The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-26 00:00:00

SPORTING.

NEWCASTLE-C/N-TYNE RACES.—(Couctoozo.)
FRIDAY.—INNKISPER.4' PLATE of 161., added to 111F44p-
gal,. a 3 wys. cure, 3R ; the seeoud to Mae WI stake 1 mile. (6
subs.)
Mr. Ryan's Iltuulsman (ltobermoo) 1 1
?dr. (lniy's Grand Seignior
Mr. Dawson'. Inglewood
Mr. Waltcrea Misfit • (llla.brun) 3 1
Mr. A. JotuMtwil•ll/001.11

The GonerKew= bulk harts way.
SCHRIST STAKES of 2 SOTS. each, with a purse added, for
all homes, 1 let 7lb each; gentlemen riders. Heats. T.Y.C.
Mr. thirties' Little Jerk Horner (Mr. ()region) 3 1 1
Mr. Dunning'. Donald Card 1 2
Mr. Midilleton's Eleatic .
Mr. M'Adam's The Irishman 2 3 4
Mr. Ridley's Oxygen 4 4 5
Won by a length.
BETTING AT MANCHESTER.—FRIPAY.
GOODWOOD STAKES.-9 to 1 agt Crosier, 10 to 1 eget
Diplomatist, t 1 to 1 agst Chat, 100 to 6 eget Hydra, gm, 100 to 6 art
Remembrance.
Ltvetwoot..-20 to 1 on the field.
ST. LEtiEll.-6 to 4 Ogot Surplice, 7 to 2 agst Springy
Jack, 6 to 1 agst Justice to LickiniL
INTELLIGENCE EXTRA.—LIVERPOOL 317 LT MEETING, 10411.
HANDICAP Tog THE LIVENPOoL CCP.— Ingo, 94 31b;
Chanticleer, S.t 21b; Burgundy, 96t 210 ; Inheritram, Set 1211.; Lady
Wildair, Bet 121 b; Sir Tattoo Sykes, Sot 101 b; Traverser, Sot 10th;
Conjuror, Mt 10lb; Poynton, Bet 101 b; hies Sarah, 84 101 b; (Sonya&
ham, Sot 71b ; Mentor, Set 6lb ; Rat-trap, est 61b ; Cawroerb, 8.43110;
Red Dart, Bst 31b; Lightning, 84 219; Elle.dule, Sol Sib Poep.o'.
Day-Boy, Bst; Grimston, 7st Illb ; Rowena, lit 1116 ; Varnpyre,
101b;tat Yardley, 74 1016 ; !another. N ild, 7.6 Alb; The Tartar,
Set 81b; Blallinalwl. lit Gib; The Widow, 7st Slb; Keleshrg, 7st Mb;
Ennui, tot Slb ; Oxonian, lot 4lb . Mirmillo, 7st Sib; Reminiscence,
7st Sib ; Formiramre, -et Sib; Plaudit, 7.4 Slb; Joe Lovell, let 31b;
Joc-o*.got, 7st Sib; Bingham, let Mb; Montgetuder, 7st 31b; Gan-
net, 7st 31b; Sharstan, 7st 31b; Jovial. 76t 21b; Swallow, :et 2lb ;
