The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-29 00:00:00

tale intrlltscrat.

Ira Omar or easassa4.-111124.1 actudeisd dart 111dallam
Tam MC. At lassdalsia. M la as& der. Mars Os Law
Ossamdas:-Dsa 1.2=421,2"Va %1,11411,
Pillards. =ll5 delsopeds; . ;14 so-
aruirs slid ;
ii. ii, irdowidll
=o4Pdal=ll44lslssiidl 4.18.0-, apZ.ii d._la
laseds. sum_aill pallid& Theo iWia •Ik
tai Wale ell ts la dr Bass at lank aladlloi
—l/Ita•Oasseassame 1--Dss. I, la INSA-40108.2;
tire. dina•Mil4= mil firtiar dad.
; S. Palm do 4, dart =NM
lad 414•4•4; 4. O. ,s, ........ dalaodem. Gadod.
W dIrsolloos; sed-sue 2, pad. 411.01 r.
=imenONSMIONINIIO farlar and 14 POWs &lc-
urapesisL*o4* isiada. sal oaddidia.X. It
Om. eidEnds, dr" sad 2•41644
Ira do4-dadals; 4. didodkodidasim• MOW.
W Mawr disaids; 17, day =MUM int.
Add eava" sol am; la, 21, damorn" dr&
lims, soads. sod Mery &aios ; 1 ald-m2OlO 22.
far-dad am" sad setaims. jimsdr Bads):
I. asear, NM dam; 7. PIN% "OMR 6,011.
aim suds, sal brew dasslids; 2, peddidlW-91104114 aid
DIMINS•ka.; 4. saws adds. aid dloodi _._l. alladd=11•1;_ ,1
*as, Ossairrersosas~madoda Mood 1 11. Ids
• .4.7. .....„„„........ sal tad:a
dlessams; sall ssami 11. dad lam%
sal ands ; 1 ; 1 dffsmssso. sasssassa.
wawa, mi foam • 12, 1 PM%
dIMITINI4 _Myra, dam: sad tallor direedds; Ir. is&
liti
..poillim.....ant :see...; . illeaitedwzmirrie= Mn;
W WIZ. d, ; 22, aorta so; ews ;
day, Wiliam dad cad" sai War* pilaw. laillfmralts....!
Deft I Int siol, maim mit 41111111; 2, I. dim
sad MIN, dlssotioas; 4, dart ord. PI&
ikas. uregaisl sad we ; il, 7, pigmy eminui, odor-
dod. diald, lad dkoaddo ; 2. woad sod, solleas. sad
ram 11, 141. Ors, asespda^arar" sal Iselbsr
rnim ; U. dart ado, wsoppmd IMO, sai saws; I 4
ad
litrAddreiss. edam, sod lard" dlessd,
_miry_miryOMNl ; lb, 11, pie" ibiNINIMINA.
111110111. Old Mika idedlia:; Mime arm paillma%
;nit ma 1101. Pink dameold. w. 242411," mai=
kir disoliess ; a, hada del, madam sad sums ; In,
dm pillar. umposiol Ira, dart arms, sal dam

COURT OF QUIODFS WINCE.
Nisi Parra—Before Mr. hula Rea
Butane's T. FISHBIL—ABBAULT.—RIVAL
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Miller appeared for the plalsalf, mad
Mr. Serjt. Allen for the defendant. The plaintar was am of
the proprietors of a number of omnibuses which ran from
Paddington to Ilungerford-market for 2d.,and the defendant
was the proprietor of a rival set of vehicles, belonging to a
body of persons called the London Conveyance Association,
and which had started in opposition to the above named car.
lieges. The one set of omnibuses was painted red, and the
other orange, and they occupied different aides of the start-
ing place at Bungertord-market. and the persons connected
with each company carried their hostility so far as to frequent
different public-houses on the spot. In November, 1846,
the plaintiff went iota the Fine-apple public-house, the
" hostelry frequented by bin faction," and he was now fol-
lowed by the defendant and two other persona canni cted
with the rival association. Immediately the defendant began
to abuse the plaintiff in language totally unfit for " ears
polite," designating the plaintiff as • thief, and accusing
him of not having a horse that could go. The plaintiff re-
torted, and spoke of the low price paid by the defendant for
his horses. Upon this the defendant, with an imprecation
applicable to the eves of the plaintiff, said he could give a
thousand guineas for a horse, and then discharged • glass of
wine in the plaintiff's face, and threw another at him. This
was the assault for which the action was brought.—Mr.
