The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-27 00:00:00

tiw initUtzttut.

AMLI/I awn' Pm woino Boom TKB Jrnicui Coasnona
ea rya Pony Cavaco, Dac., ,147.—Er Br oat? DOM v. Reny
ibecol Ilea, ken Dona ; L oLe Illeorbw, Coeds; no
Waco , Dm Dna Wales: o Timm Preeenthe Dort ;
tisk etemetalla v. Drelalat, New Soak Wain; Cowan v. Bath.
Dritlek Oder ; Owen V. Ryes, M. Mot et Agolreity; Bore T.
Dowo, Mho Oast ; Dole inerell, Maio ; Degneentanoe
et Punt &Wally. Oesenlealenno d Mob O ; nyo
Inalldnoik ley v. Den: Tome Itssa, Dot* o% koal
; AN1M947•1•711 et
hosien v. liande=solin norawwr o Ceylon ;
o
Incseeviinowitinonewo-11111101111palei Soy Aspeinineata.
Beocolep, Dean : Doan v. Loft ;A==llMattaLer,
ke., at ledbase o Lae; BMW T.
Moly, Dee 4: Ism v. Li twin ; Loom v. lrenthett ;
Conlow T. Brennen ; Oaitntn o Min Ld ohiran.—Tooday.
Deo. 7 : Waft t. Clialiave; DNA v. MON; Heel v. ladle;
Drawn V. Hilmett; Orono v. De Yaw and staers ; MOM V.
ilpeamer.—Welmag, Deo I Ileoneo
ems o Spies ; woe o umee ; Dard DieWen=
inebeily v. RaDdranaw.-121muleo : v. Terbieto;
Swag o Parlay ; Bldt7e v. Greet WIMIIIII laflwa 0,601m7
Weregar v. Kelly ; Ways Ileat.—No odor grow jury ogees
will be taken them &nap.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
NIG NlTA—Before Mr. Justice Erie Ned Commis Juries.
BUILBAILL v. NOATIL, —ACTION AGAINST A CAR= RA FOR
GOODS UAW IN ILLS PCMISINIION, Al 7ILSODULENT AB-

MOVID TO AVOID • DISTILS.; FOR RENT.-11T. Horny
appeared for the plaintiff, who sued in forma pauperis, and
sought to recover from the defendant damages for the loss of
a parcel, alleged to contain clothes, delivered to him as a
common carrier, to convey from Fulham to London, and
alleged to have been lost. The defendant pleaded several
pleas, of which the material one was that the plaintiff was
tenant to a gentleman named Alleop ; that rent was due to
Mr. Allsop ; that the goods in the parcel were clank stinely
and fraudulently removed to avoid a distress ; and that Mr.
Allsop had seized them when they were in the possession of
the defendant, within the thirty days fixed by the statute for
that purpose. The replication took issue on the fraudulent
removal. Witnesses for the plaintiff showed that a parcel
had been delivered to an agent of the defendant by the plain-
tiff, directed to " Mr. Matthews, brokr r, at the Spotted Dog,
Strand," and that it had not been delivered. Mr. Watson,
Q.C., for the defendant, said that the plaintiff had been the
tenant of Mr. Allsop, who had had the greatest difficulty in
getting money from him ; that at the time question the
nun of 91. 13a. was due to Mr. Allsop; that he in
had rem= to
suspect that the goods would be removed because the doors
of the house were kept barricadoed; that goods had been
before removed from the house; that Mr. Allsop, having
been informed by persons whom he had met to watch that
this parcel, which in fact consisted of dirty bedding and not
of clothes, had been removed to the defendant's office, went
thither with policemen and claimed it; and that the de-
fendant, fearing to become liable to an action for double the
value of the goods if he did any act that amounted to assist-
ing the plaintiff in fraudulently removing them, allowed Mr.
Allsop to take them. Mr. Alleop was then called, and made
a statement to the effect mentioned by the learned counsel ;
and added that the plaintiff had brought an action against
him also for seising the goods, the value of which was about
llorry, in reply, insisted that a carrier had no right
to determine, on the assertion of a mere stranger, that the
goods in a parcel committed to his care had been fraudu-
lently removed ; and that there was no evidence at all of any
fraud or secrecy in the removal of the goods.—Ma.
