The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-04 00:00:00

COMMISSION OF LUNACY.

Yesterday;;iiTqUiry as to the state of mind of Mr. I
David Wilson, a retired nu rchant of the City, was opened
ttefore Mr. Barlow, one of the Masters in Lunacy, and a
special jure of magistrates and merehants, at the Sheriff's- I
office, Reif Lion-square.
The learned Commis:ioner explained to the jury the na-
ture
of the proceeding ; and Mr. Follet, who appeared in
support of the petition, which W. IA presented by the next of
kin, and was not oppowd, briefly stated the case, and called
the witnesses, when. evidence dearly established the fact
that since the 10th of Dee. last the unfortunate gentleman,
Mr. Wilson, had been of unsound mind. That he was MI
at the present time was quite evident from his conduct oral
conversation in court, when brought in by direction of the
learned commissioner. Mr. Wilson is a native of Scot-
land, and early in life he joined a mercantile firm in
the City as a partner, and having in that capacity
anuoocal'a considerable fortune, he retired into private life,
and continued to reside with his wife (having no children)
until her death, which took place about two years ago,
after which event he became unsettled in his habits, wan-
dering about from place to place. In December last he was
residing at Brighton, when his friends thought it necessary
to have him placed under the care of au attendant, he
having talked in an extraordinary manner about marrying
a second time, and upon other subjects, and having on one
occ-asion, after he had retired, suddenly reappeared in the
room where his frieinki, including some ladnM, were assem-
bled, in his night-shirt. On the 31st he was brought under
the notice of Dr. Winslow, and subsequently was admitted
into Sussex House Asylum, under the superintendence of
that gentleman, who now deposed that he was labouring
under an organic disease of the brain, a result of which was
general paralysis, and that there was not the slightest hope
of his restoration to reason, being now decidedly insane.
The lunatic, a stout fine-looking man, about fifty. years
of age, on being questioned by the commis:stones-,
gave extremely incoherent answers. Amongst other things,
of an equally ridiculous nature, he said he had a second
wife, who was a little princess; that he had dined with the
little queen and Prince Philip; that he went to Paris and
hack in an hour and a half, and sold three little pictures for
42,000/. ; that he was going to California to (salvers gold
into dollars ; that he was going to travel to Jerusalem,
Syria, and Rome—to the latter place to kiss the Pope's toe;
and that he was about to he married to a rich heiress in
Yorkshire. Ile clapped his hands with great glee, and in-
sisted upon his hat being kept on, and said he knew he was
nut capable of managing his affairs, and wished for some one
to manage them fur him. The precise amount of his pro-
perty was not stated in evidence; the lunatic himself said
he had 1,2001. a year, but he could not tell how it was Ile
rived, and he hail told Dr. Winslow that he wag aorth from
200,0001. to 3.50,000/.
The jury found that he had been insane since the 10th of
December last.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL CO(RT.
.The February session of the Central Criminal Court com-
menced yesterday, before the Right lion. the Dirt]
Mayor, the Reeoider, the Common Set-judo, Al& rman Sir
J. Duke, the sheriff4,_ under-sheriffs,
CI:ItJE ItY CAPES.

Charles nailing surrendered to take his trial for misde-
meanour. Mr. 14awkins and Mr. l'arnell were for the pro-
secution, and Mr. Iluddleatune appeared for the defendant.
The misdemeanour imputed to the defendant was that
upon the trial of a cause Mark. o. Boulnnis," in the Court
of Exchequer, he had, in giving evidence for the defendant
in the action, committed wilful and corrupt perjury. It
appeared that Marks was a carriage broker, and Mr.
Boulnois and his brother were the proprietors of the
Carriage Bazaar in Baker-start; that there had been a
' running account between the parties for some time, and at
length the amount of the balance due was disputed by
Marks, and upon Mr. Buulnois refusing to deliver up cer-
tain carriages that were in his possession, he brourht an
action of trover, and it was alleged that upon the present
defendant, who was clerk to Mr. Boathook being examined
a witness on his behalf, he had falsely stated that a cer-
tain sum of ten guinea had Men paid on the sth instead of
the, 14th of a particular month, and also that upon the occa-
sion when a tender was made by Marks's attorney, that the
aura an tendered was :301. instead of 40/., and it was upon
these assignments of perjury that the present indictment was
preferred. The principal witness in support of the prosecu-
tion was the plaintiff' in the itetimt, Marks, but the account
be gave of himself on his ern-s-examination was anything
but satisfactory.
Mr. Ilawkins' (Liles!' the csaminatinn of Marks had been
concluded, Raid he had ascertained that a witness who was
tee have been culled to confirm his testimony was not in
attendance, and under these circumstances kit that he
had no other alternative but to withdraw front the pro-
secution. . _

A Vertlict of Not Guilty was accordingly taken.
Then. was another indictment agaimit ftenry Hailing, the
brother of the defendant, ariiing out of the same circum-
stance., hut in this caw no evidence wa. offered, and the
jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
An elderly female named Anne Itiacktnan surrendered to
take her trial for perjury.
The prowcutor did not appear, and no coun.cl was in-
structed on his behalf.