Serjeant Allen, for the defence, ridiculed the assault
complained of, and urged that all the damage which had
been done would be repaid by the fare charged for a ride in
the omnitrus.—Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 201.
No other case of the least interest occurred.

Nita Pure,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Winnnnerza —Before Mr. Inacke Cresined and •

Common Jury.
THOMPBON r. Bug RINRY WEAR, BART.—RAILWAY
LITIOATION.—This was an action for serviees rendered by
I the plaintiff an 'ding engineer of a projected railway coin•
pang called the Lancaster and York Railway Company,
against the defendant, as a member of the managing com-
mittee of that company. The whole amount originally de-
manded by the plaintiff waa 4,7861., of which 4,2461. were
Meted to be disbursements, but he had received 3,6401., and
the balance, 1,3051. 134. 4d. was sought to be recovered in
the present action.—Evidence was produced to show that the
charges were reasonable, and the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
nf rt.d.sa v. Sun lIRNRY WEBB, BART.—This was an
action brought by the plaintiff, as the chief engineer of the
same Company, to rtcoVer 1,5001. for services rendered in
that capacity ; and also to recover the deposits of 21. Its. 6d.
per share on 500 shares, which had been allotted to the
plaintiff, minus 4591. which had been returned, being 11. 10s.
upon 300 shares. The plaintiff had been appointed chief j
engineer, and it was proved by Menus. Brunel and Vig-
nolles that his duty in that capacity was to lay down the
line, or, in ether words, to define its course, and generally to
give to the company the benefit of his advice upon all engi-
neering matters, and that for the adequate discharge of that
duty the sum of about 151. per mile was not unreasonable.
The railway in question being about 100 miles in length
the plaintiff's claim was calculated at that rate. Evidence
was then gone into to prove that the sums charged were un-
reasonable, but the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 7501., for his services an engineer. A verdict was
also taken by consent for 5121. 101., on account of the de-
posits, subject to the opinion of the court, upon an objection
raised on the ground time a ecateset to return the money
had been shown.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Met Pmts.—Before Kr F. Pollock, C.&, and Commonluries.
PRICE V. NIADDOX.—TKEATILICAL SNCIAGEMENTS.—MT,
Munfrert Q.C., and Mr. Baddeley, were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Wateoo, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins, for the de-
fendant —This was an action brought by • flute-player at
the Prince's's Theatre, to recover 251. as compensation for
having been dismissed without due notice by the defeodant,
who was lessee and proprietor of that establishment. In 1844
the plaintiff was substituted for his son, who was then first
flute-player at the Princess's, but obliged, by illness, which
resulted is the young man'sdeath, to discontinue hie engage-
ment, The plaintiff was continued, at a salary of 30s. a
week, until the 30th of March last, when he was dismissed.
He contended that he was entitled to be paid for " the
season" then ensuing, as by custom all theatrical engage-
ments, and especially those made for the theatre in question,
were for the season, except an express agreement had been
made that they should be limited to a shorter period. No
such agreement appeared to have been made between the
parties. The plaintiff relied upon the custom in his calling,
and brought his action for having been dismissed in breach
of it. The season at the Princess's usually commenced about
the end of October every year, and lasted for ten
months. The defendant, however, terminated the season
this year on the 18th of June, and on the Monday following
re-opened his theatre. It was suggested that be had
adopted that course for the purpose of dismissing part of his
company. Several witnesses, including Mr. T. Cooke, Mr.
R, Hughes, and Mr. Jefferson, proved the custom to be
such as that relied on by the plaintiff. It was contended,
on behalf of the defeadant, that the engagement between
the parties was not for the season, but by the week, and that
the evidence adduced did not establish the fact that there
was any custom relating to engagements with members of
the orchestra. It was quite clear, from all that transpired,
they could absent themselves whenever they pleased, and
their employer bad no remedy whatever to compel
punctual attendance. The plaintiff himself, it appeared,
had openly said, in the defendant's presence, on an occasion
of one of the hand having absented himself, that that per-
son was perfectly justified in having done so, if it bettered
his condition, " bemuse the defendant could discharge the
band whenever he thought fit." Witnesses were called to
prove that there was no custom such as that relied on.--The
Jury, after a very lengthened trial, found a verdict for the
plaintiff.--Damages 121.
STEADMAN V. MOO/lE.—FALAI IMPRILIONMENT.—ME.
Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. Taylor, were counsel for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Htunfrey, Q.C., and Mr. Overend, for the de-
fendant —This was an action of trespass for false imprison-
ment.—Plea, not guilty by statute.—lt appeared that the
plaintiff, somewhere about the year 1836, mortgaged certain
premises at Hayfield place, Mile-end-road, to a 'Miss Holt.
