The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-29 00:00:00

GOODWOOD, Issl.

NOMINATIONe roll THE GOuDWOOD CV P.—Count iiatin's
Moats., b yr.. ,bred on rho nuneni) ; Baron la.ortur.'s AP
fiord, 4 yrs, (bed on th • 0i1ti11111.11.4 ; Gird Peon Pi Volt*. or. 4
yrs; Palace ltuitz a's Young Akimbo*, sired areal us 11111114L11::
Meagan's ttuwdsirough, 4 yrs; Mr. Peuley's tgot‘ek, ssed; Olr
Fagot's Evedarius. 3 yrs; Lord Exeter's Bu'sbell, 4 yrs• Lord
Exeter's little Eiels, 4 yrs; Mr.ll.3.rucd's Clincher, 4 rs ; Mr.( rd.
Uer..11.-mturat, 3 yrs; Lord Dtrkthed.a in The 3;u•qu.s.
yes; Mr. W. s. ritsoley no The Nigger, 4 ps; Duke er
aribou, 4 yr.; Lord Crump., 3 yrs; Lord Ai,"te 114 *trey.
yrs; Sir li. It. UMW:WU IL, Firedamp., 3 yrs; Duke or ttalreere's
tabular, I yes; Laslll. U. Lennox as I. ...Mints. 5 yes; Mo"e eg
Bosufor or for Tout, 3 yrs; tord;thurkeilm as lord ergs. • flij
Lord Mess:son its Predesitnee, aged (bred in kraut.); lard Foley
no iimilltirmit g, 3 yrs; Lard Stanle;'s Ills' 3 yrs; Lu d t*
oby Sir Ilea::.. uut of Usrk amen, 4 yrs; Baron Brunorr re &iris
dellstion, 3 yrs; I. ord Eltabirrnee no Ere liunter, 4 yes; Mr. M.
Oust as MeLsly, S yrt; Sir U. Wombwell ns

BIBUItY CLUB, 1851.
ACCEPTANCES Iron 1111: Littits 5TA131.0..-13011 0, 5
yrs, llst, titiankinah, J yn., 94 9:b. The rest pay 3 'm. •.al.

CRIC'KET.

ELEVEN OF ENGLAND v. TWF.NTV-TWO OF

-
OAINSBOIIOUGII AND DISTRICT.
At the tkie a yesterday's play the wort was fellow.:

U•lx.ioa.;'euu.

J. glapra. e Day, Is 1111111yer---

S b 111.:.'r

T. Woad, tun uj
W. Cwt.. run out 1 b A ulden ...... . ...
11. V. Grandams. Ego, 0 Winks U b lIIIIrcr ... ..,
Ilosthcotr, b Minya
11. Cutts. b 111 p-r
T. Arlby. 6 Wben 3 a Huy, 0 Ulllycs..,
W. Harsh .11. Esq., b Winkn....— 7 b 'A uulen..... ....
P. "'inky. c Parr 0 lilllyer 4 b tlialtn.
W. 11. Calukott, 6 111117.1 2 not nut..„
W. Pelby, c Guy 0 Ilitlyar
T. Trunlinaor, b Wialen 0 c Pot, 0 %Virden
H. li. Mil6er, Em , b Witsbra.....„ 0 run 0uta...... ...... ..
I. laakip, It Wisdom .... 9 run Ontt..„.. ...... .
W. 11. Cubic', bag , b Mayer ...,... 0 e. Vu7. 0 Ufilyet ..
W. Wilklum.e, Ion. 0 Wi1au...... 4 run out
C. /Inner. 6 1.2.11yer
11. A. Burton, E.g.. 0 liillyer 7 .!, 11.1Iter ...... . .
11..Nettkr`up, b 11.14111.
"—*

v. ..
J. Newton, ow out
O. lladdelney, Kul, run out 0 b IlUlyer
B. IlunUmuan, kipti., b 11.I.lfef
11,4; 1b,2 $ 147;1%2

KIfOLA-1, n.

J. WI let, rollout 2
W. Hill). r, b W. Selby
O. linky
T. Da, b W. **by
J. buy, e W, o', I. W. Selby
. .
N. t,, a. Koq., b Tuley
W. a W. b Thiry oat out...
W. IMArtilbrell, b Selby
A. Myna, kq., b Tinley 1
W. Nlyan. F.i., b W. Selby
D. Day. net out bTa..y
ks, 17 ; w, 11
Total

HoLtowAY ItturrEo Scnoots.—Yesterday tho
new ragged schools of the Holloway district, ere.trl
the past year, under the presidency of llcitry Powna'.l, Esq.,
were formally opened with a public meeting, whic!‘ was
largely attended by the ladies of the district. In tile ab-
sence of Mr. Pownall, the chair was occupied the Hey. Mr.
Hamilton, who was supported by %ON end rev. g.ntlemen of
various persuasions. By the report of the coati. itteo, as
read by the secretary, it appeared that the school,' were at-
tended at prescut by 68 boys and 66 girls, and ta,..1 imp AA
valuable scriptural and secular iostruction to =children
between the periods of May l&i0 and 13i1. It further 119-•
paired that a debt 0(9:171., incurred by the erection of the
schools, remained to be liquidated. Several excelk•nt ad-
dresses, in favour of such useful institutions, were (Visored
by the Rev. Messrs. Magill and Gilbert, who movid and
seconded the adoption of the report ; u also by the other
gentlemen who took part in the day's proceediz.
THE SALE OP ARsElsle.—V
amended was printed by order
Since the bill left their lordships' t
the Commons, which amendments
order of the Ileum of Lords. Tits!
I to the hill mad mode some material

Lrfeetrxl7ZE • bill, al
la of do noose of
po' boon it was
Mb lave boon - r ...
}i--''' c'll
They Imo odoliiti . • •I'''
kteliiiiiilMs• 4. ...
„,
PLI y<
- 12 d tlit.
7( '7tfriAi froY,MI
N.icafr./

