The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-22 00:00:00

1 Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up observed It was im-
possible not to see that on the one side or the other there
had bean the most deliberate and the most wilfully corrupt
perjury. It was a case in which the parties must have
known which version was the true one; and if the truth
was on the side of the plaintiff, it was obvious that the per-
jury had been committed by the defendant. If, on the 1
other hand, the truth was on the side of the defendant, it
' was dually clear that the crime had been committed by
the plaintiff and his witness Jordan. If the last
I
two were the guilty parties, the perjury hail been
i committed for the purpose of influencing the jury in favour
of • claim which the defendant was not justly entitled to
Ipay. It on the other hand, the perjury had been com-
mitted by the defendant, its object was to defeat the just
claim of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff and Jordan had been
guilty of the crime, they had also sworn toe false charge of
forgery as against the defendant.
After hall.an-hour's deliberation, the jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff, subject to taxation.
Mr. Baron Martin then informed the defendant that he
felt it his dut7 to direct him to be committed for trial on a
charge of perjury.
Mr Hawkins (who is deaf)—l hear the word " perjury."
Am I to understand that I am committed for perjury ?

Mr. Baron M.trtin—Yes. -
Mr. Hawkins—Then I beg to say that it is martyrdom.
Mr. B.iron Martin—l cannot help it. The jury have
found their verdict, after a most patient investigation of
two days duration, and something must be done to chuck
this practice.
Mr. Hawkins was then taken into custody, but was imme-
diately liberated on bail—himself in 2001. and two sureties
of 601. each.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-YESTERDAL

B*rnia ins Criss

IN Ttte 3iATTEIII;T A 1 Fll. EDWALKER.
This insolvent, whose ease was before reported, appeared
fur adjudie itiou. He had been a student at Cambridge,
and afterwards betted on horse races, cards, and billiards.
flo applied to be discharged from bill transactions, his
father having paid all his tradesmen's accounts, but refused
to pay his dial,' ite.s.
His Honour admonished aim on his future conduct, tell-
ing him that when he turned his back on this court, if he
did not turn his back on the follies which had brought him
to it, ruin and disgrace would follow.
The insolvent way discharged.
IN THE MATTER ,V SAKE BANNISTER.
This insolvent applied under the Protection Act. Mr.
Sturgeon supported the application.
Mr. Sturgeon aplied far an adjournment. The insol-
vent had made 1 claim to 13,000/. on the government, and
be had a further claim of 4,0001. in respect of the colony of
l'ort Natal, which he wished to insert in the schedule.
The Chief Commissioner inquired that the insolvent was,
as he saw no description in the schedule.
Mr. Sturgeon said he was a banister, and bad held some
respon.ible situations in the colonies. Ile had espectations
that his claims would be adjusted.
The Chief Commissioner was of opinion that the petition
could not be sustained. The schedule contained no de-
scription, and no alteration could be made in the petition.
The best course would be to dismiss the petition and grant
leave to file another. _ .

The petition was accordingly dismissed, and kart given
to filo another.

BRISTOL, COUNTY COURT.
(11.0. Aatncu Po.r•s. E. 41. Jurot.)
IUONS L BULLOCK.-111Gli CHURCII AND Low

I.bi;;;lriZsTs:ceui)it4onWt:dnCstfa;insfeterinininiit
ease which excited an unusual amount of interest, on ac-
count of its bearing upon the questions which arc at the
present moment agiCaiing the established church, vie. the'
doctrines of the trac.arian or high church, and the evange-
lical or low church party.
The plaintiff, Miss Elisabeth Irons, is the daughter of a
dissenting 11110.istl•T holding a charge in the vicinity of Lon-
don, and the promietur of a select educational establishment
!in the neighbourhood' of Bristol. The defendant, Mr. John
Bu'lock, is a gentleman of property connected with a dis-
till, ry at Bloomsliory. The action was brought to recover
a sum of about which was alleged to be due from the
defendant to the plaintiff in consequence of his having re-
moved his children from her charge without giving her the
usual quarterly notice required by the rules of her prospectus.
The real question in the case was, what induced Mr. Bul-
lock to remove his daughter from Miss Irons's charge. Did
he do it in his own wrong, or was he justified in so doing
by any breach of covenant on her part ?
On the part of the plaintiff it was suggested that the re-
moval would not have taken place had not an opportunity
Were,' itself to Mr. Bullock to get his children instructed
at a cheaper rate, and that down almost to the date of their
withdrawal he expressed himself (through Mn. Bullock)
perfectly satisfied with their care and progress.
the case for the tit readapt was that Miss Irons having
taken the children with a knowledge, and upon the under-
standing. that they were to be brought up as the children
of au evangelical churchman, she, in violation of the agree-
ment, instructed them in the doctrines of tract irianitin,
filling their minds with notion. that extreme unction was a
beautiful doctrine which ought to be restored to the church,
that dissent was heresy and schism condemned in the
Prayer-book, and that at was wicked to enter a dissenting
places of worship; that the Virgin Mary was the queen of
saints, and above all saints; that the catholic was the true
church ; and that fa-tin; was proper on Fridays. Under
these circumstances it was contended that Mr. Bullock was
justified in removing his children from the atmosphere of
curia a ,hool.