The mortgage was subsequently foreclosed, and an assign-
ment was executed about five years ago of the premises and
everything appertaining thereto. A writ of possession was
issued, and the mortgagee was duly put into possession by
the sheriff. The plaintiff, who was allowed to resume occu-
pation of the premises, subsequently erected thereon • shed,
the materials composing which he conceived he bad • right
to remove, upon the ground that they had aot passed to the
mortgagee. Within a recent period the plaintiff was about
to italOVe tiles
and other matters need in the construction of
the shed in question, when the defendant, who was clerk
to the solicitors of the mortgagee, interposed, end gave
him in charge to a police-constable. He was
taken in custody to a statiorrhouse, about three
o'clock in the afternoon, and charged before a police in.
specter with feloniously stealing the articles he was about to
remove. The defendant did not, however, persist in the
charge--he refused to sign it formally and the plaintiff was
liberated. The charge was withdrawn upon an alleged con-
dition that no more of the property should be removed until
the plaintiff should first have professional advice that he was
authorised to do so. Those facts having leen proved, it
was submitted on behalf of the defendant that a non-snit
should be entered. By the ith and Bth Geo. IV., c. 29 end
30, it was provided that any person feloniously removing
fixtures, ripping off roofs of houses, or committing other
such injuries to property, might be given in custody without
a warrant for such offenses, and that in all cases where pro-
ceedings for such arrest, made under those statutes, were sub-
sequently taken, the defendant should have one month's notice
of ths action. No notice had been given in this case, and
wpm dint gesand it was submitted the plaintiff should be
soastdisiL—Ths Lord Chief Baron refused to nonsuit, and
left it to the jury to detarissine first, whether they thought
the defendant bs the believed he was acting under those
statutes, whew be pis tits plaintiff in charge ; and secondly,
whether he had lIMINIabIe grounds for that belief, no matter
whether it was bowl Ids or not. In order to entitle a man
(said his lowdabilp) to Mention under the statutes relied
orporawarly, from all the IdElMasbases
W tle Inowelon, that he act only timely and
Wined ho lin sagas fa roams. el the govt-
.
slows the so% vim he welhood the dory, but, ft
skald eawn
ypoar, then gal rorwasiabla younds for b.-
listing it —A-realist far M. was retuned.

IN as THR BARON Cl BODI O. rna QOBRIC—CAN AN
ADYINIIITRATOR CZ • PARTY TO TIE R 3001113 ON A WRIT
OF ERROR?—This well-known case, it may be recollected,
originated in • petition of right to the Court of Queen's
Bench by the late Baron de Bode, involving a claim of up-
wards of 300,0001 against the crown. A verdict was given
for the plaintiff, but the court directed judgment to be en-
tered for the crown upon legal and techn"mil grounds. On
this a writ of error was sued out and an elaborate argument
ensued. The case was ripe for judgment when the Baron de
Bode died. Shortly after his decease his son, the present
Bane de Bode, came over to this country frem Russia,
and having administered to his father's will, com-
mended proceedings de novo against the crown. In
the early part of the last term, the crown ob-
tained a rule to show cease why the writ of error should '
not be quashed and subsequent proceedings stayed, on the
ground that under the statutes which gave the error
(II Oeo. IV. and 1 Wm. IV.) an administrator could not
take out • writ of error, and recommence proceedings insti-
tuted by the testator ; that if he (the administrator) was dis-
satisfied with the proceedings as they then stood, his only
remedy was by an application to parliament (the remedy
prior to the above statutes) under the fiat of the Attorney-
General. On Saturday Mr. Serjeant Manning and Mr. Hill
appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and the Attorney-General
and Mr. Waddington for the crown. After an ingenious
maw bet of too teehnical a character to interest the
rooder. the eourt intimated that time would
be tam to totailler the judgment.

COUNTY COURT.-BA.TURDLY.

Before a a Mayan, Es q., Jade.
DENNY v. FLANAGAN.—Tain Saute BARRISTER CAM—
This was an action brought by • poor woman, named
Denny, whose case has been repeatedly before the public, to
recover the sum of 10a from H. M. Flanagan, which she had
paid to kim for the purpose of feting counsel to defend her
sea at the Middlesex neurons.—Mr. Flanagan, on the case
Wog milled on, handed up to the learned judge a letter,
=to be from Mr. Horny, the barrister. It was
to the chief clerk of the court, and was as follows :
Dnisime.lf nAolB.—Dear Bir,—An iatlmation hes been made
wthSetZINIMIIIIMOD as witness is desired la this emu I would
NOVA hut am so situated to-day at this court, that I know
to
sooseso
sot law
tiic
C. tar ILa Ilse defendant has therefore desired me
yids a view, if convenient, of postponing the CARL—
TON% Moen C. C. Court.—blev. 17, 0147.
