURTS.-BATVIDAT.
iIItIPMIC TI L 0214 Jrnscos
TIAINWILL.

On the 23rd of I.7;;;;llastanotiwwas obtained upon
the expert:• applicatiun of EN:l.6Oh Ilakewill, a married
woman, allowing her to present her petition to ore court,
under tho s•atute 2 & 3 Vie., c. 54, for the possession of
some, and the recces to other., of her children, detained
from her by her hu.bind, without the intervention of a next
friend, and without p tying the 1/, stamp required to be
puid by the orders of the court upon fihnr a petition.
order hid been granted upon the sr% Lill.. tit
the applicant that she was not worth 61. exclu-
sive of her wearing apparel ; that she was un-
able to obtain the sum of if., in order to pay for the
stamp from her tusband or any other person; and last.y,
that she was wholly unable to procure any person by whom,
as her next friend, she could present her petition to the
court.

Mr; Glass, for the husband of Mrs. Hakewill, now moved,
upon notice, that the order iso eht.sined might be discharged
or varied, on the ground that the efß•!avit on which it had
been obtains il did not state for the information tithe court,
that Mrs. ilakowill bad u father, two brothers, a brother-
in-law, and a sister, all in comfortable circumstances, and
fully able, if they pleased, to represent her as next friend,
or that she had spulied to them to represent her, and been
refused.

Mr. C. M. Roupell, who had been assigned as counsel to
the lady by °rifu of the court, was not called upon to
address the court.

Their lordships refused the application to discharge or
vary the former order, observing that the order was
founded uja.n the statement that Mrs. Ilakewill av
unrble to induce anybody to represent her u next friend;
and that it Wels therefore incumbent upon the husband, if he
wi+heil to discharge the order, to show that there was some-
body, whether of the lady's tinnily or not, willing to be her
next friend.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—SATuaDAT.
lITTLPG. tv 1..4!..C..-1411,01.4111 L, u etiirsittr, ma. JOITICIC

Jnisaca Eata, a..a Xs. !mica Camino:4.
QUEEN's CotsitL.

?Tr. Merewaher laving been appointed one of her
Majesty's clime', was this day called within the bar, and
took his seat accordingly.

lir LI OF COt RT.-WRITS OF ERROR.

A new rule was read in court ordering that on the first
day of every term, one o' the Masters should make a report
of ea eases in which writs of error had been issued and
what bad been done under them.

Lord Campbell said that the object of this rule was to en-
able the Courts to put an end to the abuse which es,jsted in
regard to writs of error. The practice was to bring writs of
errs', without any cause, in eases of misdemeanour, upon
which the defendant was attinitted to bail. Errors having
►een assigned, fraudulent negotiations were entered into
between the prosecutor and defendant; the result of these
negotiations was that in consideration of a sum of money
the prosecutor fails d to pracetd in the matter, and thus the
defendant got Mt an 3 the ends of justice were defeated.
By means of the report row ordi red the court hoped to be
able to cheek this abuse in future.
Tus QUEEN (ox TH2 PROSICCTION OP JOHN ItOLT,
ESQ., Q.e.) v. CLATTON.—EN PARTS; num—CRIMINAL
INFOHMATION .110AINsT ♦N ArruawsT FOR THISEAT-
ZNINU Colman..

Sir F. Thesiger applied on behalf of Mr. Rolt, the well-
known equity barrister, for a rule calling upon the defend-
ant, who is an attorney, to show Toe why a criminal in-
formation should not i,stie aomnst ham under the following
circumstances. In the month of June last Mr. Clayton, the
defendant, instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery by
filing a claim against a Mr. Main:war& for the specific'
performance of an agreement. 'Phis agreement was entered
into by Mr. Carbut, who was Mr. Clayton's clerk, upon
sae part, and Mr. Hillingward on the other part, and by it
Mr. Carbut agreed to let and Mr. Hillingward to rent
certain pr-miles therein named. Inc claim prayed a spc-
, Mlle performance of the contract by the execution of a lease
by Mr. Hillingward. Affidasits were filed upon both sides,
and (rem them it appeared that Mr. Carbut, in addition to
being Mr. Claytun's clerk, was also an innkeeper, and that
Mr. Hillingward had signed the agreement without due
notice of its copteots. Mr. Itolt was retained as Mr. Hit-
lingwarel's counsel in the suit, and the claim and affidavits
were placed before him. Upon reading the papers it was
evident :o him that the claim had been filed for the
purpose of obtaining no substantial benefit for the
plaintiff in the suit. No terms were inserted in the agree.
men; and the only low which could be executed under it
would be a lease for a single year. Mr. Roll came to the
conclusion that the proceedings were decidedly vexatious in
their character, and, having regard to the fact that Mr.
Clayton was a solicitor, he was further of opinion that the
suit Wry instituted for the purpose of obtaining costs. The
cause was heard before Vice-Chancellor Wood upon the
15th February last, and, in miler to induce the Vice-Chan-
cellor to dismiu the claim, Mr. Refit, in the observations
which he addressed to his Honour, stated his impression
that the proceedings were really instituted for the purpose
of obtaining costs. The Vice-Chaucellor dismissed the
claim, at the same time expressing his opinion that it wee
an unprecedented and improper application. Shortly after
the hearing, Mr. Rik received a letter from the defendant,
in which, after denying that the suit was instituted for costs,
he called upon the learned gentleman fully to retract the
false accusation he had made, as he must be aware that he
(Clayton) could not allow the matter to rest. To this letter
Mr. Rolt replied, that he bad only acted according to the
papers laid before him, and declined to enter into any cor-
respondence upon the subject. Upon theist March, the de-
fendant again wrote to Mr. Rolt, stating that the course taken
by Mr. Rolt drove him to " place the matter in the hands of
a friend," who would call upon Mr. Roll on the
following Monday. Mr. Rolt showed this letter to a gen-
tleman, also one of her Majesty's counsel, who advised him
to see Mr. Clayton's " friend," state that what be had
done he had done in the execution of his duty, and declined
to make any apology. Upon the day named Mr. Hopkin-
son, Mr. Clayton's "friend," waited upon Mr. Rolt and
asked for an apology. Mr. Rolt followed the advise above
stated. Upon this, Mr. Hopkinson asked Mr. Ron to name
his " friend." Mr. Rolt answered that the only " friend"
he should apply to was the police magistrate, and the inter-
view ceased. Subsequently, at three different times, Mr.
Clayton himself called at Mr. Ilolt's chambers, but upon
each time that gentleman was not within. Not succeeding
in meeting with Mr. Rolt, the defendant then wrote •
letter to him in the following terms ; " I have called three
times for the purpose of having an interview with you, my
object being to tell you that you are a liar and a coward.
I beg to assure you that 1 can find no language sufficiently
strong to convey to your imagination the profound and un-
qualified contempt I feel for you."
Rale nisi granted.

BAIL COURT.—SATuRDAT.
Brrnx.s rr Iluico.—Berwts Ma. Icarus C.:MI.IIDM

Tee QUZIN V. Ton SADDLIBB. COMPANY.
Mr. Lush applied for a rule, calling upon the wardens
and assistants of the Saddlers' Company to show cause why
they should not amend the return which they had made to
a moudamus, commanding them to reinstate Mr. K. Dims-
dale to the office of assistant in the said company. It was
contended that the mandamus came within the Common
Law Procedure Act, and therefore the pleadings would be
contained within the statute. The ground upon which the
rule was applied for was that the return was vague, and
therefore it must either be amended or struck out, and
that the company must pay the costs of this application.
Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON
animas in