The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-12 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY

hail I. eriedual same te leek is the Mellamerthinem rif ma
thwasebres new than * their now.
/CT: = prissedimp then was a• eleg analogies to
justification. of ban ia sidl preatedlnds. mg that woo*
tress wont to take bell *sr awn perms in the rats
Mira with the party seemed, er 'thumbs the privilege of
pried is bill is err a talerwassowe he
der dedatod es for ss persons of lowly essdiWa Witt
eeseielted.
The wart was sr swan of say nil by srldsk It
wee bard to pint Isms fro Iliad a Minimal ad*
astisa he aay terse whatever. la every ore dt
wee milled Se eMeeln • dissistra, or& la the as. of
Melphinliel - di Mat it weld Mein Me easier new
neuessled sadly an ream per I* esorirdllag thatesarpt
em eppeessim motives ami Wineekt the radar esseplebed
K. -Tithe lieu stated wan eat ti se led it to diet saida.
era assarerily, it wail always works that tie perm
sssk this remedy grout pledge his erniamos to hsiir in
therrvenfragreri ardor elite argletrate whim he armed. It
ins 0 to messive rata of fees under which the *art
basil impale the eorrupt motive which the person
werapledaing of It hid lilt distinctly put forward • bat la the
p.sslst ere it could and dieeover any owntpt esc:tive. Much
deer was that the over was unwMeg Memel, id It was
very questionable wieldier any edam hod lass seasseitted,
or anything done that was more than seigisious; andlheegh
one of the magistrates residing near teex:tutor was sup-
,sed to feel partiality towards him, 'on might have
been made to others. With regard tot e bail, the court must
disclaim assent to the doctrine which it understood the
learned counsel in support of the rule to have &deemed.
The very form of a recognisance fee hail showed that a
mosey qualification was contemplated by the law; that
qualification was one obvious test of respectability—in many
eases the only one possible; and it wee of the utmost im-
portents that inquiry should be made into the sufficiency of
that qualification in every case, seeing that persons accused
sometime, found it worth their while to indemnify their bail
and so escape from justice. flo far, then, as this gentleman
had evinced an anxiety to ascertain the sufficiency of the
bail be had been in the right; but the court could not
approve of his talking to the bail about expenses when it did
not appear that soy expenses would be incurred, and it
was of opinion that a magistrate was not justified in inter-
fering to prevent a man from assisting kin neighbour. On
the other hand there were circumstances stated which
threw strong imputations on the motives of those by whom
this matter had been brought forward, and suggested an
explanation of the dolay which had taken place, and the
reason why this complaint had slumbered from January till
- May. The court could not regard these matters as indilfee•
ent, since they are a character to the nroceedinge .1 beth
sides. It would not open all three matters, but, on the
ground that there was no proof that this gentleman had
acted from a corrupt motive, while there was the Owen°e of
that essential ratement of the prosecutor's own belief is the
existence of a corrupt motive, it would discharge the role.
It was of opinion, however, that the defendant had not
entitled himself to have the rule discharged, with costs.
Rule discharged, without coats.

BAIL COURT.
Before Mr. Justice WiEhtmaa.
TAE QDEEN v. WILLIAM LAIR AND JOHN ROBERTSON.
—CRIMINAL INFORMATION FOR LIBEL.—Sir F. Theeiger
applied, on the part of Mr. Thomas Kirtley, superintendent
of the locomotive department of the London, Brighton, and
South East Coast Railway Company, for a rule, calling on
William Lake, the printer, and John Robertson. the pub-
lisher, and sole proprieter of the Railway Record, to show
cause why • criminal information should not be filed against
them. It appeared by the affidavits that on the 31st of May
• fatal accident took place on the Brighton Rail-
way, near Chichester, by which the engine-driver
was killed, and another servant of the company in-
jured. A coroner'. inquest was summoned, and
j.rieig the inquiry, an article appeared in the Railway
d, which wee leaded, " The Accident on the Brighton
Railway—Mr. Thome Kirtley," and was to the following
effect:—" That it would be seen by a notice in another
column that an accident had occurred on the Brighton Rail.
way by the engine going off the line ; that an inquest was
pending, and, in consequence of that they ought not to have
made any remarks, but peculiar circumstances compelled
them to do so. They had, for months, condemned the con-
duct of Mr. %Utley, which was characterised by incom-
petency and recklessness amounting to fatuity. The engine
in question had been put aside to be repaired, but was
brought out by order of Mr. Kirtley, though the wheels con-
tinued defective. He had ordered an old engineer to drive
it, who thought his life would be risked, and refused, and he
was discharged in consequence, while • man who had never
driven an engine before, was placed on it, and the fatal re-
sult ensued. They repeated deliberately that the working
stock of the Brighton Railway was in such a condition as to
jeopardise the public safety. After vehicles had been eon.
deemed by the inspector, Mr. Kirtley had sent them on six or
more jeuroeys. Mr. Kirtley, in his evidence, seemed to lay
the blame on the peculiar OCONIEVIICIIOII of the engine, but all
the engines were so defective that no leis than thirty espy-
rienoed drivers bad left the service of the company rather
than risk their lives, end Mr. Kirtley bad put a lad to drive
engines who had never been on one bcf.re. What the
verdict might be they could not anticipate, but if, after this
warning, the directors allowed Mr. Kirtley to go on so he
had, they would be guilty of murder." All these allegations
were denied seriatim on affidavit —Rule granted.
THE QUERN a. W. WILLS, THE PRINTISR AND Plas•
LiAsisit OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE.—Sir F. Thesiger
said the Morning Chronicle had copied this paragraph into
its columns with a heading which made the article its own.
It was sworn that that paper bad an extensive circulation
among a different class of readers to the Railway Record,
and a rule for a criminal information was prayed against the
proorletors of that paper.—Rnie &ranted.
THE QUINN a. THOMPSON.—MULE FOR CRIMINAL IN•
FORMATION HADI ABSOLUTE.—Sir F. Theeiger said that in
this case, in which he had moved for • rule to show cause
why a criminal information should not issue, he had waited
until now, to see if cause would be shown, and he now
moved to make the rule abeoluto on affidavit of service. It
will be remembered that It was an application against the
defendant for a series of disgusting Weals, against the wife of
a gentleman of rank and fortune in Wales.—Rule absolute.
THE QUEaN v. MRLINDES AND BARRIOL—CRIMINAL
INFORMATION FOR LIBEL ON THE PERUVIAN MINISTER.
—Mr. Martin applied, on behalf of M. Uterregui, the minis-
ter in this country of the republic of Peru, for a rule
culling on M. Melandez and M. Barrios, to show canoe
why a criminal information should not be filed
against them. It appeared by the affidavit' that,
in his character of Peruvian minister, M. Uterregui
entered into a contract with Mears. Cotesworth, Powell,
and Pryor, and Messrs. Schneider and Co., merchants, for
the supply of 600,000 tons of guano, for which 200,0001. was to
be paid. On May 18 he received an anonymous letter, which
was brought home to Barrios, which referred to the publication
of a pamphlet in a periodical in Spanish, called " The Ame-
rican Star," and after stating the object of the publication,
which imputed to M. Uterregui that he had entered into
this contract with a fraudulent intent, and stating that
ho hail received 20,0001. of the money himself—that
he demanded a fourth, but was content with a sixth,
and that he had cheated his government--offered te sup-
press it if the means of "obtaining of the good-will of the
writer, which he know " were used. Mr. Uterregni denied
on affidavit all those allegations. It was sweep that Barrios
was the publisher; that Melendee was the Comeol-Oeneral
of Peru in London; that Barrios was his Mend, and the
eon-in-law of M. Casteneda, the partner of Meltadea. It
appeared that Melendea admitted that he had ainnanndeated
with Barrios, and that the pamphlet was published against
his (Meltudes') consent.— Mr. Justine Wightman
Where is it stated that Barrios is the punisher?
As far as Melendes is concerned, it appears
that ho was not a party to the publication.—Mr. Martin :
There was no statement, certainly, that Barrios was the
author ; but he wrote to Mr. Uterregui after Mikados with-
drew the pamphlet from circulation, and said he would not
permit that without his consent—Mr. Jostles Wightman :
There must be a distinct affidavit that Barrios is the pub-
lisher. The rale will be granted against Berries if such
affidavit is furnished.