Erin-go-Bregh, 7st 21b; Black Dwark let lib; Vanish, 74 2lb ; Li-
berator, let; Malt, 7o1; Sheraton, let; Spectator, t; Eplrote,
fist 12Ib ; ribelforth, lot 1 2lb ; Geraldine, fist 91b; oPantomime,
bat 9Io; Intrepid, 6.t 91b; Executor. Got 9lb ; Layarillo, 916 ;
Maid of MotherwvlL let ; Queen Mary, Est 711. ; Plyrecs, Ist 71b ;
Sbeleck, Got 7lb ; Lethargy, Get 71b ; Magnet, list llb; Philosopher,
64 ;lb; Luminous, 661 71b; gultacity. , est llb;
.64 71b ; Enchanter, list lab All's Well, Get 4th; Bever-
lac, Est 41b ; Maid of Lyme, Get 41b ; Marietta, flat 41b ;
Swim Boy, 64 2lb ; lona, Got 21b; Intel, Gst 2lb ; King of the Forest,
Wit; Administrator, Sst 12;b; Voyager, Set 1 I ; Eagle's Plume, Set
I Ilb ; Commril faut, Sot 1019; Brother to Swallow, Sst 101 b; Delo-
rano, Sit 9lb ; Mrs. Tuft, Sot 7lb ; Athelstere, 34 Slb; Brown Fly,
5.t 51b; Al alto roil, Sot Mb; Omar, sst 51b; Mira I larrioon, Sit 410;
Snowball, 54 41b; Tuscan, Sst 41b; Dover, Set 31b; Glen S,lddel, Sot
Mb; lirtmon PlatuN c, sst 31b ; Maid of my Soul, 56t; Mies Norton,
Set; Birdlime filly, 4st 21b; Otterburn, I lib; Blackball, 466 I Olb ;
Snuff box, Sot 101 b; Sylvan, tat 1016; Sampson, lot 7113; Prince Char-
ley, 4,6 7lb; Matodore, 44 7lb ; Referee, Oat ffib ; North Star, 4st Slb;
Vale R ,yak, 44 Sib; Emma, rot
Wrionvs roe TH. Goonwoon CrP.—Tbe Hero, 104 ; Footstool,
34 Sib; Chanticleer, Get 91b; Sir Arthur, 9st 716; Sir Tatton Sykes,
94 41b; Van Tromp, Sst 3lb; War Eagle, 94 Sib; Cossack, !Kt Alb ;
Vempyre, bet 1lb; Peepire..by Boy, est 11b; Jonathan Wild, eel 1310;
Mire Sarah, Mt 121 b; Rowena, Itst. 12lb ; Red Hark Set 10Ib ; Halo,
*4 10It,; Planet, Sat 1619; Saddle, Bst Sib; Projectile, Bst Slb; Best
of Three, get Slb; Dinned, Sot Sutlej, let 121 b; Fanny, lot alb;
Cymba, 7st 71b, The Spaniard, let 41b; Gardenia, lot; Rix
Sit 121 b; Ellerslie, lot Illb ; Weathercock, 64 11,11.; slug, Gat 101 b;
Hater Skelter, Got 61b; MM6 Lydia filly, Got 616; Armin, list 41b.

