The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-02 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

ROBSON v. OLlVER.—Excusz POE NOT PRESENTING
AND NOT GIVING NOTICE OP THE DISHONOUR OF
BANKRRe Norm—This was an action for goods sold and
delivered, to which the defendant pleaded that he had deli-
vered to the plaintiff on account of the debt certain bankers'
notes, received by him in the course of business, payable
to bearer, end that they had not been presented for
payment. The plaintiff in his replication excused
the non-presentment by alleging that after the
notes had been received on account of the debt
and before the expiration of a reasonable time for present-
ment he had discovered that, at the time the notes were
taken, the persons by whom they were payable had become,
and still were, bankrupt, insolvent, and wholly unable to pay ;
and that, within a reasonable time alter knowledge of that
fact, he had given notice to the defendant of it; had offered
to return the notes, and had demanded payment of the ori-
ginal debt due to him. There was also a plea alleging the
IHIDISIOII to give the defendant notice of the dishonour of
the notes, which was excused on similar grounds to those
above set forth. The validity of the excuses was impeached
by demurrers ; and on Friday lut Mr. Rew was heard for
the defendant, and Mr. Cowling for the plaintiff. Mr. Rew
was now heard in reply.
The court was of opinion that, as the defendant had been
i the mere bearer of the banker's notes, and therefore not any
party to them, the non-presentment and omission to give no-
tice of dishonour had been sufficiently excused.—Judgment
for the plaintiff.

BAIL COURT.
Before Mr. Justice Wiglnman.
THE Qt:CEN V.CHARLESTITOMPSON.---CRIMINAL INFOR-
MATION FOR LlOlll, —Sir F. 'rhesiger (with whom was Mr.
Hodgson) moved for a rule calling on Charles Thompson to
show cause why a criminal information should not be filed
against him. Re said that he move? under circumstances
so extraordinary and unusual, and the details which it
would be necessary to state were of so painful and even dis-
gusting a nature, and the publicity attendant on this pro
cowling would be so painful to those parties who were con-
nected with it, that in order to spare their feelings he
should not mention any names beyond those which
were necessary to elucidate the facts. The gen-
tleman on whose behalf he applied was a young
man, the heir to a title, and who came of age in 1342, and
was entitled to large possessions, He became acquainted,
during his residence at Cambridge, with a Mr. Charles
Thompson, who was a fellow-commoner, but not of hie own
college. and considerable intimacy ensued between thorn.
In August, 1345, the complainant married his present wife,
who was the subject of this inquiry. She was a young lady
of 17 yearn of age, who had been educated in France, and
perhaps did not possess that retirement of manner
which an English education usually produces. She was
open and unsuspicious, but still correct and lady-like
in her manners. On the 15oh of July loot year Mr. Thump-
son paid • visit to the complainant at his estate in Wales.
lle was previously to this almost a stranger to the lady,hay.
iog only seen her for • few day, while travelling abroad
after her marriage. These parties had a mutual friend, the