The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-07 00:00:00

gab) DU'Wow.

EQUITY COURTS.—SATCILDAT.
genial ma berm (mmure.
MAROS, Tit. 11411.0STATS.11011031 TO VACATI
tits
Ii:TIOLMENT OF A 'Acting.
This VIA an application to vacate the enrolment of a de-
ers*, on the ground of surprise. The suit has been a long
Om pending, having bees instituted by the plaintiff to
get portwion of cundelerable freehold property situated in
the Midland Counties. The defendant was in possession of
the property, and claimed to retain it as the heir-M.l %w
of the person last se and he disputed the legiti-
macy of the plairditt, who claimed as heir-at-law.
An issue was directed to try the question of the
plaintiff's legitimacy, and it was tried three times,
the result on the first and last trial being in favour of the
plaintiff, the verdict in the second trial being for the de-
fendant. In March Lot the parties and their solicitors,
yieloli:te to the advice of their respective counsel, agreed
to a divee.on of the props-rte, and the arrangement so come
to we; to be earned into effect by a decree of the court, to
be taken by convent. The mime, s were drawn up, and
discsooei bzfore the tote Ma-ter oof the Rolls, and consi-
dered as seri, .1. It was atterwarls found that certaine
costa payable to m orseLVpse*, who were &Andante in th
cause, wire not provid, el fur by the decree as so settled,
and the plaintiff, on application to him, consorted that a
provision for that purpose should be inserted, and it
was further agreed that the minutes containing that provi-
sion should be sign,d by the junior counsel on each side
before the decree was drawn up. It happened, however,
that a copy of the minutes signed by one of the junior
counsel only, and without the provision for the said costs,
was taken to the registrar, and he therefrom drew up the
decree, which vr.es then enrolled by the plaintiff's solicitor.
The question was whether the enrolment took place under
ciretimsbutee. which amounted to what is technically called
"surprise " on the defendant's whether he
with due cane and diligent*: could have prevented the en-
rolment.
Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Cairow were heard in support of the
application, euntmding that the enrolment was a surprise
ou the defendant', solicitor.
Mr. Teed and Mr. Kyle,contra, contended that there was
no case of surprise mad• out, and that there was no au-
thority for re-opening a decree under such circumstances.
Several eases were cited on both sides.
The Lord Chancellor said he would, before deciding the
point, speak about the motor to the registrar who drew up
the decree, and would also read the affidavits on both side..
11 P. .—T
lIRWIT T AND HERV
EY OLIFHANTITHIS.
itr-OF /WM OY THE CAUSE.
Mr. I. Rowell sod Mr. Ilagshaw and Mr. Msnisty were
beard its this matter, which was a question regardino a
rightto certain tithe'- in one of the north, -m counties. An
issue hod been directed by Vice-Chaneellor Knight Bruce
to cetiblieh the plaintiff's title, and the issue was tried.
war a re-hearing of the celiac, mod the learnvil counsel
conteeid l that the plaintiffs right was clearly made out on
on.r :e.:inai for a decree without any issue.
Mr. Kelly., Parker, Mr. Fleming, and Mr. Ilethering-
ton rennin to be beard on the other side.

COURT OF QUEEN'S 11&4C11.—SATURDAY.
BITTMA AS Nisi Paws AT Gerussuda..-liaroal Loan Casinos.
AND A 11rUlAl. JeAI.
ELY v. tin LONDON sin NOKIA WESTERN ItAILWAT
Ut)MI.ANY.
This ease, which occupied the court the whole of Friday,
was hf Ms resumed.
Her. rat more witnesses were called to prove the onle ring
of melds by the plaintiff from various tradesmen, and that
those maxis were MAUI' pail fur, and the parties put otr
with Strioill clews's, which were fale.
Thos. pnoril that he was en officer of the rail-
way at Liverpool. On tLe '27th of July, 1119, he rteeived
some goods iw the name of Elam. The person who lirmtght
111,111 did not sign any book. There 6 no hook which per
are called upon to sign.
On crom-exaniimition, whams said the person wrote some
'Unctions for the goods in my presence, but 1 do nut rt.-
Ine.n!cet Ina writing anything eh,.
Spon,m -I a clerk in the employ of Messrs.
Chaplin and Ilurn.•, at the good. et..ticon of the .:tivtla Wen.
tern Railway. Wu keep a hook in the odic:: called the
Inquiry llook," in which we insariohly make entries
when prr.PaS eon: to make inquiries. There is
an entry in the hook on the 17th of August, 1109,
ltiatite to gtsids from Liverpool, Elam, till called foe."
Who inquiries are mule I rid's, to a book and inquire
in tiles..rev whetlatithe goods Are there. The name of the
pt Non whine the Minify is oat in the book. Must cer-
tainly so ticket was sheen ma. I am sure of it, Is-cause
there i. a gown attach. 41 to the entry to the Iron-
tity of luggage, which would not have nn there if the
tickc I had been icrtrionti. 'l'hc Wok contains no other
inquiry relative U. th,e gond, up to the month uf lie-