Rah) i

EQUITY 04111ITS.—YESTLIIDAT.
llamas nos Lees CIWICIILLOM.
fl sso e. Ovar.—PnolllXTlON ACCOONTd.
In this appeal, tho facts of which were shortly stated in
0.17 r, port ou Tuesday, the Lord Chancellor add be had
sioeJ read the answer put it, by the defendant, and which
was very ingeniously drawn ; but he foam! nothing
states) in at to alter the opinion he had before expressed—
<lac the deft-admit ought to produce the aecogata which the
_plaintiff asked for, and which the defendant admitted to be
fu his possession. The order of the Vies-Chancellor was
scordingly affirmed.
Is TYE MATTRI OF LOVIDAT, • LONATIC.
Mr. Holt and Mr. H. Tirrell supported a tv..tition on be-
&an at t'.e lunatic fur travanias the inquisition and sus-
pendirg au the meantime all proceedings to be taken nadir
it, and she fur en advance out of the lunatic's fends to psy
the sae rows of Lb,: traverse. The lunatic was a fanner is
Olos ~..ter.hire, and w.e. found lunatic under • commis-
In Lately issued to try whether he was a lunatic. The
Jury had been di. ided, but at last agreed on • verdict
(with greet reluetanc.l to it. ea: et that ho was incapable
We of himself or his affairs. It was still the
ooini of bat friends that he was nut a lit subject fur a
rr eninissain, although they admitted some aberrations of
They thought that he might be taken better care of
by the appointment of a pr .per per•Ull for that purpose ; and
th • p...ctaiss prayed accordingly.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Amphlett opposed the
,gsztition.
Ins lima Chancellor went very fully into the history of
fibs ea.e. and said it appears J t aim to he the right of the
party. to be a:lowed to traverse the 'umlaut of the jury, wad
lit, of this inyugry appeared to justify further
inquiry. Ili. lordship, howeser, would not sus nd the
'nth:f• under the commission ; and as to any allowance
aaatie'• estate, for the purpose of the traverse,
hi. 13rdabip would refer it to the Master to inquire whether
k aro. proo.r to make such allowance, the estate being very
basal; sad, if proper to do so, how much might be
Orme+

Uu lerdsh.p wade orders of count on several other
haslet petitions whirls were not opposed, and afterwards
proceeded to bear an appeul of llardey e. TrimUns and
catlwrs," which was opened ors Tuoulay, and is likely to
ectsr..; two duy, yet. Our issport it rssarvcd till further
progeoas it su the hearing.

S 6• m.

Rarn Barra.

Et FA lON BTVII6IM. li lIVINIVUUT/I.—DAllllll.treg

ALLOWANCE.
• Fo:lett. frr the provisional wisignee of the Insolvent
Ihtdo. supported a petition in bankruptcy, praying
that the allow con• mail, to a bankrupt, under the Bank-
ingot low Con...lidation Act, amounting to 6001., might be
paid to the provi ioaal assignee in inwilviwcy, the bank-
rho baring, aft:r his bankruptcy, taken the benefit of the
1 nod vent Act.
Mr. ituasill and Mr. Sturgeon opposed the petition.
▪ Vior.Chai.eillor said that al the court could do woo
to ardor the amount to be impounded in the hands of the
areomitant in bankruptcy, and •he petition to stand over,
with liborty to the petitioner to take such steps so he might
be advisisl. _ _

It s [ISA sm —ll4xicitrrr LAW Cqr.OLMATION Ac-r.

A Mk/0101X° Disnrom.

Mr. ftwanalsn supported a petition of appeal from the
refusal of 4r. Countiissioner Ha!guy to sancuon an arrange-
meat acceded to 17 thn•c•tfths of the creditors of the ap-
;sell:iota, and which, under the 2lGth section of the Bann-
rapt Law Cuosolidstion Act, would binding on all the
cr olitors, if e•,r.f.rmed by th. commissioner. It was alleged
tot the groorel on which the commissioner proceeded was,
Mutt the erralitor. a.m. ;weeded to the arrangement were not
all 01 them eredit.lrs of the arranuing debtors only, but
eimpr.s.4l nano, thou. creditors of a former finis of which
the arranging d litors wen• the eontinuing partners.
Mr. !two 11, Mr. Prior, and Mr. llohhouse, in support of
the romntiwion••r's decision, routended that the grvesi sir
it was teat (hat which sear alleged on the other Ode, hart was
the commissioner's dioatisfactitin with the terms of thu pro-

powd aarraugemeat.
TM VIOC-ChAlItO.llOT ',Lid that he wag not wire that the
toson.i *honer hail not Kora. titled on the view of the net which
fi ad town mentioned, and in which hi. Honour did taut
Concur. lle idioubl, they, fur., simply declare that, ac.
Cording to the viow which the. ..,urt took of the art in
this particular caw, the three-tilth. requircd by the act
le.4ht townpawil of trillium.. not em lu•itely of the ar.
✓enting debtor., but might euntiW in pa-t of creditor. of
VP M will, th-ir fanner partner. With Mai.. derlaration the
µ•later loud /Wand over, with lawny nor the petitioner to
apply to the c0mm....0n r, a. he might he advi'd, and
VrtlArrAt prejudice to On ezercio- by the ennui ai .. inner of
Li, It. . rett.... at to 1,41.1.6011ing th, ti M the propowd
•rrangoneut, a. to which hie Ifesoar had nut the mean. of
forming any opinion.

ByrOak 140.0 aL11,11.011111, %ICA en sACALLM.
1/1 KU Two Disturir 11111,41MUISA31, OXVUUD,
X 74 AllO Ilainurox RAILwAr X . —XX OA UTZ
—AmonsT OF KXPTi.E4 root witien CONTUI•
fultINA AUK Al

.......
Laid Cranworth Ilelivereil judgment in this ea*, which
was argued on the2nd inst.
Mr. 11011 had originally been placed by the Master upon
Om list of tontributorie. in the Amite company, which had
Only be n procinosally triatered. Theca*. was afterward,
Circled iris appe.a4ll te 11.0t,e of Lord., when it rue de-
Ci. 1.01 that sa Mr. llptill had token slow, in his character of
proridoral eniumitteeman, hr wt.. liable to be made a
Contributory. The Masrer, in con.lapienre thi+
mild•• 4 call (tram hint and tither, similarly situat, il, of
V. lb.. Gil., toward, the esprit..., incurred. A motion
ma, then made to sli,eharge the M eiterbi order, on the
und that the sharrholde ought not to he called upon
I.
r. . rontrilaisto rateably for all ti,, expense, incurred, but
only to he liable for such t•apcnar+aceach intli, Waal contri-
butor had nuthorked.