. .......
On the part of the plaintiff all these charges were solemnly
denied both by her counsel, and by a lady, a sojourner
in her house, and whew children she was educating, and
who being present in court said she could not patiently
hear such infamous hot without contradicting them. Ido
particular was Mize Irons, and au averse to Humanism, that
.ha *unlit not permit a catholic singing mistress to give a
lesson unless in her presence, and had Pielnilden her pupils
from corresponding with a Hurnin catholic friend iu
Oernutity.
'I he court suggested that as the matters involved were of
so delicate a nature, the ease was one which ought not to lie
canvassed in pnblie, but should be referred; and it way
usr.,l to refer it to Mr. A. 11. Palmer.

It was ultimately settled between the parties, the liti-
gants agreeing that a uriliet ahoul I be enttled fur the
ICldaditr for TI. 17.. 61 ; rikeh party to hour his own costs.

THE POLICE COURTS.
mANsioN-tiousE.
Al bert Konsbury was brought before the Lord Mayor
charged with hoeing defrauded Mows. Lachmann, of
Liam-street, Dublin, jewellers, of a diamond bracelet.
Mr. Yates, who appeared as solicitor for the prosecution,
atate.l that the prisoner was known in Dublin in the name
of Doctor Kleinman, and that there were several charges
agunist hint iu that city, and that an officer who had been
sent to Gravesend fir evidence particularly affecting the
case on which he was taken into custody, was expected
before the business of the justice-room Irai terminated, and
in the mean time a charge would bo exhibited against hint
in which hat lordship WOuld see that it was in his p:rer to
adjudicate.
r. It, Orgir, of 174, Fenchurch-street, stationer, said
en the 31st of October the prisoner ordered some stationery,
which was not ready to be delivered at the time. Ile de-
sired that it should be sent to him t.' Albion-terrace, Milton,
Gravesend, and gave the name of Staremburg. The parcel
of goals was accordingly sent, and subsequently he called
and ordered more stating that he would call in the even-
lag and pay for all, but be was not seen again.
Mr. Joseph Abraham Lachman, of No. 43, William-
Newt, Dublin, soon afteraards appeared, and said—l em in
partnership with my brother I knew the prisoner as Dr.
liielmanu in Dublin. From informatiou which I had re-
ceived from my brother I caused him to be apprehended
upon the c'....rze oh haviur defrauded the house of a
diamond beacelet. I learned from my brother's communi-
cation that he hid called at the shop, having heard of the
bracelet we had to dispose of, and said he wished to show
the article to his wile, and that if it was approved of by her
he would call and pay for it; that he absconded with it, and
that a detective otheer had been sent after him, but in vain.
The Lord Mayor—Did he get the bracelet upon approba-
tion ?
Witness—lle did. Ile was to return it or to pay for it.
Mr. l'elhatti, for the defendant, submitted that the evi-
dence was not sufficieut to justify the detention of his
client.
The Lord Mayor said he considered there was quite
enough stated to him to authorise a remand, and the pri-
soner was accordingly remanded till Tuesday.
GUILDHALL.
haw Boyd, of Spit al-square, silk manufacturer, who has
bean more than iiitee examined on a charge of obtaining
goods on credit within three months of his bankruptcy, not i
for the purposes of his trade, but with the view of pledging
them, was again brought up.
Mr. Italbuitine, who again appeared for the prosecution,
said that as on the last examination an objection was taken I
that there was no evidence of fraud, he now proposed to
pat in the statement made by the prisoner before the Court
of Bankruptcy as evidence of fraud, inasmuch as it showed
that he was in an inextricable state of embarrassment three
months before his banktaptcy, and was pawning psis
obtained on credit, which he could not hope to pay for.
j The reception of this was objected to by Mr. Kersey, In
the port of the prisoner, but was received It showed that
between lay, 1849, and June, 11451, the bankrupt bad eh-
mined silk of the value of 18,3791. lase 4d., which had
, been pawned for 11,2191., of which the quantity redeemed
amounted in value to 9321., so that above 10,0901. worth of
goods had been pawned and never redeemed. A person
named Draketurel was a seller of Silk to Boyd up to Jan. 17,
1850, from which time Le ceased to sell to him, but received
a large nauther of deposits of silk, fur which money was
advanced. Mr. Attenborongh was stated to have received
deposits of silk from May, 1819, to June, 1830, to the ex-
tent of 3,4311., besides others of a large amount. From
1819 it al o appeared that the bankrupt received silks
from different persons and pledged them till immediately
before his bankruptcy, the whole amounting, as above
stated, to 18,579/. 18s. 4d.
Mr. Richard Attcnborough, pawnbroker, of 31, Crown-
street, Finsbury, was then called, and being salted why he
did not produce his books on a former occasion, as directed
by a summons he had received, replied that the book re-
; quired contained the names of his customers, which be did
not wish to expose. It was now in court, and extracts had been
made from it with regard to the transactions with Boyd. He
was then asked as to an advance of money on silk to Boyd,
on the 17th, and sail ho could not tell anything about it, or
what the amount wag. Although he had received a sum-
mons as a witness be had not examined his book,. The
charge for interest was 15 tier cent. per annum, but if swag
pledged were redeemed bitiZsce the expiration of a month, a
garna's haired was charged on them. The witness beinf
proud es to the transactions with Boyd, was about to 100
ai his book and the estricto fro* its sat bid 494(49 was