COURT OF COMMON

PLEAS.

Sittings bi Banco.
RICITZTTS AND °TIERRA V. BINNETT AND ANOTHIR.—
ADTZNITTI.2II IN A MIN. NOT LIABLI 105 MON= BOR.
ROWAD IT A CO.PASTSIS.—mi, was as 1•505 brought
by the plaintiffs, who are bankers at Penzance, to recover
front the defendants, adventurers in the Weal Providence
Mine, in the county of Cornwall, the sum of 3,6881., which,
it was alleged, had been advanced to one Alexander Robin-
son and his son, the managers of the end mine, between the
20th of Sept., 1844 ..d the month of Dec., 1846. The case
was heard before Mr. Baron Platt, at the Bodmis Assiza,
when the learned judge told the jury that, independently of
1 all other circumstances, the mare feet of the defen.
dents being shareholders in the mine did not render
them liable for money borrowed by • co-adven•
Juror. His lordship then left the following questions
to the jury—whether the Robinson' had received any ex-
press authority from the defendant' to borrow mmey,. or
whether any authority was to be implied from the Mahon
which existed between the Robinson, and their co•adven-
' torero in the mine, we whether the defendant', by their
subsequent conduct, had recognised and adopted the donne
which had been pursued. The jury found • verdict for the
defendants, and Mr. Crowder, on the part of the plaintiffs,
subeequendy obtained a rule to show cause why there should
not be a new trial on the ground of misdirection, and of the
verdict being against evidence. The learned counsel con-
tended that hes edge ought to have told the jury that the
mere relation co-adventurers in a mine Mil glee tbas..
city to ea* paehme to borrow money on theometild the
others.—Mr. lett (with whom were Mr. Bmiseett ihlghike
and Mr. llerhole), on the part of the dehodants, now
showed cones against the role, and sabosittodi that the ease
had been lailpirly left is the jury. It wow' far the jury to
decide whitest _redly to the Maw es 4a the
manner in whist's able woo ettelhaelei, theerefhweity of
oae pertoor wait Whig tips the ethers. The 'DIM, it
appeared, won elnallliedila the " eoet-book " pried*. A
cost-book was kegta *deli were entered the names of the
rs shareholde, and -the spolher of their shares. The book
also mutilated • MIME Ohl &editor astaint of the Pests and
receipta
Mr. Comelier (Mr. liothnit ationall end Mr. Smirk*
with him), on As.eilme di*, eked a mitt, ef eases, to
prove that the,ashodwate, se doreholdess in • nine, were
thiNeferwsworpltainewed by a aaailviabizer. Then sa to
the IMO the verdict was against evidenes, the
eseemdamped that, oonsideriag the relative position
of the porMse, aim was saleisat proof of an implied
autheeity.
The anort, in 'Primo judgment, were of opinion that the'
learned judge wail right in telling the jury that simply end
independently of all other eirenntataness, the defendants
were not liable for money borrowed on a bankleg amount
by • co-adventurer. After laying this down es • principle of
law, the learned Baron had left it to the jury to my whether
there was any express authority, or whether, having regard to
all the circumnancm of the case, end also to the manner in