II • lordship, in giving judgment, saiilthi. question arose
On ri order of the Master, whereby a call of 2/. 1'24.141.
per share was made 'Alma Mr. Uptill, a motion nag muadr to
a...charge Viet order. The decision in thin CAM Before the
lloulo of Lairds m. 0., that Mr. tlptlll wrei to be put upon
the lint ofrontributories in revive of Intl shares. 31111 now the
wiest'on was as to the effect of that decision. The judgment
of lb- House of Lords was that he am liable to routribute
L. wow of the debt. of a holy of pimple emaciated toge-
th• r lor purpo, of (,!tact a company. The hint
morel. 01 lend Brougham explained the extent of
bat th-y did nut show for what partiealar glelits Mr. Uptill
mas liable. The power of the Mader tom be eall.rested open
the t3rd see of the Joint-Stock Companies Winding-up Art
(10 & 110ie,eap.45) and the 28th section of the Joint-Stock
Conspatties Winding-up Amendment Art (12 &13 Vie.,
tap. lilt). By the 43rd section of the 11,4 set it was pro-
ui led that at any time before the whole of the amets of the
company Monld have been coll.-eh:o or consorted, it should
lawril for the Master, front time to tins,', to make calls
on the enistributories, or on such individual contributories
or el team of contributories. a. he might think proper (but
so far only as such contributories respectively should be
liable at law or in equity to pay the same), as well for rais-
in
saeli amount a. might be nectselary to pay the drbf 4 or
liabilities of such company or any part thereof, or the carts,
thugro, and expenses of winding-up the same, as also fur
the parpoew of adjusting and settling the respective claim •
of contributories upon each other or ulna the company. By
431, sectionof the second aet it Wl.l presided That
the Pith section of the tint act should be repealed aud
to lieu thereof, that, when the Matter should think proper
411 ra:m may money by means of a call, he should make such
tall from time to time upon the contributories of the rum-
• y, or any of then, appearing fur the time being on the
list of einutnbutorie., although it might be then under ron-
aid:ratioti, or uncertain whether other person. ought or
ought not to br Melodist iu the lint ; and in making any
• 'h call it should he lawful for the Master to tin such au
itmoaut per shoe for the same AA should in hi. judgment
N bay', to supply and tiring in the whole sum for the time
%wing intended; to he railed, after taking into consideration
the piabithility that some of the contributories upon whom
the said call should be made should partly or wholly
ful t ply their respective proportion. of the aajah-.'•
taa Nth section wa. introduced in lieu of the 71th section
of the previous art, th. refine the Mater had power, when
the Lit of rontrihutories was made out, to direct calls to be
outdo f Torah a sum of money as should Appear to him ne-
e, wary. hoeing regard setter alit to the probability that
same of tho custributorios might oat be able to pay the
irPs. It followed that the Master bad absolute power to
make a call an any saatritusertsa to he full estent of the
oraount to which the
he
oath aisle be mode Huth at
law is What to the oath Est hie legislature maw
could bare lateaded to ohm ha Mister to make araty •
Isla* hr what be want ass be liable at taw. Milos&
slop rid Us would le maims le Swum the mesa' Otis
oet er he as ressible to pus ouch isjeasee, but he did
sot hash this was at all Saes the hard antis of
the lint est astliorast the wad iadoed
meNs
ta maw the tall. hr self me the
at law we is apeaeatemiedl Ins respect et the debts at the
toe sr saistrasties would he a roes =
1111•111111 le my that the liras
make • sowlehathy ht LOOM when heepUlhomieted
debta 11111111 mim is M him t
e . la hem-
bee. the Ifilembee left amt *OW in main a gm
say eralsodie, mat/ be lad bet decided is velpesi of
whit dabs, mesh esateibutely aft liable. This wail be
dame Om mord to • perisamilip where each palms orse
hub ke the debit semlemsOld. bet where the osedes, se '
to thee OW% WOW Mills, NM he ate debt sad some Ise
another. *Mee istommesi that the debts tor which smelt
wee Maim shwa int be seteetalmsd beim
ems. be mile. If the Mader bid ameettlimmi the
=a &Ms he which Ile. Uplll was bait era he
hem hem slew to krAgrtert with the decislis at the
Ithaelei but Ste his met bees dose, therefore be was of
*pietism hat the Illeatee'e why mast be discharged.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCR—TIIISTiIDAT.
aroma is Bale&
Too Chinon (sir as Kum v. us Quasi or Poi-
Toots.) v. vas Lom Miro& or Los Dox.—Yommou
tturasa as.—JOIYDICrtQa 05 Yu Loan MATOles
Come.
This war as am, lioatios Ise a pelibin'es to th. Lord
Mares WM. Tb. fems of the wee en fully seated la
the lodgment.
Lord Ceropholl—Wo ore of opleks oho ow this. 6e a
gmbililina ea this ma muse be Mb eirehthr. The Oslo-
*" hee immense/ in eiMea is the gitittaiCoort of
Lain spinet her Mos Poitlital Maria
MQum efiVeir *Phis
ceoreleimo ort. myna
if NA alldonts mob la Ile OM it
rid 1.111 MAO by his amiple se ipinfal
odd& be ewe Ito hod Ile Unit of lir
and mil* yes holm am W Soaker,
=Me le the Itstairro plismrse. Now lips