intrilignut.
NOTICES.

Pam COUNCIL.—The Jwßc 1 Caomittee of the Privy Council will
meet for the &wretch of busineaa on the following day., viz.
day, June 20 ; Tuewlay, June 27; Weilnerilay, Juno 20; Thuraday,
June 20, Friday, June 30; Saturday, July I; Ilonday, July 3; Tues-
day, July 4; wotlncuday, July 5; Friday, July 7 ; Saturday, July 8.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord Chancellor.
ITIGOINSON V. SHAND.—GUARANTEE.—INJUNCTION
REIVmED.—This was a motion for an injunction to restrain
thl defendant, the public officer of the Royal Bank of Liver-
pool, from proceeding to obtain a declaration of bankruptcy
against the plaintiff upon a guarantee which he had given to
the hank, on behalf of the firm of Barton, Irlam, and Co.,
who have been made bankrupts since the. guarantee was
given. The motion wa- argued for several days in the last
term.—The Lord Chancellor, now giving his judgment, en-
tered fully into the circumstances, and after referring to the
allegations in the bill, expreued his opinion that they and
the equity set up by them were fully met by the answer.
The letter of guarantee, which his lordship read, proposed
not only to cover two bills of 30,0001. each, passed by the
firm to the bank, but also subsequent advances. The motion
was, therefore, refused, with costs; and as to the costa of
previous motions before tho Vice-Chancellor and in this
court upon appeal, they were ordered to be reserved as costa
in the cause.
HIRST V. lIETCHINSON.—JERVIDICTION OP TILE NEW
Vien-CtIANCELLOILS.—Mr.Cooper and Mr. Steere moved to
discharge an order of Vice-Chancellor Wigram, upon the
ground that the cause in which that order was made did not
belong to his honour's court, but to Vice-Chancellor Knight
Bruce's. It was true Vice-Chancellor Wigram had pre-
viously made an order in this cause as the vacation judge in
the last autumn, and his honour inferred from what the
Lord Chancellor said on a motion to discharge that eider,
that his honour had power to hear the other motion,on which
the present order was made. That, however, was a mistake.
—Mr. Walker opposed the motion, and said the matter had
been fully argued before Vice Chancellor Wigram, who, after
full consideration of the objections raised before him, made
this order on a subsequent day. The new g 1 orders
of November, 1811, and also the orders of 1837, made on the
creation of the new Vice-Chancellors' court, were referred to
on both sides.—The Lord Chancellor slid that when the
former motion was before him he had no reason to suppose
that the cause did not belong to the court of Vice-Chancellor
Wieram. After referring to the general orders of November,
1841, and the orders and acts of parliament making and re-
gulating the new Vice-Chancellors' courts, his lordship said
he was clearly of opinion that they precluded one Vice-
Chancellor from interfering in cause entered before the other.
In the vacation, of course, any one of the Vice Chancellors
might make an order for another; but the present ender was
not made in vacation, and being made by a judge to whose
court the cause did not belong it was • nullity, and must be
discharged. But, perhaps, the better way now, under the
circumstances, would be to have the new motion heard in
this court —To this the counsel on both sides assented, and
the next seal day was appointed for the hearing.

Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.
VAIITY v. DUNCAN.-DISPUTE ItENPF:CTINO THE MA-
NAGEMENT OF THE INCLOSIIItE IN BCCKINOHAM.STREET,
STRAND.—The bill in this case was originally filed by five
trustees appointed under an act of parliament passed in the
29th of Geo. 11. " for enabling the proprietors and inhabi•
tants of houses in York buildings, Buckingham• etre et, Strand,
to make a rate for rebuilding and repairing the terrace-walk
and gardens adjoining the river Thames," against the defend-
ant, Mr. Duncan, an inhabitant of the terrace, to restrainhim
from coating down certain trees growing on the terrace, and
from interfering with the management of the gardens. When
the case came on forbearing theVicc Chancellor thought that
the title of the plaintiffs as such trustees was not sufficiently
shown, and directed an issue to try the question at law. The
trial took place, and a verdict was obtained by the plaintiffs
finding that the trustees were properly appointed. Upon a
subsequent occasion a new trial was directed, on the ground
that the trustees might to have proved at law that the ori-
' g•inal trustees under the act of parliament by whom they had
bee,: nominated were themselves legally-appointed trustees,
Upon this trial a u;dict was returned. against the sufficiency
of the appointment, 21:d an application was nowmade re-
specting the costs of the p,:oceedings.7The Vice-Chancellor
considered that the defendant
was entitled to the costs
the first trial.
gene-
rally, with the exception of the:* elmed by

Belpre vieo.cheneeitoe ►rat BTEOE.
Lae E. EORENIONT.—WITNESB'9 SIONATURE TO Der°.
G. L. Rowell, fora defe.ndant, moved to sup-
press & deposition, because the witness's .lame did not appear
to be signed to it. By an affidavit of the commissioner who
too!: the deposition, it appeared that the witness had signed
the draft of the deposition although the egnaturs Was not

copied in the engrcumer.t ; and Mr. fterrey, the clerk of re-
cords and writs, who tem in court, stated that this was Illffi-
east, according tS the practice, if the witness's signature
I
were copied intr, the engrureneent.—The Vice-Chancellor said
he was mil:need to find the practice to be es stated, and that
the signature of the witness was only attached to a document
not deposited in any public office. It would certainly appear
t' be mush more convenient that the signature should be at.
Lobed to the engrossment. As, however, according to the
prudes this was not required, bis botanic directed the clerk
of swords and writ* to aglx • spyof the Lanigan to the
enrolment.
----