Judge: Now, Mr. Flanagan, when did you see Mr. Harry?
Flanagan: This morning, your honour, at his residence, No.
30, Charlotte-street, Pentenville.—Judge: Did you see Mr.
Horry write this? Flanagan: I did.—Judge: Where did
he write it? Flanagan: At his house in Charlotteatreet ;
and when he gave me the letter he told me to give his com-
pliments to your honour, and that he would attend any other
day.—Judge Now, Mr. Flanagan, you say that he wrote
this letter in Charlotte-stmt do you know that he dates it
not from Charlottevtreet at all, but from quite • different
place ? Flanagan : He did sot write the letter in Charlotte-
street at all, your honow.—Judge : But have you not
already sworn that he did? Flanagan: It is a mistake,
your honour. I walked from Mr. Horry's house with him
this morning to Clerkenwell-green, and going along, Mr.
Hurry went into a cigar-shop in Auiwell street, and wrote
the letter upon the counter. —Judge : You have already
told one untruth, and I think this is another. I shall
take care to send this letter to Mr. lorry, together with
the notes of your evidence. The letter is not dated from
the cigar shop, but from the Central Criminal Court.—The
defendant complained that, owing to the gross calumnies of
the press in his case, he had lost the respectable position
which he once held. It was solely out of humanity that he
undertook to fee counsel for the plaintiff is this case.—
Judge : You den't dispute baring had the 10r. What became
of it ?—Flanagan did not say ; but answered that he
kept a running account with Mr. Harry, and at the present
time owed that gentleman five guiaeas for fees. He gave
Mr. Harry all the briefs he could. He added that he was
not now acting as Mr. Horry's clerk.—The Judge : I am
perfectly satisfied that you must refund this money, and you
wilt be ordered to pay it on neat Wednesday week.—Mrs.
Denny said Flanagan held an 1 0 U for 12.. lid., which was
given him as security lor the remainder of the counsel's fee,
and she was afraid he would come upon her for that.—The
. Judge said she Peed have no fear about it.—Flacsgan con-
, ducted himself in such an outrageous way, that the judge
. inquired if he was in his right sense., and one of the officers
. was compelled to show him out of coast.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COMM.—Before Mr. Janice Coltman.
FORORRY OF A DIVIDEND WARRANT.—G. Phipps, 47,
harness maker, was indicted for forging the name of Thomas
Rance to a dividend warrant for 421. 9s. II d., with intent to
defraud the governor of the Bank of England. It appeared
that the prisoner married the daughter of a person named
Griffiths, who resided at Chelmsford, and who, in her life-
time possessed a considerable amount of property in Consols
in the Bask of England. She died in 1830, bequeathing the
bulk of her estate in trust to her two brothers, John and
Thomas Bonne, to pay over the interest to the prisoner's wife
and giving her a power of appointment over the principal at
her death. It seemed that John Rance died very soon after!
his sister, and the surviving executor Thomas, by a
power of attorney, gave the prisoner authority to
receive the dividends, and he did so for several years.
The prisoner carried on the trade of a harness maker
and saddler, and about the year 1846 he was
compelled to petition the Insolvent Debtors' Court, when
his property was, of course, vested in the official assignee. A
gentleman named Addington bad taken some interest to the
prieoner's affairs, and advanced hint considerable awns of
money, and at length the prisoner and his wife agreed to
assign their interest us the dividends of the stock in qamaam,
which, at that time, consisted of a sum of 2,9181., t. Ks.