seated byr her Majesty
_Deana Maria. The plaintiff entered
promedino in the Mayor's Court, ilerdbig to the cus-
tom of London, as tf the defendant was subject to
the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor's Court, and
as if the cause of action had arisen within
that jurisdiction, and there wee a summons to
' appear and plead to this demand. A return had bees
made by the Sergeant at Mace, that the defendant had
nothing within the City and Liberties of London by whisk
she could be summoned, nor was she to be *pond widths
the lame, whereupon the plaintiff swore an affidavit, in
which he stated that the defendant was, as such sovereign,
indebted to him in that gum for money had and received by
her Majesty for and on behalf of the nation of Portugal, and for
the use of the same, and for money taken by her, and fag
money belonging to him taken by her from hie banker, and
appropriated as aforesaid, and for interest on those muse.
The defendant being called, and not appearing, the plaintiff
alleged, by his attorney, that a person named in his
affidavit had money, goods, and chattel, of the de-
fendant in his heads, and he prayed process; to attach
these articles, so that the defendant might be com-
pelled to appear and answer the plaintiff in his suit
then.. Upon this afSelavit the judge of the court awarded
au attachment against said money, goods, and chattels,
and directed the Serjeant-at-Mace to attach the same—a
direttiou which that otScer executed, leaving a notice of
the purpow for which this attachment had been issued.
This notice finowing the term. of the affidavit, described
her most faithful Majesty sa the reigning 'sovereign and
supreme head of the nation of Portugal, and recited that
she had money, goal, and chattels in the hands of the
garnishee, and that he attached the same that the defend-
ant might appear and answer the plaint of the said plaintiff,
and he directed the garnishee not to part with the same.
without the order and license of the court. On the second
day of Easter Term • rule for a prohibition was applied fur
and was obtained on behalf of the Queen of l'ortugal, and
cause has since been shown against that rule and against a
similar rule obtained in a ease where an attachment had
been issued from the Lord Mayor's Court, against the goods
of her most catholic Majesty the Queen of Spain. On
these arguments various questions were discussed. in-
to which we do not now intend to enter, as
we think, that upon simple and clear grounds,
there has been an excess of jurisdiction against
which therefore a prohibition ought to issue. In the first
place we found our opinions upon general principles as set
forth in the case of the Duke of Brunswick r. the King of
Hamlett, decided in the House of Lords, where
it was hill that an action would not lie in
the English courts against a foreign potentate in
respect of acts done by him in his public capacity and as
the representative of the nation of which he was the head,
and that no English court has jurisdiction to entertain
complaint, of such a kind against a foreign sovereign. For
such acts mire.% can only be obtained by application to the
tribunals of the country where the acts arc done or by the
remonstrances or sets of the goverment of the country
of which tli, complaining party is a subject. To cite a
foreign sovereign in the courts of another countryiseontrary
to the laws of natinns, and to the institutions of our coun-
tyy. The statute 2 tnne was passed merely as declaratory
of the law of nations recognised and enforced by the
municipal law of England, and in that act all
process by which the person of an ambassador or of his do-
mestic servant is restrained, and all process directed against
his pods and chatted. are declared to be null and void. On
neession of the outrage which gave rise to this statute,
!And Heft wax press tit at the deliberations of the Privy
Council, and with his sanction 17 persons were committed
to prison, that they might be prosecuted by information at
the suit of the Atterney-Genefal. We yenned therefore
doubt that in the opinion of that great judge the sovereign
of the ambassador would have been entitled to the same
protection as that which was afforded to his ambassador
the minister who represented him. Let we we then what
Was done by the Lnrd Mayor on the plaintiff entering his
court and complaining of the defendant as the sovereign of
Portugal and the supreme head of the Portuguese nation.
He summoned her to appear before him ; and, she being
called, and nut appearing, be, with • full
knowledge that she was an independent foreign
earereign, booed an attachment against her to
compel her to appear. Under this attachment all her
mimic., goods and effects were ordered to be seized, that
they might be confiscated Or applied to the satisfaction of
the plaintif: demand, without any proof of the correctness
of that demand preibously given to the court. The defen-
dant could only get rid of this attachment by putting in
hail to the suit, or by rendering herself in person in the
court and answering the plaint. The attachment applies,
not only to all the money, goods, and effects in the hands of
the garnishee at the time. but to all these that may come
into hie hands on behalf of the defendant, and the process
has been ettelieuely framed so as to include all the property
of the Queen. It Appearr, that the plaintiff hail entered a
formal complaint against the defendant in her individual
capacity, and that the garnishee had appeared and pleaded
in that suit, and that the jury hail found a verdiet fur all
the funds in his hands belonging to the defendant in her
public capacity. IC the garnishee was now to appear the
verdict wed be against him, for any funds in his
hands belonging to her. If, therefore, any money raised
by lean or way munition* of war belonging to the defend ant
should he Camel within the ('ity of London, they would be
liable to he s axed as the goods and effects of the defendant.
It !nee b right that we should mention two uuthorities
which we have not met with in our researches, as they Vela
at varianee with our opinions. One of them is Bynker-
stock, who certainly seems to justify a proceed-
nut of this kind, but this author, who is well
kuown for his antipathy to crowned heads and
to monarchical itevernment, admit. that other jurists
differ from him, and goes on to cite a decision to his
noun country which destroys his doctrine. In 1(115 three
ships of war of the kiugdoni of Spain were arrested in the
port of Flushing that the party arresting them might obtain
satisfaction fur nine claim which he hail against the King
of Spain. and the King was cited before the judges of
Flushing to answer this claim, but on the remonstrances of
the Spanish unthaesselor the States-Oeneral, in the month
of December of that year, issued a decree directing theta
to be liberated and to have free leave to depart,
and at the same time the States sent a representation to the
Spanish government, explaining all that had been done,
lost what had happened should he thought necessary to
render it necessary to resort to reprisals. And, according
to the law of nations, there is no doubt that reprisals would
W the appropriate remedy; for the subject of the complaint
which has been made the subject of this action in the Lord
Mayor's Court, and that there is no judicial authority fur
the seizure of the public property of a sovereign, like that
of the private property of an individual. The other au-
thority is in Seldon's "Table Talk," where it is said that
the King of Spain was outlawed in Westminster Hall, in a
snit in which a men.hant had recovered costs against him.
"We advised to have him outlewed, sod en he was.
As soon as the °oedemas. heard of it he sent the
nosey ; as, while the outlawry lasted, his master
could not hare the benefit of the laws of this
country •• The fact here stated seems to have
been Credited by Lord Thurlow who in the case of the
Nalyab of the Carnatic, where he say. that the King of
Spain has been outlawed in the courts of this country, as it
is related by Seddon, hut lie aside that the outlawry was
bad enough. But we find that other authors have doubted
the fact, and one of them says if true, it was a strange case,
and was not maintainable. in law; and that an extract
from an amusing book of anecdotes is not to be considered
au authority in law. The statement is not authenticated by
Seldom. and is merely • loose report of • gossiping anec-
dote. It cannot be accurate, fur the outlawry is first
supposed to have been for nonpayment of the costs,
and then for nut appearing, and it could not be so Weer:l-
ing to the usual practice of Westminster Hell. We
have caused search to be made for the record, but none
is to he found. The attachment issues and the party does
not appear at the ('aunty Court, or the Court of the Hustings,
but here it issues against a party for not appearing without
any inquiry whether the party is a native or not a proceeding
that would tr clearly irregular. Till the statute 2 Win. IV.
e. 39, there could nut be any outlawry without steeples,
which could nut issue against a peer of parliament, or a
number of the House of Commons, much less against •
foreign sovereign. In an outlawry all personal property
of the person outlawed beeornes forfeited to the Queen,
' whom is entitled to all his lands. Such a proccess cannot be
applicable to a foreign sovereign, who must be sac
posed to be in his own dominion, and who cannot be
sued here but by a drawee of the laws of nations. The
suits in which the King of Spain was concerned must have
been actions by or ag smut him on faith of exchange given
or received by him in his private capacity, for in such mat-
ters he might undoubtedly appear as a suitor in our courts.
la • are before Stowell the same view of the matter was
taken, though, from the fact of a compromise having been
entered into. no formal judgment was given. There •
Dutch ship of war was libelksel for salvage.
Ohj, etion was made that no suit in respect
of such a matter could be maintained against
the Kalif of the Netherlands, but, on the other
Wad. it was insisted that the plaintiff being in possession of
the ship the proceeding was to be considenvl as in elm.
Lord Stowell, however, saw such inseparable difficulties in
the attempt to asses, the damages and calculate the salvage,
that he made • representation to the Dutch government,
sad the matter was honourably referred to arbitration.
We an of opinion that, notwithstanding the dictum of
Byakersteek, and the supposed outlawry of the King of
Spain, that the award of attachment in this ease was an
excess of jurisdietion. Whether the cause of action arose
out of the jurisdiction is, in oar opinion, not a material to
be considered in this case, though we think it right
to say that the process can only be properly issued
when the cease of action arises within the jurisdiction
of the court, and that no agreement of counsel can affect
this:objectioo. The only remaining obiection ia, that this
application has been made before tile 'defendant has ap-
peared in the court below. We think that that is no ground
of objection to the application. When an inferior court ex-
ceeds the lambi of its jurisdiction, it is guilty of a con-
tempt to the crown, and may, therefore, he prohibited by
this court. The contempt in this case is one calculated to
create disagreement between her Majesty and an ally, said
is, therefore, • contempt which we are Wand to correct.
Rule absolute.