COURT OP QUERN'S BENCH.
Nnu Fans.—Defoe Mr. Jostles Wightman and a Spacial Jury.
Toll Beau OP BUCMSWICIL e. OHISLIN.-14111IL.—Tall
wu an action brought by the Duke of Brunswick against
the proprietor of the Satinet newspaper, to recover compen-
sation in damages for certain libels which had appeared in
that publication in the month of November, 1843, and also
in the mouth of March, 184.5. The plaint if appeared in
person to conduct his case, and read a long address to the
jury, from which it seemed that the libel which appeared in
the Satirise on the 3rd of November, 1843, complained that
Barnard Gregory, who at that time had just been sent to
prison for libelling the Duke of Brunswick, lead been
improperly. punished, and that it WA the duty of
the Satirist to expose the vices and the follies of
these who lived en great houses u well as those
who occupied humble stations in society. The libel of the
9th of March, 1846, imputed to the Duke of Brunswick
that he had a congeniality of disposition with the murderer
Hockey, who was suspected of unnatural practices. The
duke also read a libel which charged him with being the
murderer of Elisa Grimwood, as well as several other libels
which were not set forth in the declaration, hut which the
plaintiff drew the attention of the jury to as showing the
animus of the defendant and the continuous manner in which
he had attacked him. In the course of his address the duke
said that the actions he had brought and the prosecutions he
had instituted against different parties connected with the
Satirist bad already coat hint 10,4001., and that he had
never been able to realise one farthiag of the damages which
the verdicts of several juries had awarded him. Re under-
stood that the defence to be set up on the part of Mr. Ghia
lin wu that he (tho Duke of Brunswick) had
already recovered a verdict against Mr. Peanuts, a
former proprietor of the &Write, for the very same libels
for which the present action was brought; but the papers
which he should now put in had never been brought an evi-
dence in any prior investigation. To prove this fact William
Burfield was called and examined by the Duke of Bruns-
wick. lie stated that in Nov. 1813 and March 1815, lie was
in tke duke's service, and remembered the actions of the
Duke of Brunswick against Pearson, and also that of the
duke against Pepper, on neither of which occasions were the
copies of the Satirist which he now produced, and which
coreainen the libels for which the present action was brought,
put in evidence.—The Duke of Brunswick hero said, as the
defendant bad admitted that he was the publisher of the
libels in question, ho did not think it was necessary to 'prove
anything more than he had done, which was, that the copies
of she Satirist now produced had never been used on any
former occasien ; but he would take his lordship's opinion
as to whether he had better call any evidence with respect to '
the libels themselves.—Mr. Justice Wightman was of
opinion that the plaintiff had proved all that was
necessary. Mr. Houston Browne, on the part of
the defendant, then addressed the jury, and con-
tended that the libel which 'peke of exposing the vices of
those who lived in great houses could not be mid directly to
apply to the Duke of Brunswick; and the libel which was
headed " congeniality" only meant to animadvert upon a
person of the Duke of Brunswick's rank and station attend•
lag at a police count," bear the examination of the murderer
Rocker. It aid not mean to insinuate that he was given to
unnatural practices. The learned counsel concluded by
saying that he was aware a verdict must pass against his
client, but he submitted that it ought only to be for nominal
damages. Ile thought the duke ought to be satisfied with
having punished Barnard Gregory and other parties con-
y nested with the Satirist, for the observations which had
been made in that pryer about him, and not bring an action
gassiest a man who, at the time when the libels in question
were published, was only the printer of the paper, although
he was now the proprietor.—Mr. Justice Wightman leaving
, summed up, the jury immediately found a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages I ,51/0/. The damages were laid at 10,000/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
NllPlPairs.—Befure Mr. Jwgice Williams and • 81-mini Jury.
HAPOHAVII V. HAKOKATI.-16sux OUT OF CIIANCESIN.
—The trial of this case, which took up three days, reached