Addington, as consideration for a further sum of wary
which he agreed to advance, the terms of the deed bing
that Thomas Ranee should continue to receive the di
dends, but to pay them ever immediately to Mr. Adding-
ton, or his executors alter his decease. The prisoner, of
course, after the execution of this deed, had no title
or interest whatever in either the stock or the divi-
dends, and the latter were paid over every hit-
year to Mr. Addington during his lifetime, and sable
quently to his executors. The forgery in question appoint
to have been committed with regard to the hall-year's divi-
dend due in October last, and upon Thomas Rance going to
receive the amount he was surprised to find that some one ,
had been before him, and had obtained the dividend by
forging his name to the dividend warrant and to the receipt
is the pay-office. The bank authorities, of course, imme-
diately instituted a moat rigid inquiry, and the result was
such as to leave no doubt that the prisoner was the person
by whom the forgery had been committed. It was shown
I that on the 11th October a person who could cot be identi-
fied applied at the usual office in the bank lot the dividends
upon the stock of Elizabeth Griffiths, deceased, and upon hie
describing it accurately, the usual documents were given to
him, which he signed is the name of Thomas Ranee, the
executor. The mode in which he received the amount was
by two five pound notes, numbered 36,681 and 36,682, and
the rest in cash, and it was by the mode of his dealing with
the last-mentioned note that the prisoner was detected. It
seemed that he passed the note at a bootmaker's in Shore-
ditch, and gave the name of Wilson. The note soon after-
wards came in to the Bank, and the prisoner was traced out
and identified by the bootmaker as the person who bed given
it to him, and upon the prisoner being questioned as
to how he became possessed of the note, he said that
it had been lent to him by a person named Emery,
but that individual, upon being applied to, denied altogether
the truth of his statement. In addition to this, it was shown
that the prisoner, about the time the forgery was committed,
paid money to a baker in his neighbourhood, and requested
that the fact might not be mentioned ; and besides, it was
also deposed to positively that the forged signatures were in
the handwriting of the accused.—The prisoner, when called
upon for his defence, wade a long statement with regard to
his pecuniary transactions with Mr. Addington, and asserted
' that neither that gentleman, nor himself, nor his wife, ever
considered that they had given up absolutely the right to the
dividends upon the stock in qnestion.—The jury found the
prisoner Guilty, but recommended him to the merciful con-
sideration of the court.—Mr. Justice Coltman said he should
take time to consider what sentence ought to be pronounced.
RECEIVING STOLEN .00014.—Phi1iv Deoerell Iliehman
appeared to take his trial upon several indictments for the
above offence. The accused is stated to be a merchant, and
a men of considerable property. This ease appeared to excite
a great deal of interest. —A. girl, named Ann Simmons,
'tends charged with stealing property to a very large amount
from her employers, and her father is also accused of receiv-
ing part of this stolen property. These two prisoners were
arreigoed at the sitting of the court ; and Mr. Hickman was
then arraigned upon three separate indictments for receiving
a large quantity of silk, satin, velvet, shawls, Irish linen, and
other articles of a similar description, the property of James
Marshall and another.—Sir F. Therieer, who was one of the
counsel foil the prisoner, said it was a case which must ne-
cessarily occupy very considerable time, and could not be
concluded that day, and he suggested that it would be advi-
cable to postpone it till Monday.—Mr. Justice Coltman said
he saw no objection; and Mr. Hickman was accordingly set
at liberty, the reoognisances having been formally resented.
THIRD COURT.—Before Kr. Commissioner Bullock, he.
CHARGE Or ROBBERY AOSINaT A SHERIFee OFFICER.
—J. Arnold surrendered to take his trial upon an indict-
ment charging him with having stolen three 61. Bank of
England notes, the property of George Ryan.—Kr. Mellor
opened the case.—Mr. George Ryan win earalasi.
•le said: I am a parliamentary reporter, end ruble at
Enfield ' • I also reside in Bridge-street. Westminster. Oa
the 10th of October the prisoner was put in passindon at my
house at Enfield to levy a distress for 111. 19s. Be went in
at twelve o'clock, and remained all night. The next maw
ing I called him into the breakfast-room and told hint I
would pay his demand, which he told me came to 131. 1
fees being added to the levy. I paid him a 101. Bank el
England note and 31. 10s. in gold. I don't know the number
of the note. I had eight or nine 101. notes in my pocket, bat'
I did not know the numbers of any of them. The prisoner
took the money, and gave me a receipt, which I now pro-
duce. Mrs. Ryan taw the money paid ; and when I was
paying the prisoner, she asked me for some money, and I
gave her three 51. notes of the Bank of Ragland. She took
the numbers of those notes on a piece of paper; this is the
same (showing half a sheet of note paper). Mrs. Ryan
wrapped up the notes in a piece of paper, and while she
was holding them in her hand the baby upstairs screamed,
and in the hurry of the moment ske laid down the notes on
the piano and ran upstairs. The prisoner was arranging his
papers, standing near the piano. When he was prepared to
leave I showed him out b 7 the garden-gate, and he was
joined on the road by a man in a snufteoloured coat, and the
two walked away together. I took (Agra by the brook-
side, and the servant came to inn and odd her nMArals
wished to know whether I had tikes lip the nett I bed