Sin Paw. ♦r

RIGIN• (IS as WILITSWORTM V. THU QTRIN or SPLIT)
v. /MI Loan HAToll'S COTELT. FoitaSeN SoVIAZIOS
—PIosIMITIOS ST TME °ASSUMES.
Lord Campbell delivered the judgment of the court in
this ease. His lordship said the t nearly resembled the
one which hail just been di ided. There were, however,
two points of difference, inasmuch as, first, the plaintiff's
affidavit oa which the foreign attachment Mused did not
Istate that the action was brought against the defendant as
supreme head of the Spanish nation • and, secondly. the
application for the prohibition was aside, not by the defen-
dant. bat by the garnishee. The *tact of the AM point
was, however, done away with by the plaintiff's subsequent
affidavit, in which he stead that his claim was in respect of
certain Spanish Bonds, which had hoes issued in the same
of the Woos. ander We noctena oda deems et the till

Cortes. There was, therefore, the same palpable want of
*Whim as existed in the fO7IIIIIIT cam. The only other
zi:ielima was, whether tba court would grant the writ on
on of the garnishee, who it appeared had
pleadmVra this Lord Mayors Court. The court were of
opinion that they ought to interfere in his favour, as be had
caw is Go non within a reasonable time after he had
idoodod. The orb cited by the plaintiff in onposition to
lb, MN did a* support the objection on which he relied;
end Mseamset bad great satisfaction that they were enabled
he pent Ike paw which wee prayed. If they had felt any
bob spa die subject, they would have directed the gar-
nishee to &Were in prohibition ; but u they felt no doubt
that the coon below had exceeded its jurisdiction, they
listit was their duty simply to make the rule absolute.
absolute for a prohibition.
PARISH OFTICLIS. CII•PLAIN OF WORLEOCAIt.
RIOINA (El-PARTE Wooer)
_o. Tint GOVIDXOII.I AND
DIANCIODS or ST. WASTMINITIR.
Mr. Tomlinson moved fur a rule calling upon the
governors and directors of the poor of the pa-
rish of St. James's, Westminster, to show cause
why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them
to admit the Rev. William Wright, D.D., into the work-
house of the said parish for the performance of his duties as
chaplain. An order had been made by the Poor Law Com-
missioners, containing a series of regulations for the parish
of St. James's ; and, among the rest, for the appointment
of officers, and including a chaplain, whose duties were de-
scribed in the orders. One of the regulations provideffilthat
the chaplain should hold his office for life, or until he
should resign, or be removed by the Poor Law Commis-
sioners ; and another regulation provided that the afore-
said should apply to any officer appointed by the
directors, though such officer should have been appointed
before the order came into force. Dr. Wright bad been ap-
pointed chaplain about five years ago by the governors and
directors, under the powers of certain local acts which
vested the entire authority in the governors and directors.
The appointment had been renewed annually, but substan-
tially it was considered an appointment for life, end was
continued till the opening of the present year, when Dr.
Wright was informed by the clerk to the governors and di-
rectors that his services would be dispensed with in future.
Advertisements were then put forth by the director*, and
Dr. Wright believed another chaplain had been appointed,
but he (Dr. Wright) had declined becoming a candidate, as
he believed the Wilco was full, and wished rather to wait
for the decision of this court as to his right to the
office. The governors and directors had frequently
echoed to admit Dr. Wright to the workhouse,
and had expressed their readiness to take the opinion
of this court as to their right. The order of the Poor Law
Commissioners had not been brought up by certiorari, and
therefore it was necessary to apply for a mandamus. The
question now intended to be raised was fully argued in the
M. Giles 's case, but it was not decided, the court being of
opinion that in that case the Poor Law Commissioners had
exceeded their powers. The Poor Law Amendment Act
pre the commissioners power to direct the appointment of
paid officers, and it had been decided that a chaplain was
included under that description of persons. The question,
then, was, whether the commissioners had the power to
make the regulations which they bad issued, by one of
which it was provided, as above stated, that the rules relat-
ing to the continuance in office of the officers should apply
to any officers who might have been appointed by the
governors before the order came into force. If the commis-
sioners had the power, Dr. Wright was entitled to the in-
terposition of the court in his favour. The learned counsel
then called the attention of the court to the eth and Gth
Will. IV. c. 76, which regulated the power of the com-
missioners.

Lord Campbell said tho learned counsel might tako a
rule.

Rule nun granted.

BAIL COURT.—YESTERDAT.
Ihrrzen. 8ANC0.—..80,0112 MR. knit, WIMITICAII.
Tea QUEEN r. TUB BUCKS CHRONICLZ.—CIIIMINAL

INFORMATION.

