The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-16 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,

BUSINESS OF THE COURT.—The court will Sit in banco,
after term, on the 27th of November, the 2nd and 4th of
December, the 6th of December and the four following
days, and on the 11th of December, at twelve o'clock, to
give judgments. _ _

WOOD C. THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTON.—IN THE
MATTER OP CHARLES MACET.—ERFCSAL TO RESCIND A'
SOLE FOR STRIKING AN ATTORNEY OFF THE ROLM—
This was an application for • rule to show cause why a
rule of this court for striking off the roll of attorneys
the name of Mr. Macey should not be rescinded. The
rule which it was sought to rescind had been granted on the
ground that Mr. Macey, who was the attorney for the defen-
dant, had, immediately before the trial, put into the hand of
a person whom be knew to be a witness for the plaintiff a
paper suggesting that that person could give certain testi-
mony establishing the essential part of the defence, on which
paper there were written in pencil, and by Mr. Macey, the
words 0 Query, SI, ?" The court, on consideration of the
affidavits, and the emission to show that Mr. Macey had
any other reason than his own possible impression of its
truth for suggesting to the witness the particular testimony
set forth in the paper above-mentioned, had made the rule
absolute. The present application was supported by an
affidavit of Mr. Pyne, at where instance Mr. Macey had
been employed as attorney for the defendant, which stated
that he had given information to Mr. Macey of
the facts suggested in the paper, and that they were true.
A great number of gentlemen who had had proferdonal
dealings with Mr. Macey also stated their belief that he
was Incapable of bribing a witness to Five false testimony.
The wart had taken time to consider iu judgment—Lord
Deanna now said that the members of the court bad each
wed the affidavits filed in support of the preeeat appli
media, mad also those which had been used when the rule
was node absolute. It appeared that Mr. Fyne, who had
beau aletekin with walrus, had been on the former occa-
sion maw bawl to bring before the court his recollec-
tions/00m in question. He was aowable to do
so, mai me pm he justified in doing so, but it was
asiVir Mlle to offer to the emit materials for
Ahis.f it had ea been preaosaell oa a I
Bet the wart was hemmed to sub-
ject ehhalleepaille Abed ee rigeeene cramelnatiea
all es le Sh amirapesaila, fa earn judgment had
brat el the party pelmel
Sularrha entreal late a ecamamentsay
ea the ea Iserimaa and dahlia* thapmlly
ciamiumine Beat the naiad et the dogma ishodest