Justws
Erle summed up, and told the jury that in determining
the motive of the plaintiff in removing the goods they must
take his actual situation at the time of the removal into their
consideration. As something had been said on the subject
of this being a pauper's action, he must say, though on an or-
dinary occasion be should abstain from observing on such a
topic, that to the legal advisers of the plaintiff, whoever they
were, who had recommended two actions by a pauper
against men of substance, to recover this small sum of be-
tween 31.und 41., the language of strong censure would baby
no means tnisapplied.—The jury at once returned a verdict
for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Non Pan's—Before Biz P. Pollock, C.. 13., and a Common Jury.
The sittings after term were commenced yesterday .at
Westminster. The entry, which is rather heavy, ecataina
162 causes, of which 61 are remain% and a large umber
special jury causes. There are only a few revenue cases.
KEESHAW O. BAILET.—ALLEORD SLANDER.—Mr. Over-
end was counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Chambers, Q.C., for the
defendant.—This action was brought to recover damages for
certain slanderous expressions alleged to have been used by the
defendant, who is a pawnbroker, living at Barnsley, it York-
shire, with reference to the plaintiff, one of the special
constables of that locality.. 13y the provisions of a certain
act of parliament the pambionen assembled at vestry wen
required to investigate the character and competency of ap-
plicants for the office of constable, sad, having done so, to
return to the justices lists of the persons qualified to serve.
The names so furnished were posted up in conspicuous
places, so as to enable the public at large to see them, and
represent to the justices at tensions (where the final ceremony
of swearing the parties in took place) any objections that
might be. The plaintiff was returned by the vestry meeting
as a qualified person. On having been ailed up to be sworn,
the justices asked publicly whether there was any objection
to him, whereupon the defendant, who had formerly been in-
volved by the plaintiff in en awkward transaction relating to a
watch, stated that he objected,on the ground that he ( Kershaw)
had no respect for truth; he had been for savers' years a
constable, and was not to be believed even on his oath ; that
he was a perjured fellow, and an improper person to be
chosen as constable. It was suggested that those objections
were so serious they should have been made and. investi-
gated at the vestry meeting, and as the justices could not
then entertain them they had the plaintiff at once sworn
and admitted. For the defendant it was submitted that the
words alleged to have been used were not actionable. They
• were merely terms of abuse, and were not intended to im-
pute the commission of an indictable offence. The defend-
ant had only used the privilege which the inhabitants of this
country in every public meeting, from the House of Com
mons down to a vestry meeting, was entitled to. He ex
pressed his opinions freely, because he felt it a duty towards
kis fellow-parishioners to apprize them and the jus-
tices of the objections which he, honestly and • un-
influenced by malice, knew existed against the plaintiff.—
The Lord Chief Baron laid it down as matter of law that
the defendant could not be held responsible if the jury be-
lieved he had used the alleged expressions merely for the
purpose of discharging honestly what be conceived to be a
public duty. If they believed the statements were made
with a pure, bonA fide intention, their verdict should be for
the defendant ; but, on the contrary, if they thought the occa-
sion upon which they were made was used so a pretext for
critninatiog the plaintiff, he was entitled to reviver. The
, extent of the damages was a question altogether for their
consideration.—The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
r The two other causes disposed of during the day were de-
void of general interest.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
Before the Chid Coternheiower, Mr. Commtadonee Harr* mid
Mr. Commitekeer Law.
IN RE JAMES BOOKER.—This man was diacharged from
the oourt in the year 1836. He afterwards went to reside at
Hong-Kong, where he accumulated a fortune, and died in
1841. After all his debts in China were paid, a sum of
1,3571. remained untouched, which was afterwards sent to
this court, on the ground of Hooker having taken tbe bene-
fit of the act in 1836, to await the commissioners' judgment.
On a former occasion the court decided that Mrs. Hooker, a
the administratrix of the insolvent, was entitlel to th
money, and an order was made for it to be paid ever into
that lady's hands. Upon this decision, the assignee, Mr.
Sturgeon, made application to stop the mousy, and
the case now came on to be argued. —Mr. Webb,
for Mn. Hooker, argued at some length in sup-
port of the original order of the court, and stated that
his client was willing to leave one third of the money in the
hands of the court for the benefit of the creditors.—Mr.