Mr. James moved fora rule to show cause why a criminal
informatinn should not be filed against G. De Faire and
John Griffith, the registered proprietors, printers, and pub-
lishers of the Bucks CAronick, for a libel published in that
paper on Mr. John Strutt, an attorney of this court. The
libel, which was published on the 3rd inst., charged Mr.
Strutt with having been guilty of forging u petition which
had been presented to the House of Commons against the
return of Mr. Bothell, who was a candidate at the last
election fur the borough of Aylesbury. A vacancy arose in
the borough in consequence of Mr. Calvert having been un-
seated, and Mr. B2thell was returned on the 10th April.
Mr. William Busfeild Ferrand was also a candidate, and
he retained Mr. Strutt, who went to Aylesbury with a view
of preparing himself to enter upon a scrutiny, when It was
arranged that a p-tition should be presential to the House
of Commons against the return of Mr. Bethel', and some
parties were to be sent to Mr. Strutt for the purpose of
petitioning. On Saturday, the 26th April, a person called
Bradford, who it was stated hail voted for Mr. Ferrand,
was sant up from Aylesbury, and gave Mr. Strutt instrue
tions to prepare the petition, furnishing him with
evidence of what had occurred at the election. It
was then arranged that Bradford and some other
electors should petition, and Bradford gays Mr. Strutt
instructions that, in case of his not returning to London on
Monday, the 28th April, to get the petition ready, and he
alms gave Mr. Strutt the most distinct authority to sign and
present that petition on his behalf on the Monday, that
being the last day on which it could he presented. Brad-'
Gerd left town on the Saturday, and Mr. Strutt prepared
the petition. as instructed, and hail a consultation with his
counsel on the subject. Bradford had not returned on the
Monday by four o'clock, and Mr. Strutt accordingly signed
the petition, which was presented by Lord Mandeville. In
a short time Mr. Strutt received information which led
hint to believe that Bradford was a person on whom he
could nut rely, and he took immediate steps to withdraw the
petition, which was done on Wednesday, April 30. On the
3rd of May, the article complained of appeared in the
Burks Chronicle. The libel, which was of great length,
charged that Mr. Strutt had presented the petition with a
view of intimidating Mr. Bethel', and extracting cash from
his pocket ; and it insinuated that Bradford had not given
any directions to Mr. Strutt; and that his name to the
petition had been forged. All these allegations and insinu-
ations were most positively denied in thu affidavits of Mr.
Strutt, his partner, Mr. Cunningham, and Edwards, his
clerk.

Itule nisi granted.
IN RR THE SOUTH DRVON R ttI.WAY.—MANDANICS.
Mr. Stephens renewed his application in this ease which
was mentioned yesterday, hut ho admitted that he could
nst find any similar case in which a mandamus had been
granted.
Mr. Justice Wightrnan said the present ease went further
than auy other to which allusion had been made ; he would
rot, therefore, grant the rule; but the learned counsel
might mane his application in the full court.
PRACTICE Or Tile COURT.

A short sitting has usually been held iu London during
the term for the disposal of undefended causes ; but during
the last term Mr. Justice Coleridge gave notice that there-
after there would he two Nisi l'rius sittings in term of the
entire day. We now understand that these Nisi Prins sit-
tings will not be limited to one day, but will be continued
on the salssetinent days, if necessary, and that any common
jury cause will be taken.

COURT OF COIINION PLEAS.-YESTEADAT.

&matte tx Itxxco.—Baron LoaDCais;;;;cx
?ma 'Gut; ltL Jwirrics CILIONWSLI, ANY Mr. .b.wries

The Court was occupied during the greater portion of
the day in hearing the arguments in the ease of Pews r.
Ityley, which was an action for false imprbonment, brought
against the clerk of the Whitcehapel County Court; but, as
the court took time to consider their judgment, we postpone
our report for the present. The facts of the case have al-
ready been fully stated.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER -YESTERDAY.

.11uOut r,. vw rata Jars •

Moo Lain CONNI.N JCBT.
This was the first sitting in Hilary Term. The paper
contains 30 causes, 2 being marked fur special juries. Only
ti of these are new causes, the others being remaneta. This
it a list much below the average of recent years.
SIIATTUVIL O. CARDIN AND ANontEIt.—OPLNINO
BANILLICS ACCOUNT.
This was an action by an attorney against the Sheriffs of
London and Middlesex to recover a sum of about lsBi. for
certain goods which the plaintiff contended had been im-
properly sold under an execution.
Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Skinner were for the pLaint4 and
Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Hind for the defendants.
The case presented few facts to distinguish it from this
clam of cases, if we except the evidence of one witness,
which gives a curious insight into " business transactions"
occasionally carried on in this great metropolis. The oc-
tal was brought against the aberiff,, but in reality
against the Royal British Bank, who indemnified the
sheriff's oMcer for selling the goods belonging to one
Harrison despite an execution which had been pot in by
the plaintiff. The facts will be apparent from the evidence
of Harrison.

Bramwell, for the defence, submitted that the
Plaintiff's execution was fictitious—got up to defeat the
just claim of the British Bank. Amongst other witnesses,
he called
Harrison, printer, in New Exchange-court, who said
—I know a person named Lee. He came to my office, and
offered to assist me in my business by enabling me to open
a banking account, stating tint after a short time I might
apply to open a discount account. Lee advancsd me 1001.,
with which I opened an account at the Royal British Bank.
I subsequently got bills discounted there from time to time
' in the first instance to the amount of 2001., then 2601., and
lastly 3001. Lee received the whole produce of these die-
counts. The bills were drawn on various persons. Lee
seat them all ready, and I pared them to the bank. There
was no value as between me and any of the parties whose
names appeared on the bills. I called on Lee on the silt,t
of the bills, and he said I need be under no appretie
as all the bills out would be faithfully hos:mural Having
some apprehensions, I again went to Lee, and saw him in
company with a person named Drew. This was ea a Sun-
day, and we agreed, on the proposition of Lee, that we
should go to Mttock on t following da. We
Mir Shute& Ina
the course of wewek. Levi asked
me the value of my stock. I said that probably
at a forted sale it would realise about 2001. Lee
said be was indebted to Shattock for heavy law expenses,
and suggested that a bill should be given to him for 1601.
that was, that it should be given by me to Lee, and by Lee
to Shattock, so as to come on my materials. It was arranged
that Shattock should wait to see what the bank would do,
so that if the bank took proceedings on the bills, he could
step in with a prior execution. He asked if I had got a
Ifriend who would purchase the materials under the sheriff ?
I said no; whereupon he said ho would raise the money to
I save them for a time, so as to enable sae to go on with
Sanas. as snot Um tits antic& of Ahattoek. J se, -A

the bank from the Court of Common Pleas. Soon after an
execution was put in at my private residence in Camden-
town. I immediately went to Bhattock and complained
that he had not protected my furniture by allowing the
bank to come in. Ile said it was of no consequence ; that
the bank would sec they could get little, and would be glad
to withdraw. By his advice I was out of the way for three
weeks. I was, however, advised to go to the bank and
state the whole truth, which I accordingly did.
It appeared from the testimony of other witnesses, that
the bank put in an execution at the money office the day
after the writ was put in by Shattock, but the attorney
for the bank having made promise of indemnification, the
figis were sold for the benefit of the Bank, and realised

Mr. Humfrey said he could not contend against the evi-
dence of Harrison.

