The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-03 00:00:00

of -(r. Aspinwall) he would ex" that the deceased did some- 1,
tines write his name in full. The Ain the agreement signa-
ture was not like his.
Nr. Edw. William Stanley—Had been cashier at Connies
bail' for nine years, and the deceased hail an account there.
The signature co the mireement was exceedingly dissimilar
front his ordinary writing in one or two particalarr.
The A was not like his. If that signature had been upon a
cheque he should not have paid it without consulting one of
I the principals. He could not pronounce it a forgery. The
cheeased's handwriting varied a good deal.
Cross-examined—If he had a belief either way he thought
that the signature to the agreement was Mr. Aspinwall's '
, handwriting.
Mr. William Hale—Hail been clerk to Mr As for
bur years, and left him about three years ago. The eigna-
tare to the agreement was not like his usual writing. The
was different. and the Christian name was not abbre-
viated, which was contrary to his usual practice. lie did
lot believe the signature to be his handwriting.
Mrs. Esther Aspinwall, the widow of Mr. Aspinwall,
was eramined, and she stated that she had had six childrea
by her late husband, four of whom were living. It was
also proposed to examine this witness to show that her has-
band's assets were small, but the Chief Justice ruled that
she could not give such evidence. She had not seen the
agreement until now. She did not believe the signature to
be her husband's writing. She would swear it was not hie
writing. Mr. Aspinwall, in February, 1830, was ill, sad
did not get up before twelve o'clock in the day. lie wee
so weak that he could not, she was sure, walk so far se
Huntley-street, nor could he ride in an omnibus, it was not
his custom. lie might, possibly, have got there in a cab.
He had signed his will with his Christian name in full.
The court rose at half-past 3 o'clock, to enable the Chief
Justice to go to the Privy Council Committee, and the
further hearing of the ease was, therefore, adjourned.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YESTERDAY.
eiTMSOII as Basco.—BIFORY MS. HAWS PAW, MR. Bases AL-
DAIWA, MIL BAZON PLATT AND MR. BARON MARVIN.
TRI LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE V. TILE EAST LAN-
CASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.---JUDOMENT.
In this case the slefeadmits had paid a certain amount
into court, and had pleaded never indebted as to the residue.
The facts had been found upon a special verdict, and the
questions of law which had been raised turned upon the
eonstructioa which ought to be given to an agreement en-
tered into respecting four miles of railway terminating at
Salford, by two smaller companies which had since been
absorbed nit.) the larger companies, between whom the liti-
gation was pending. These questions were only two,
namely, first, what was the proper rate of charging upon
the four miles of line ,referred to; and secondly, whether
the agreement was limited to the railways between which
it was originally made.
Mr. Baron Alderson now read the judgment of the court,
which was of considerable length and went minutely into
the details of the case. With respect to the first point, it
had been contended by Mr. mu that the proportion ought
to be as two to ten ; and on the other side it was main-
, tained that it ought to be as two to eight. The
court held the former to be the true construction of the
agreement. With respect to the other point, the court was
of opinion that the agreement must be limited to the origi-
nal railway. The result would, therefore, be a verdict ter
the plaintiffs, inasmuch as the money paid into court wouid
no be sufficient; but the precise amount must be left to the
parties themselves to determine.
HAAT AND ANOTHER V. TIM EASTERN UNION RAIL-
WAY CORYAN Y.—DEMURRER.
In this case, which was partly heard on the 22nd ult.,
Kr. Mellish resumed, and concluded his argument on be-
. half of the plaintiffs.
Mr. Bramwell replied on behalf of the defendants, and
Mr. Mellish rejoined.—Judgment postponed.
amen.% ar Na. ['AIM—HYPOS. tilt LOAD Cult? Base? AND A
SPACIAL Je RT.
HOARE T. BALOWIN.—LIBEL.
Mr. Scrjeant Shee concluded his address to the jury on
behalf of the defendant this morning, and then called a
mass of evidence in support of the plea of justification.
At the conclusion of the defendant's case at 5 o'clock,
The Lord Chief Baron, in reference to what had fallen
from that lady on the preceding day, asked Mimi Hoare
what course she now proposed to take.
Miss Hoare said she had a number of witnesses to call
whose vuitimony would go to rebut the evidence that had
been given in support of the justification.
The Lord Chief Baron thereupon said she had better
commence to-a,rrow (this) morning.
The jury expressed a hope that the case might be conti-
nued, as several of them had very important private en-

gagernents.
Miss lloare exclaimed, " Oh! that's impossible; the case
can't finish to night."
The Lord Chief baron said under that state of circum-
stances he was sorry to say that the jury must be there to-
morrow.
Mr. Serjeant Shee then asked his lordship whether his
lordship thought he could put a limit as to the number of
witnesses that Miss Hoare should call, or whether, indeed,
any limit could be laid down.
. The Lord Chiet Baron said that it would be useless to ask
Miss Hoare to name any number of witnesses or any limit
to which her rebutment of the defendant's evidence would
be liacly to extend. Atter what they had witnessed dur-
ing the progress of the present trial, it would be utterly
useless to expect Miss Hoare, notwithstanding the expe-
rience which that lady had bad during the last two days,
either herself to form au idca, or to be capable of inform-
ing the learned *edema to what extent her evidence was
likely to go.
The further hearing of the cue was then postponed until
to-morrow (this) morning at half-put nine.
As Miss Hoare has undertaken to call witnesses to rebut
the-evidence produced by the defendant, we deem it right
once more to postpone our report.