The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-13 00:00:00

to Beni

of course. As to the second part of the motion he doubted
whether the exceptions were not regular ; but he would let
that point stand over until Mr. Berrey, the clerk of records
and writs, who was about to communicate with the other
judges on tome other matters, had consulted them on this
point involving the construction of the new orders.
CROXTON O. CROITON.—FROM WHAT PERIOD PAY-
MINT OF AN ANNUAL SUN OF MONEY CHARGED BY WILL
ON STOCK suota.o eoiiwaima.—ln this case a testator had
directed by his will that so much stock as would raise an an-
nual sum of MI. should be set apart by his executor, and
that the 501. per annum should be paid weekly to oue of his
sons. The only question was, whether payment should
commence from the testator's death, as an ordinary annuity,
or from one year after his death, as a money legacy.—His
Honour decided that the payment commenced at the expira-
tion of one year after the testator's death.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE QUEEN ON THE PEOSLCCTION Or THOS.WAHLET,
ESQ., M. P., V. THE PHOEIIEIOII AND THE PUPLIEHEIL
OF THE " MEDICAL TIMEII."—CRINLINAL INFORMATION.—
The Attorney-General moved fora rule, calling on the pro-
prietor and the publisher of the Medical Tinges, to show
cause why a criminal information should not be flied against
them, for a libel on Mr. Wakley, one of the coroners for
Middlesex, in his office of coroner. The alleged libel ap-
peared In the form of a leading article in the number of the
paper in question for the let of August, that is, on the Sa-
turday immediately preceding Monday, the 3rd of August,
on which clay the coroner's jury which bad inquired into the
death of Private White, of the 7th Hussars, who died at
Hounslow Barracks alter flogging had been inflicted on him,
was to re-assemble, and hear the charge of the prosecutor, as
coroner. The article, which was very offensive in
tone, attributed to Mr. Wakley, in substance, that
in the discharge of his duties of coroner, at the
inquest on White, he had attempted to effect a
gross perversion of justice, to throw guilt on a medical brother,
and to give to the proceeding investigated a judicial sem-
blance of murder; that his motive was a desire to produce a
public sensation that should favourably inflivnee his for-
tunes at the coming election ; that Mr. Wilson, who had
been employed by Dir. Wakley to make a post-mortem exa-
mination of the body of White, and whose report ascribed
the death of White to the consequences of the flogging, had
received instructions from Mr. Wakley what rcport to make,
and that Mr. Wakley was in the habit of sharing wit Mr.
Wilson the fees on post-mortem examine' ons which he
ordered the latter to make. The learned counsel then read
affidavits in denial, from which it appeared that Mr. Wakley
had not originated the inquest on 'White ; and had held it
only after information had been communicated to him from
the Rev. Mr. Trimmer and another magistr'..le, which made
it his duty to hold it ; that Mr. Wilsoli ead been engaged by
Mr. Wakley to make a post-mortem examination of the body
of White, and dissect the muscles of the spine, and
the circurojacent parts, simply beeauselifr. Wakley, on his
return from an adjourned inquest, at whisk the jurors had
requested the Moiler to order some comp.tent person, other
than those theretofore employed, to examine the spinal
region of White's hack, had met Mr. Wilson in the street,
and had requested him to undertake the task ; and that the
allegation of pecuniary corruption was totally false.—The
—tented the rule.