A verdict was therefore entered for the defendants, but
leave was given to the plaintiff to move the court on a point
raised with respect to tnc pleadings.
BEM:CLERK C. rOWILL.—WnIT OF Enuott or OFT-

LAWIVr.

This was a writ of error iortCrersing an outlawry. Mr.
Powell was for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. T. Jones for
the defendant.

Mr. Bovill said the writ was brought by Mr. 11. W.
Beauclerk against the defendant as administrator of a
person named Edwards, to reverse the outlawry on a writ
of savifoi his on an execution in a suit in the Court of Ex-
chequer for 5001., by Edwards e. Beauclerk, on the ground
that the defendant (now the plaintiff in error) was beyond
seas at the tine. Ile should prove that at the time of
sussing the e.re.yi freios (15th January, 1850) Mr. Beau-
clerk was In Belgium, and that he had not subsequently
been in this country.
Charles Garrett, servant to Mr. Beauclerk, said that gen-
tleman left England in October, 1819, and has not been in
England since. Witness had been his body servant during
the whole period. Mr. Beauclerk took up his residence
at Brussels. On the 12th of June last he was away for
two days at Spa. Ile returned to Brussels, and took his
family to Spa, where they rernair.ed for two months. Wit-
ness accompanied the family, and only lost sight of Mr.
Beauclerk for one dav, when he went to Brussels.
Mr. Baron Parke directed the jury to find fur the plain-
tiff in error.

Verdict accordingly.
MACKAY r. RunrON.—ASsAULT.—DOSIESTIC DRAWLS'.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for an assault. The defendant pleaded, firstly, not guilty ;
secondly, that he was first assaulted by the plaintiff; and
thirdly, that the plaintiff was assaulting one Sophia Wat-
son when he, the defendant, committed the assault com-
plained of. The damages were laid at 100/.
Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. Prentice were for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Montague Chambers for the defendant.
Mr. Serjcant Shee stated the case to the jury. The plaintiff
is an artist residing at 10, Bmiumont-strect, Portland-place,
who Lin the habit of letting apartments in his house to
lodgers. The drawing-room and two bed-rooms were let to a
lady who passed as the wife of a Mr. Watson. It was sub-
sequently aseertaiued that Mrs. Watson was not "Mrs.
Watson," and that "Mr. Watson" was Mr. Robson, the
present defendant, a merchant in the City, and a man of
wealth. On the 24th of December, Mr. Watson,
or Mr. Robson, announced his intention to leave
the lodgings; he was to go that day, but the lady was to
remain till the end of the week. About ten o'clock at night
the lady went out but returned again about half-past ten
accompanied by Mr. Ito'ison. Shortly afterwards they
b: gam a violent quarrel, and the plaintiff, who was sitting
with his family at supper, went up stairs to see what was
the matter. Ile knocked at the door and was told to come
in. but the moment he opened the door the defendant
struck him with his fist. That assault would not have been
made the eubjeet of an action had not the defendant imme-
diately rushed down stairs and seized un iron bolt from the
front door, with which be struck the plaintiff a violent blow
on the temple, from the effects of which he suffered consi-
derably for some day.
Fanny Cole, a little girl, then in the service of the plaintiff,
corroborated the statement of the learned serjeant. She de-
scribed the defendant as a very little man; the plaintiff
being a taller and stouter man. In the course of the strug-
gle the plaintiff said to the defendant that he had better
go quietly out of the house at once. The defendant is
rather old--perhaps about sixty. The plaintiff is about
forty.
Caroline Young, another servant, deposed that sealed
letters frequently came addressed "John Itoboon, Esq.,"
which the iLimiliurt opened. On the night in question, as
soon as Mr. Mackay opened the door Mr. Robron struck
him with his fist. Mr. Mackay took hold of hint by the
collar, and told him he should go out of the house that
night. Robson said he would not go. Robson then
went towards tho street door, and threatened wit-
ness that if she came near him he would " brain"
her. He hail the bolt in his hand, and as Mackay was
, coining towards blot in the hall he struck him on the
temple with the bolt. It made a deep cut and much blood
flowed from the wound. Witness then persuaded Robson
to go up stairs, which he did, remarking that he would
base given 100!. that this had not hammed. It appeared
in the course of cross and re-examination that " Mrs. Wat-
son •' had that day made some complaint of having lost
sonic money. This was communicated to Mr. Mackay.
Mackay asked what he meant by saying that he had loot
money; but Robson made no answer.
Catch, a policeman, was called in after the assault, but
refused to take Mr. Robson into custody, as he had not wit-
nessed it. Mr. Mackay was bleeding very much. Mr.
Robson was not then present Mr. Mackay appeared to be
quite sober, but "Mrs. Watson" was very drunk.
(Laughter.)
Win. Gregory, servant to a johmaster, had been em-
Rployed to drive a brougham hired by the defendant. Mr.
obson was re city gentleman about 45 or 46 years of age.
(Laughter.) He frequently drove him to 10, Beaumont-
place, and took the lady out for a drive in the country. He
did not know that he was Mr. Watson. (Laughter.) Mr.
Robson had another lodging at 4, Craven-place, Strand.
Mr. Chambers, in his address to the jury, suggested that
according to the probabilities of things, the plaintiff was the
first it:smaller. It was obvious from the testimony of the
servant that Mr. Robson was endeavouring to flee down
stairs from Mr. Mackay. It so happened that the bolt in
the door was loose, and that he turned like a stag at bay to
defend himself. Was it likely that he would deliberately
have gone in search of a weapon to the bolt of the door? lie
could not call any witne-sew, for, after the evidence of the
policeman, it was hardly to be expected that Mrs. Watson
would have a very clear recollection of the events of the
night.
The learned Baron left it to the jury to say whether the
assaults had been proved, and if so, to consider what da-
-1 magcs would be a fit compensation for the injury which tho
plaintiff hail sustained.
The jury found fur the plaintiff—Damages, 101.