and that of Mr. Pyne had not been consistent with the state
of facts set up in lir. Pyne 's affidavit, and that Mr. Maoey's
conduct had not been consistent with a knowledge of such
facts, if they had ever existed. The court, therefore, was
of opinion that, if Mr. Pyne bad become convinced that
the facts stated in his affidavit had taken place, he was in
error. With regard to the affidavit of several most respect-
able persons, stating their belief that Mr. Macey was inca-
pable of bribing a w itness, the same persons would, doubt-
less, have sworn that, in their belief, Mr. Macey was
incapable of writing the paper which he himself admitted
OW be had written. Those persons might employ him in
a ealserdinate capacity if they felt that they could put con.
Mims* in him ; but the court could not any longer suffer
blgs. under its authority, to belong to a body of honourable
0111.0/1 Mid him out to the world as one, in its judgment,
lb to be trested. It appeared that the name of Mr. Macey
bid not as yet been struck off the roll. That ought to have
beet done. Indeed, the court ought to see it done, by
laving the roll brought into court and the name erased in
its presence ; and it expected that this would be done in the
course of to-morrow.—Application refused.
ETANS e. LAWSON.—THE NELSON SWORD.—TII4 was an
I action for an alleged libel published in the Times news-
paper, in the form of a letter from Sir Harris Nicolas, to
the editor of that paper, which impeached the genuineness
of a sword sold by the plaintiff to Lord Saye and Sele, as
that worn by Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar ; and of a
letter on the same subject, stated to have been written by a
lady named Smith. A verdict passed for the defendant; and
subsequently an application was made for a new trial, on the
grounds of misdirection and of the verdict being against the
evidence. The court took time to consider its judgment.—
' Lord Denman now said that he bad left it to the jury to say
whether that portion of the letter which related to the sale
of the sword to Lord Says and Sele bad imputed misconduct
to the plaintiff ; it appeared to him that it had not, and the
jury had in fact found a verdict which expressed that opi-
nion. With regard to the letter attributed to Mrs. Smith,
there was no inuendo in the declaration that made it proper
to inquire whether that portion of the letter imputed mis-
conduct to the plaintiff. That being so the direction and
verdict were right, and the defendant entitled to keep the
verdict.—Application refused.
Connery v. HUDSON.—ErIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AN
ACTION POE A FALSE RETVIDe TO A WRIT or HAISISAI
Court:lc—Lord Denman gave judgment en this case, in
which the plaintiff in person had moved to set aside a non-
suit, and fur a new trial. The action was for a false return
to a writ of habeas corpus, and the ground of nonsutt was
that the tiff had failed to show affirmatively that the
re turn w false. In support of the motion it bad been con-
tended t the defendant ought to have shown affirmatively
that his return was true, and it was suggested that if the
plaintiff had known the turthen of proof to be on himself, he
would have produced, and could at another trial produce,
evidence to establish the issue. The court was of opinion
that the application must be refused, on the ground that the
nonsuit was right, and is accordance with decided cases.—
Rule refused.
The plaintiff then applied for a fresh writ of habeas
corpus, which was at once refused, on the ground that it
would be entirely useless, the points on which the septic*.
tion was founded having been already repeatedly decided
against Mr. Cobbett.
THE QUEEN V. REUBEN HUNT AND OTHERS.--COlfs
SPIRACY.—Mr. Chambers, Q.C., prayed the judgment of.
the court on the defendants Reuben Runt, William Hunt,
Charlotte Hunt, and Harriet Hunt, who had been convicted
on an indictment for a conspiracy to cheat and defraud the
prosecutor by means of a false and unlawful claim. The
claim in questioa had been referred to a legal arbitrator,
and the indictment alleged that the defendants had falsely
claimed two bills of exchange as indorsed to them, and two
lOU's made in their favour. The case had been removed
from the Central Criminal Court, and after the trial a rule nisi
in arrest of judgment had been granted, and was afterwards
discharged.
.% olutninous affidavits having been read, Mr.
Justice Coleridge sentenced the prisoners to be imprisoned
and kept to bard labour in Coldbath-fields prison, the
two males for the spree of twelve calendar months each, and
the two females for the space of six calendar months each.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings la Banco.
_ .

The court eat to-dayio hein7registration appeals.
IstPORT•111 DECISION.—Tome V. LUCKETT.—This wee
an appeal from the decision of the revising banister for the
city of London, who had expunged the name of Toms fret
the list of voters, on the ground that he had not a sediffiell
occupation as tenant to entitle him to vote. It appered
from the ease that Toms occupied apartments in a louse
when the landlord also occupied a shop and parlour. The
landlord did not sleep on the premises, and both the appel-
lant and the landlord had a key of the outer door.—
Crompton appeared for the appellant; Mr. (hove for the re-
wsident.—Lord ChiefJustioe Wilde said, that it appeared
that the ground upon which the revising barrister had decided
against the sufficiency of the claim to vote was, that the appal-
lant had not the exclusive control of the outer door. The court
however, thought that this was no objection to the claim,
end that the want of an exclusive control of the outer door
had no real homing upon the question of the right to vote.
It was necessary that the party in this case should be a te-
nant at en annual rent, and that being found as a fact in the
case, the court would have inferred that this munition was
enhance, even if that feet bad net been distinctly stated
by the case itself. There was nothing to show that that
exclusive occupation was limited or abridged. The landlord
did net reside on the premises, but merely occupied two
rooms in the house, and the court could not see upon what
principal the feet of a party's not having the exclusive con-
, trot of the outer door was to destroy his right to vote as a
tenant. The qualification of the tenant being in other re-
' 'peen perfect, the mere retention of a key by the landlord
did nut limit the tenant's interest, or effect the exclusive
character of his occupation. The court thought, therefore,
that the decision must be reversed.