itsconclusion on Saturday evening. For an outline of the
plaintiff's case we refer to our report of Saturday.—Mr. Ser-
j. ant Channel! opened the case for the defendant. A num-
ber of witnesses were then called in support of the statement
of the learned counsel. The earlier part of their evidence
went to show that the real cause of the separation of Mrs.
Hargrave from her husband, in 1821, was to be found in the
misconduct of the wile, though the husband's improper ac-
quaintance with Wu Rogers was not denied. Upon their
testimony it was suggested that an improper intimacy bad at
that time existed between Mrs. Hargrave and a
foreigner; but the evidence as to this was very slight.
Witneues were then called, including a Mrs. Sturmy, the
landlady of the house in Balezephon.a•reet, where Mrs.
Hargrave resided at the beginning of 1836, and Mrs. White.
hurst, her landlady, at No. 2, Pauline-street, Bermondsey,
where plaintiff was born in November of that year, who
spoke to Mrs. Hargrave having received frequent visits
during those times from a person named Mordemain. It
was sworn that he p axed re Mrs. liargravea husband, and
with whom it appeared she afterwards went to live. As to
the material dates, the months of February and March,
when, according to plaintiff's case, Mr. Hargrave was seen
in England, and so bad access to his wife, witnesses
then living at Boulogne were called, and the written testi-
mony of persons resident there was adduced to prove that
during the first three months of the year Mee Mr. liar-
grave never left Boulogne. A witness Mrs. Simmons,
whose husband was mortgagee from the defendant of the
"Saracen's Head," also proved that in November, 1537, one
year after plaintiff was born, she saw Mrs. Hargrave, who
entreated her not to inform Mr. Hargrave of the birth of
plaintiff, an allowance of Bs, per week having been m-ode to
her through Mrs. Simmons from her husband up to that
time. This concluded the defendant's case; when Mr. Butt.
Q.C., addressed the jury in reply. Alter which the learned
judge summed up at considerable length. He observed that
it was not disputed but that plaintiff was the eon of Mrs.
Ilargrave, and born during her marriage. It was, there-
fore, his duty to tell them that the presumption of law
was •in favour of plaintlf's legitimacy, according to the i
maxim, " pater est quem nuptials demonstrant. ' The onus
was upon defendant to satisfy them to the contrary. This
might be done if he could establish to their satisfaction that
intercourse did not take place between the husband and wife
at a period when, within the laws of nature, h 3 might be the
father of the child. The presumption of law was ant to be
broken in upon by a mere balance of probabilities, but was
only to he destroyed by evidence strong, conclusive, and satia.
factory. That evidence might be supplied either by proof
of the husband's absence, or by proof that he was only present
when such intercourse could not under the circumstances have
taken place. The first question for them was, had the
defendant rebutted the presumption of legitimacy by proving
the absence of the husband either entirely or at a period
accounting for the birth of the child, so that 110 intercourse
could then have taken place/ If they believed the witnesses
who spoke to the husband being at Boulogne during ali that
time, then there was an end of the case, and they would find
for the defendant. But if they were not satisfied by the
direct evidence for defendant upon this point, or its effect
was weakened by the evidence for the plaintiff, so as to leave
the question of the defendant's absence a matter of doubt in
their minds, then the next question was, had it been de-
monstrated to them, under all the circumstances, that ,
there had been no intercourse between the hueb aid I
and wife so as to account for the birth of the
child ? If the husband had opportunities, the presump-
tion of law was not conclusive that he availed himself of
them. The learned judge then went minutely through the
evidence, bearing upon this second branch of the inquiry,
directing the jury that, if the evidence was satisfactory end
conclusive against plaintiff's legitimacy, they would find
for defendant ; if otherwise, for plaintiff. Verdict fcr de- 1
fendant.—lt was intimated that in case the Chief Justice
was well enough to take his seat at the sitting in Waco on
Monday, the case of Hopwood v. Thorn (part heard) would
be proceeded with.