WESTMLNSTER COUNTY COURT.-YEir ERDAY.

gamut P. timer, EP.. imam
WATTA T. Tin UNION BANK OF LONDON, ARGYLL-PLACE,
IitORNT-STREET.—Dtsrezzo BANKING ACCOUNT.
The plaintiff in this case sought to recover the sum of
IN., paid in to his account in July but, by a relative, which
sum had not been placed to his credit by the directors of
the bank. The plaintiff has had an account with the bank
from its establishment in Argyll-place. He had given per-
mission to a ludy named Davis, a near relative, whenever
she came to town, and was desirous of placing the cash she
might bring with her in safety, to pay it into the bank to
his account. Several transactions of this sort had occurred,
all of which correctly appeared in the pass-book, with the
exception of a payment on or about the month of July last.
The error was not detected until the commencement of the
present year, when the plaintiff was applied to for
the balance in his hands. From the account ren-
dered of the various payments to account, and
the various cheques received, the plaintiff discovered
that the Isl. paid to the bank in July did tot appear in his
pass book. lie applied to the bank, but could obtain no
trace of it from their books. He went with the lady who
paid the money in, and explained the circumstance fully to
the managing clerk, who put many questions to the lady,
for the purpose, as he said, of assisting to trace out the
error. The manager was told at the time by the lady who
paid in the money that she could not recollect the precise date
of the payment, or the exact description of the money ; but
to the best of her belief the one was in July, and the other
in bank notes and gold. It was also stated that two ladies
accompanied her to the door of the bank in Argyll-place,
who could prove that she went to pay in, and not to receive,
money. The manager requested to be furnished with all
the particulars that could be brought together, promising
that every exertion should be made to detect the error, if
any had been mule by the bank. The plaintiff shortly
afterwards called at the bank with additional evidence,
showing that the money must have been paid in sometime
in July or the beginning of August. He was told to put
his statement in writing, and it would be laid before the di-
' rectors,who would take the circumstances into consideration.
The plaintiff called at the hank at the appointed hour, and
was then told that the directors positively refaied to pay the
money. Hence arose the proceedings at the court.
Evidence was then given by three witnesses, the lady who
paid in the money another lady who went with her to the
bank, and a third lady from whom the actual sum had been
received.

The first witness said the money was taken from her, not
by the regular cashier, but by some person who appeared to
come from the back of the office ; that no memorandum of
any kind was given to her ; that nothing more took place
between the person who took the money and herself than
that she handed the money over and stated the name of the
party to whose account the money was to be placed. When
she had asked on • former ocesaion for a receipt she had
been refused one as unnecessary and contrary to the custom
of the bank.

Other evidence corroborative of the statement of the wit-
ness in all the material particulars was given by plaintiff
and vritnemes.

For the
defence Mr. Johnson called the cashiers of the
establtshment, to prove that the books had been searched,
and th►t no trace of the 1111. could be found.
Oa crow-examination it was elicited that errors were
• -2,-- e.q N... A

agree upon the balance every evening. If any deficiency I
was found, the cashiers must mako is up out of their
pockets. It was not stated what was done with an over-
plus, should any at any time be found. The cashiers also
stated that, in ease of pressure of business or absence,
some of the clerks would give assistance in receiving money
from customers, and that it was the duty of these assistants
to pay over the money so received to the cashier imme-
diately.
The manager (Mr. Clack) said the books had been care-
fully examined, but nothing found to justify the belief that
the 181. had come into the bank treasury. He admitted ho
was cognisant of the practice of any deficiency being made
up by the servants of the establishment. He recollected
the interview with the plaintiff and his sister. The lady
was unable to recollect the precise date, placing the pay-
ment at ono time in July and at another in March.
The plaintiff's sister was recalled, and she positively de-
nied that she had varied from her first statement, or had
given two incompatible dates.
Mr. Parry here said the plaintiff was anxious to state
that ha had a witness in court to depose to this fact, that
on one occasion a sum of 51. was paid too much on his
cheque, and that the party who returned the overpaid
money to the bank some days afterwards was hardly
thanked for his pains.
The judge considered that such evidence was not ma-
terial.
After the respective counsel had addressed the bench on
the case,
The judge said there could be no doubt an error had been
committed, but it was impossible to believe, after the evidence
that had been brought forward, that the error was on the
side of the plaintiff's witnesses. The ease was a proper one
for that court, as the directors were naturally desirous of
having the integrity of their servants fully established.
Verdict for the plaintiff, 181. and costs.

THE POLICE COURTS.
BOW-STREET.
Thomas Codes, John il'Aray, and Char/es Blake, boys
sent out by idle parents to importune respectable passengers
for charity, were charged before Mr. Henry with having
been in the mud near Hungerford-bridge with the intention
of exciting the compassion of ladies and gentlemen uu the
bridge, from whom they solicited contributions.
Mr. Henry severely rebuked the father of one of the
prisoners, who was present, and pleaded ignorance of the
fart.

The prisoners were then committed to the House of Cor-
rection for seven days.
WORSHIP-STREET.

Andrew Mangan, a superannuated colour sergeant in the
East India Company's service, was charged with an assault
upon his wife, by which her life was placed in danger.
Cotton, H 60, stated that while on duty in Whitechapel
about one o'clocc that morning, his attention was attracted
by the violent screams of a woman. proceeding from an
adjoining court, and on reaching tho spot he found the
prisoner's wife stretched upon the pavement, with nothing
on but her night dress, and struggling to release herself
from the grasp of her husband, who was holding her down
by the hair of the head, and beating her unmercifully about
the head and face. lie succeeded with some difficulty in
forcing hint from the woman, who was in such a
state of exhaustion and sidkring that she was un-
able for some time to answer his inquiries, but
on partially recovering herself she informed him
that the prisoner had dragged her out of bed, and after
kicking her about the body till she was a complete mass of
bruises, and biting her severely in different parts of her
person, he ultimately Hung her into the street, and was in
the act of renewing his attack upon her, when witness
fortunately came up and rescued her from further ill-treat-
ment. On hearing his wife's statement, the prisoner made no
attempt to deny any portion of it, but uttered the most
violent invectives against her, and threatened that if she
ventured to give him into custody it should be the last
charge she would ever be able to bring forward. The
officer added that lie had seen the injured woman that
morning, who appeared to be in a very precarious state,
and was wholly unable to attend to give evidence in sup-
port of the charge.
The prisoner, who declined offering any defence, was re-
manded for a week, to afford time fur ascertaining the re-
sult of the injuries his tide had sustained.