Mr. Payne, on behalf of the defendant. applied for her
acquittal, and put in nn affidavit to the etfeet that the pro-
igeution had been instituted solely for the purism. of ex-
torting money. The prosecutor, it appeared, had been a
tenant to the defendant, and ;he had sued him in the
County Court for rent and to obtain possession of her pre-
mises, and upon her obtaining a Verdict against him It
I appeared that he had gone before the grand jury and pr. -
ferrtal a bill against her fur perjury alleged to hat been
committed by her in her evidence before the County Court
judge. The defendant, upon the finding of the grand jury,
had been compelled to give buil; but it was evidently never
intended to go on with the charge.
The notice of trial wax put in, but it appeared that the
notice merely stated the intention of the defendant to
appear and plead, omitting that she intended to take her
trial.

The Recorder observed that cases of perjury, arising out of
the new practice of permitting the parties in causes in the
County Courts to give evidence upon oath, were becoming
very frequent indeed, and it appeared now to be
a very common proceeding for the party who was defeated
to turn round and indict his adversary for perjure; and
such eases requirvil to be watched very narrowly. •In the
present instance, it appeared to him that 1114 the notice of
trial was not strictly in form, he should not he justified in
estreating the re•igtnisances of the prosecutor ; and he
therefore thought it would be better to postpone the ease to
next session, in order that fresh notice should be given and
if the prosecutor did not then appear, he should certainly
estreat his recognisance.. _

THE Queer r. Thernrx Muss.

This was another charge of the same desenption.
The prosecutor was in attendance, hut he said he had no
witnekses present, and had not instructed counsel, and he
wished the trial to be postponed to give him an opportunity
of getting up his caw.
The Recorder said that he ought to have been prepared,
and as he had received the usual notice of trial, the deft a.
dant was entitled to an acquittal.
A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly taken.

NEW COURT.—YESTERDAT.
Hams nit Common Nas/rANy.
A LAWYER SWINDLED:

Joseph Arnsstro;g733;lsi;urer, maa,
was indicted for a misdemeanour. Mr. Parry prosecuted,

and Mr. Payne defended.
The facts of the case were these. The prosecutor, a Mr.
Walter Justice, is a solicitor, living at No. 6, Bernard-street,
Russell-Kuare, and bas a client named Rowe, a blind gen-
tleman, whom he (prosecutor) had never seen, but trans-
acted whatever business had passed between them by
correspondence. On the 18th of last November a cab drew
up to his office, and a blind man. assisted by a boy, gnt out
and came in. The man introduced himself to him as Mr.
Charles Rowe, and then requested his (prosecutor's) opinion
about some business, and he, thinking him to be his client,
at once entered into details, without asking him any
further questions, the circumstance of the man's being
, blind quite throwing him off his guard. The soi-disant
Mr. Rowe then stated that he had a person named James
Armstrong, who occupied a house of his at Nine Elms-
road, and that he owed to him (Rowe) the rum of 681.
moneys lent, and besides the recovery of that sum he
wanted to consult him about another matter, which was
that Armstrong. having received notice to quit the house at
Nine Elms at Michaelmas, had nAuested the favour of
staying a few days until he was suited, but that he bad
not gone out. The prosecutor told him that his remedy
would be to apply for the whole quarter, upon which the
self-styled Mr. Rowe instructed him to write for it, and
also for the 681. He further added that he had found a
tenant for the house that the man Armstrong occupied,
and that he should want a pair of leases drawn up, and
would get prosecutor to do it. He then left, and in pursu-
ance of these directions prosecutor wrote as directed, but before
the blind man left, he haring heard that his client had
moved from where he had been accustomed to correspond
with him asked for the new address. The blind man ruined
from his pocket a letter, the envelope of which had been
through the post, and bore the address Charles Rowe, 3.
Warwick-street, Tau:hall-road, and this further tended to