. -
censher.
Cosset liensined —retort I mike the inquiry, ,n the store
I bood, the applieatiiiii. I should certainly inquire of the
whearit eland dm nululier of packages and the date of
their arrival. If another applieation bud been made, the
teat day I should have booked it.
By a Jura No ticket would be given unless it were
left till cal:id for.
Thomas Walter. proved that he was a clerk in the em-
ploy of Messes. Chaplin and Horne. list made an entry
on lice •zi'.lll of (Member. Ile hail made a mistake in that
calm
Car—f was directed by Meson. Chaplin and
Bone to keep out of the way to avoid being Fervid with a
aulipiena on the ..ciwsion of the last trial. My entry is on
the :ItSth of I kascaber —eiNlit packages in the name of Elam.
I presume the ticket was shoWil Ole. Messrs. l'ickford have
▪ an inquiry °Moe. There is nothing to show at winch
VlJ'e particol sr go rls are to IX• inquired for.
Ils-eseiiind 'flu re is nothing to stem which office
betas to the our or the other.
John Collard - I am a clerk ; I went on the 27th Decem-
ber to Make inquiries in Castle..stres t. In eimsequeuee of
wli it I then hear 1 I weal to asel, o%lord-sir, t. I there
saw the rattle r of the plaintiff. and he told me his son had
semi goods at the Camden station, which be was ells cling
to I. ,k liver While I was there the son came in, who
said he had liven elm etina the gnus for some time. I
asked what dew they left laverpod; lw said. my letter will
show. I then asked him whether be lived at No 76, Cas-
tle-street ; he lons sliately started andsaid, why what makes
you oak that .ise -lion ? Ile then said, you don't mean to say
that you delivered my good- there. 1 said yew we have ; he
said it is noun., but a robbery, and I must go there with
you and see about it. The conversation was internyted by
the father nellintt the row into the leak parlour. M e then
went wrestle street, end Mr. Sears told us nil that had
tale, n place. I then asked him to pi to Camilitt.town; he
refused, saying he was busy. It is about a mile Irian Cas-
tle-street to Cir. :nyder-pi:ay. I then Went to Canolen-
tan., and met Eians agent in the evening by eippointment,
eto to l'ireite—ti Nohow. Sears had told us that the per-
son Who gave the refers awe lived there, but he for,got his
meow. I him why lie did not apply soon, r for the
rotas ; he wail h. had 10.11 travelling ate,ut la the north of
Eogiand, and did not s iN' that he had been in the Queen's
prison. I asked hint wliCther he had any suspicion. Ile said
no one, not even his father, knew what goods he had.
('nos-esamiutsl. •- I have said twalay in substance
the same u I said on the last trial. I now re-
collect, lie said the only person he had any suspi-
cion of was Will . ... ,as he had robbed him of money.
did not ki.s to lo as after Wilkins. I saw Cartwright at
Uniiithail, and Heather and Elam. Humphrey, the at-
torney tor the ionipaily, was there when Cartwright was.
I fem.:tuber now 1 asked plaintitf whether any person had
come arross the Atlantic with him: he said a man of the
name of Snowdon had done SO, and had seen him deposit
his goods.
Jos. jet Vallee evidence on the last occasion was then
read. 1 delivered the goods on the 21st of August he
Castle-street ; a young man opened the door and paid me
It. 4.. Ile took tit se ay-bill up stain and brought it down,
signed A. lihirn."
James on 's evidence was then re ad, which cor-
roborated the es ids ace of the last le ition.
Walter libury—l an a s.areher in the Customs at Liver-
pool, oud searclie.l part oft).r goods that came by the New
World. Ido riot recollect that any person had more than
the onlinary quantity of wearing apparel. The goods
chinned by the plaintiff could not have passed without pay-
ing duty or his nuking a declaration. All declarations
made are filed at the Custom-house; no declaration was
made respecting those articles. No duty has been paid.
Cross-csamined.— .t passenger must always make a
written declaration; in some cases, if the value ul the goods
is small, a verbal deelaration is allowed. I have not got the
attendance-sheet lot that day here. All the goods were
searched in one diy. A return is mask of the names of the
passengers and lea at the Custunt-house'.
A witness was then called to account for the absence of
Barker, the ins: actor of police, who had been employed to
trace out the goods.
Mr. Chanthyn said his evidence on the lad trial might
be read. It merely arm—. I went to Heather's house the
night before last; be refused to answer my questions."
11r. Chambers then addressed the jury iu re plc, and said
that the real question here was whether the plaintiff had
been in fact guilty of felony, and had stolen his own goods,
and now sought to charge the company with mindeiveriug
them ? The company were bound to hare searched out the
real delinquent, and in that their conduct had not been
actuated by that high principle which they pretended to
claim; their system had been, in fact, to stop the peeper
of the investigation. They should have traced out from
Heather and Cartwright who the real delinquents were.
The facts which were admitted would give the plaintiff a
venliet for something. It was admitted that something
was taken to America, and brought back and en-
trust •d to the railway; but the position assumed by
the company was that the goods were •IntraCted by
the plaintiff, or with his collusion. The learned
counsel then showed the inconsistency of theories started
by the defendants, and argued that the only theory was
that some person who knew the circumstances of the plain-
tiff 'a being in prison, end his desire not to take the goods
out till he got out of the lauds M his creation, had really
defrauded the plaintiff of these goods. The I • on d
then went through the Ersumstanees connected with W.
kins—that he was in possession or the shop. that the
tiff was obliged to buy hint out, that he learned where Has
goods were came from Live Tool tat Ica
then was privy to the arrest of the plaintiff, which
done by the attorney whom consulted, under elm,
pretence of settling the plaintiff's debt. As to the Letdown
of the handwriting of the pink paper, it was most centaur
dietory • and he would convince the jury that it was a for-
gery, and, if so, it must be clear that Elam had nothing to
do with the fraud. The teamed counsel then went to the
subject of the delivery of the goods in an irregular way,
and argued that it was clear that the entries in the
books were not always regularly made. That the jury
mist not attach too great weight to the evidence of