Dowlrmo v. Luceirrr.—This also was an appeal from
the decision of the revising-barrister of the city of London.
The material facts were nearly the some as in the preced-
ing case, the main distinction being, that a clerk to the
landlord resided on the premises is protect the premises
themselves and accommodate the persons who occupied, and
that he alone had a key of the outer gate. The premises
were situated at No. 11, Mark-lane, and the appellant occu-
pied a counting-house therein, as did also the landlord of the
premises and five other persons.—Mr. Crompton ap-
peared for the appellant, and Mr. Grove for the respondent.
—The court said, that in this caw they entertained no
doubt at all about the question. The counting-horse ',-
copied by the appellant was • qualification which 111111111111
within the express words of the lteform Act, and the ease
resembled that of chambers in the Albany, or shops in the
Burlington Arcade, where there was a gate or other coin
mon entrance at the end. Tke decision of the revising bar
rister, must, therefore, be reversed.
BIRCH 21. EDWARDS.—III this appeal from the deci-
sion of the revising-barrister of the county of Monmouth,
the question raised for the opinion of the court was,
whether a notice of objection was good when served
under the following circumstances: It appeared that
the objector took a notice of objection to the post-
office at Pontypool, with the address of the party to
whom the notice of objection wee directed on the face and
at the top of the document as well as oa the back of it. This
notice was delivered to the postmaster, who also stamped, as
required by the act 6th of Victoria, e. 18, an alleged dupli-
cate notice, which, when produced before the revising-bar-
rister, was found to be without the address of the petty ob-
jected to on the back of the document. The revising-barris-
ter, therefore, decided that the notices were not duplicates,
and that the service was insufficient—Mr. Keating argued
the ease on the part of the appellant, and Mr. Serpi=
Byles on behalf of the respondent.—The court thought the
conclusion to which the revising-barrister had arrived was
perfectly correct, and affirmed his decision, with costs.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before D. C. eeoylan, req., Judge, and a Special All.
LOCLaTT v. CAULIIELD.—IB SPORTING DOG a.
DOMISTIC AWIWAL —ln this case Mary Lockett, a maiden
lady, residing at No. 1, Beaufort-terrace, Chelsea, was plain-
tiff, and Capt. Gordon Caulfield, nephew of Major-Oeneral
Caulfield, residing at 82, Eaton-square, the defendant; the
action being brought to recover the sum of IW. 19e., " for
damage sustained by the plaintiff by the neglipmes of the
defendant, in improperly permitting and soff a sporting
dog to go at large, by which her left arm was esus fir the
said dog running her and knocking her dawn."—On
the 23rd of /art the plahttil4 who is 67 years of
age, was hem Weetbeennenerest, Pfsalloo, into
Sloane-square, balfiseet mime o'aloek in the 'earning,
when she felt a dog rush against hem She fell down, and on
being picked up her left arm was found to be broken. The
boy who had charge of the dog ran away, but was punned
and brought back, when be admitted the dog to be the
property of Capt. Caulfield. That gentlemen was applied to,
and expressed his regret for the accident, but as he offered
no compensation the present proceeding was taken.—The
learned Judge, addressing Mr. Scotland, who appeared for
the defendant, said much time might be saved if he would
disclose the nature of his defence without prejudice.—Mr.
Scotland said, if his learned friend proved no more than be
had stated in his opening speech, there would be no ease at
all to pto the jury. If they could establish the fact that
defendant knew before that this dog was a mischievous animal,
then unquestionably there would be a use for the
jury.—Mr. Evans, for the prosecution, said the plaint
was, "that the defendant improperly permitted a certain
Muting dog to go at large ;" ani he should prove without
contradiction, he thought, that a sporting dog was not •
domestic animal, but en animal of • ferocious and wild na-
ture, and kept for the express purpose of destroying other
animals. It did not come within the case where a dog had
been known to be of a mischievous nature, tad
consequently necessary for the defendant to be made
acquainted with, as it was • dog kept expressly for
bunting down and destroying other animals. The
judge if you can show the knowledge of the defend-
ant, that the dog was of a ferocious nature, there will be
no necessity to raise the point as to whether a sporting dog is
• domestic animal or not.—Capt. Caulfield, in answer to a
juror, said tie dog was • " water retriever."—The juror :
Then it is not used to clime game. Evidence was then given
showing the nature of the accident, sad the expense Mies
Lockett had been put to in mediael and other attendance
upon her, but no evidence was given of the quality or nature
of the dog, or that Capt. Caulfield had knowledge of the dog
being • ferocious and mischievous animal. Mr. Scotland
submitted that there win no ere fee the jag ; that, if even
the dog bad Weanthe weman Wm& of swing against
her, the deheilestwoold net have has ikkis.—Tbe learned
Jed. mid there mold her doubt abase the plaintiff being
eempeibed le rose the diadem's inewbdge of the dog
base of a visions and wdsehievous nature. He said the
plaldf tad failed in giving the asersszy proof, end directed
a ammo% It was stated OM Cept. Cauldeld would now
give mks sisipsardiat is the par Mall, whisk be bad
reibeed Se de ha the SW hinosee in erismissais of the in-
digos= mint et awn able kiwis Sevire Ma.