Towns, for Mr. Sturgeon, the assignee, refused the offer of
Mr. Webb, and asked the court to order the fund to be paid
into the Court of Chancery, submitting, if that course were
adopted, that all parties would obtain their rights.—Mr.
Marton, who appeared for the previsional assignee, informed
the court that a suit wan at present pending against the ad-
ministratrit, and one also against the provisional assignee.
—After a great deal of argument, the court suspended the
order for the payment of the money into Mrs. Hooker's
hands, and adjourned the ass for further comideration.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COllRT.—before Lord Chief Juke Denman.
THE EXPLOSION ON BOARD THE CNICAET. —Henry
Robert Nauman surrendered to take his trial upon an in-
dictment charging him with the manslaughter of Thomas
Shed, the call-boy on board the Cricket. The prisoner was
also arraigned upon the coroner's inquisition for the same
offence.
Mr. Bodkin, in opening the case to the jury. said They
had no doubt heard that in August last one of the halfpenny
steam-boats, called the Cricket, while lying at the pier mar
Hungarford-bridge, for the purpose of disembarking pas-
sengers, suddenly exploded, and the result was that the de-
ceased, who was call-boy on board the vessel, and several
other persons, lost their lives. The government had felt it
to be their duty to send a gentleman named Lloyd, who was
the inspector of machinery to the navy and a man of great
experience, to investigate the cimumstanoes connected
1 with the explosion which had caused such fatal
resulta, and he would he called before them. The
learned counsel then proceeded to detail the circum-
stances of the case, and explained, with the aid of a model,
the nature of the vessel and the machinery connected with
it. The boilers of the engines were new in Jane 1646, and
they were calculated to sustain & pressure of from 40 to 45:be.
per square inch, but he admitted that the boiler was ace-
donally worked to the extent of 601bs. to the inch ; and if it
should appear that the boiler isould have exploded at that
pees ere the prisoner ought not :to be convicted upon the
present charge. But as he was instructed it was impossible
this could have been the case, for the boilers were tested
before they were put in use to the extent of 130.b5.
at least to the inch ; and after the accident had eo-
i moved, one of the boilers, which was only partially in-
hered, sustained, upon being tested, a pressure of
1.36b5. to the Web. The question, therefore, that was to
he decided nes, bow, with valves calculated to act upon a
of eit taut 60lbs. to the inch, this explosion could
=ar ieemeesed, Hasse valves were in a proper condition, or
iheyhad act beea interfered with in an improper man-
ner. The learned conned then proceeded to explain the
action of the valves, and be said that from the testimony he
should adduce, ho apprehended there would be no doubt
that the lever valves had been tied down and prevented
from acting so as to allow the escape of the steam, and that
the explosion was occasioned by that means. There were
two spring valves he addition to the lever valves, but it
wouldappur that these did not actat all, and apprehended
that the prisoner was bound to see that all the valves were
in proper order ; and if the jury should be satisfied that he
omitted to do so, they would be justified in finding him
guilty of the otlence. The following evidence was then
adduced :
George Silverton deposed that on the 27th August he was
at his window anti saw the Cricket steamboat at the pier,
and observed the explosion. He ran down immediately, and
found the deceased lying in the cabin. The boat was torn
to pieces, and the deceased was covered with wood and water,
bleeding:and insensible. He was carried to the Charing-cross
Hospital, where he died.
Mr. John Avery, surgeon at Charing-cross Hospital, proved
that the deceased died from the injuries he received by the
extr..l.l..Hamiltan, short-hand writer, deposed that on the
day of the explosion he was about to go. on board the Cricket.
She came up from London-bridge while he was waiting on
the pier, and there were about sixty. people in the vessel
when he went on board. He was in the fore part of the
vessel when the explosion took place, and he should say
about three minutes elapsed before the explosion took
place ; but it was altogether about ten minutes front the
time he first saw the vessel. The vessel was perfectly quiet
just before. He did not observe any escape of steam.
James Hocking. also a pamenger on board the Cricket,
gam similar evidence.--Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant
Had been given to understand that the steam
blew off through the chimney with the smoke. These wen
two hundred people he should say on board the vessel, DES a
pin might have been heard to drop.
Henry liowlaud, &game, sad Mr. Ram