BAIL COURT.
THE QEEEN O. UPTON, ST. LEONARDS, AND BARN-
WOOD.--CREMINAL INFORSIATION.—Mr. Pashley moved for
a criminal information against the parishes of Upton, St.
Leonards, and Barnwood in the county of Gloucester.
It appeared that there was a highway between these pa-
rishes, which was out of repair, and a Mr. Organ, on whose
behalf the application was made, wishing it to be re-
paired, applied to a Mr. Woodbridge Walters, an inhabitant
of one of the parishes on the subject, and it was at first
agreed that the question of the liability to repair should be
decided by the opinion of counseL Eventually, however,
an indictment was preferred before the grand jury at the
assizes, of which Mr. Walters was one. It appeared from
the affidavit of the witnesses who were examined, that
chiefly through his influence the bill was ignored. It was,
therefore, thought that this was a cafe in which the inhabi-
tants of the parishes should be called on to answer in a criminal
proceeding, according to the principle laid down in Rex. r.
Commissioners for Paving Cheltenham, and Rex v. Justices of
Hertfordshire, such proceedings were void, as one of the
jurors was a party interested.—Mr. Justice Patteson : In
those cases something was done, here the parties interested
prevented something being done.—Mr. Pashley went on to
say that he might have asked for a criminal information
against Mr. Walters, but that would have involved a diffi-
culty, as it had been held that a jurymand was protected in
the exercise of his functions. As regar the granting of
criminal information of such a nature, authorities were cited
from Style's " Practical Regist-r," Jenkyns and Hawkins.
—Mr. Justice Patteson By taking this course you lose the
benefit of the act of parliament.—Mr. Pashley : We are
aware of that, but we are anxif us to get the legal liabilities
of the parties fixed.—Mr. Justice Patteson: I do not re-
collect any case of each a criminal information being granted;
but, as I have no doubt about our power to do so, you may
take your rule.
EIPARTE JONES. FHAEDI:LENT CONDUCT OP AN
ArronNay.—Mr. RoggOps, y esterday, moved for a rule to
show cause why James Vickery, an attorney of this court,
should not repay 301. to William Jones. In January, 1838,
Jones, not being acquainted with accounts, employed
Vickery as his attorney, and gave him 301. to pay certain
legacy duties with. Vickery, however, did nut do this, for
Jones was prosecuted by the Stamp-office, and compelled to
pay it, with 2/. 4s. Old. costs. Vickery left his residence and
could not be found, but about three years after, on being'nset
in the street, he offered his promissory note at three years.
This was refused, and he again could not be found. This
year he replied for renewal of his certificate, which revealed
his address, and Jones now seeks through the medium of the
court to recover back his 301.—Mr. Justice Patteson, this
morning, Rail that Vickery being employed as an a•tomey
by a stranger was bound to account to his client for any
-money he might receive. Having considered the matter he
-sat the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings in Banco.
REOISTRRTION AFPRAL/L—HATDON O. Tue OVERSEE).
OF TieEterms.—This was an appeal from the decision of the
revising barrister (or the Eastern division of the county of
Somerset. It appeared that the voter claimed in rupect.of
a rent charge, and his name was objected to under those cir-
cumstances. A person, named Nash, was in possession of
the rent charge for a period of eight years, previous to the
27th of September, 1845. It was afterwards conveyed by .a
deed, dated 19th of January, 1846, to certain persons m
trust, including the claimant. The first half-year's rent
became due on the 25th of March, 1846, and was paid on the
29th of April. The objection to the vote was, that as there
had been no rent paid until the 29th of April, the 26th sec-
tion of 2 Will. IV., c. 45, had not been complied with. This
section required that the voter should prove an actual
posses-
sion, or a receipt of the rents, issues, and profits, r
calendar months next, previous to the 31st day of July in
each year. The revising barrister held that the terms of the
act had been satisfied, and that therefore the vote was good.
—Mr. Cockburn, for the appellant, contended that the
decision of the barrister was wrong. In the case of
" Murray r. Thorniley," reported in Barron and
Arnold, 742, and in Lutwick's Registration Casey:
601, the Lord Chief Justice Tindal held that •
party claiming a right to vote in respect of arse
charge must be newly registered as being in the acted
manual receipt of the rent itself or of some part of it.—M.r.
Serjeant Kinelake, for the respondent, contended that as this
was not the original rent charge but the mere transfer of ii
rent charge, it was distinguishable from the case referred to.
It was sufficient for the party to prove a reasonable mid
equitable possession of the rent, as an the present instances
was clearly the case.—The Court was of opinion that there
was nothing in this case to distinguish it from the one cited.
It was moat essential that the decisions in these cases should
be perfectly clear and intelligible ; and, therefore, the Court
would endeavour to remove any embarrassment which might
arise from the observance of nice distinctions not warranted
by absolute facts. In the case referred to the Court held that
possession meant actual manual receipt of the rent, and in
the present instance it was admitted that there was no such
possession. Until the 29th April no money had been paid
to any of the trustees, although it was due in the previous
month. The facts, therefore, justified the Court in saying
that the claimant was not entitled to vote, and that, there-
fore, the decision of the revising barrister must be reversed.—
Decision reversed accordingly.
Et MYOSIN, APPELL ANT F. FARMER, RES PORDENT.—This
was an appeal from the decision of the revising barrister for
the borough of Lancaster.—lt appeared that the voter's
name had hexpunged, and the appellant now contended
that his claim ought to have been allowed, inasmuch as the
notice of objection was not in accordance with the act of
parliament.
Mr. Serjeant Byles, on behalf of the appellant, contended
that inasmuch as there were four lista of voters for the
borough of Lancaster, and as the objector had stated simply
that he was on the list of voters for the borough of Lan-
caster he had net satisfied the requirements of the set of
parliament. The question depended upon the construction
of the 17th section of the Bth Viet., c. 18, read in conjunction
with schedule B 10 and 11 of that act. This section gave to any
person whose name shall have been inserted in any list of
voters fen any city or borough, the power of objecting to any
other person ; and it required that every party so objecting
shall, on or before the 2.5 th of August in that year, g
cause to be given, to the overseen, a notice of ob
according to the rm of the schedule. The section alio pro-
vided that a entice be given to the person objected to, and if
the party objected to be a freeman it was necessary that the
notice be gives to the town clerk as well as to the party.
According to the statute the person objected to bad a right to
know the name and address of the party objecting. The
law afforded him this facility fee conferring with the
objector, and for seeing his title to object. For these purposes
he was not to be put to any unnecessary trouble. In the
case of " Todball tr. the Town.elerk of Bristol." reported in
"Figot and Rodwell," page 38, it was decided that the de-
scription of the objector was insufficient, because it did not
state in what particular list his name appeared. The cases
of " Barton v. Ashley," In 15th " Law Jo.nrnal," page 36,
and in " Pigot and Rodwell's Reports," saga 206, and
" Knowles v. Brookey," 15th "Law Journal," page 197,
were also in point. lie submitted that as the objector• had
failed to state the particular " parish " to which he belonged,
his notice ought not to have been held valid, an.i therefore
the decision of the barrister ought to be reversed.
Mr. Serjt. Kinglake, for the respondent, submitted that
the notice of objection was perfectly good. The 17th Sullen
gave the power to Object, and the 40th section empowered
the barrister to correct mistakes which might arise in the
formation of the lists. The 101st section enacted that every
menu. place, or thing mentioned in the notice of objection
should be so denominated as to be commonly understood.—
Mr. Justice Mania intimated that the object of the ad of
parliament in this respect was that the party objected to
&mild have • clear and distinct notice of the description and
.title of the person objecting to hint.-I(r.. Se*. Kinge