dishonest transactions in getting goods without paying for
them, which was a false issue, and only ealcul ited to draw
their attention from the true question. They must not
confound the two questions of whether he had any goods,
I and whether he had the whole of the goods claimed. The
Edrawn from the affidavit made in the Queen's
slight have some application to the amount of
bat could have none to the question whether or
Nabs was entitled to something. It was, unfortunately, a
matter of every day's occurrence to find a man who wished
to compound with his creditors living as a pauper, in pre-
ference to appearing to have anv goods. The learned coun-
sel then argued that, as to the amount of goods in the
boxes, the plaintiffs witnesses were more to be relied on
than thee., called to contradict teem. If this was a charge
' of conspiracy for obtaining the goods, it would be dis-
missed at some, and the company were bound to make eat 1
their defence in this case so satisfactorily as if that was dee
charge. The learned counsel concluded an able speech by
reminding the jury of the fearful nature of the issue, so
far as affected the plaintiff, which they had to determine.
Lord Campbell directed the jury that they must find
a vi edict for the plaintiff, unless the defendants had made
out to their satin action that he was privy to the delivery in
Castle-street. The plaintiff had clearly made out a prima
facie case, and there was nothing very improbable in it, and
the only evidence bearing upon it to which he need call
their attention I was iwhat was said by the plaintiff when
Snowdon asked him why he did not direct his goods to his
own house, to which he answered that he must wait to see
how things went on. That was quite consistent with his en-
deavour to keep the goods from his creditors. The de-
fendants' case rested mainly on the letter of the 20th
August—the pink paper—and they called a number of
witnesses well acquainted with his handwriting, who swore
that it was his. On that the jury would xercise their
judgment ; but it must be remembered hate.
his signature
was clearly imitated on the way-bill, and therefore there
was some person who could imitate it. Then, they must
lank at the probabiliti. s of the case, and whether it was
possible to believe that between the 6th November, when
be was discharged, and the 2fith December he could have
*me goods in his power without applying fur them. if a
fraud was committed it appeared certain that Stewart
wasOD accomplice. If the jury believed him,
it went far to exculpate the plaintiff. The
learned judge then read the evidence of that witness,
and called their attention particularly to the fact of his
being at the public-house in Castle-street on the flat, the
day the goods were delivered ; and his statement that he
inquired at the station after that date for the goods,
whereas the only entry in the company's books appeared to
be on the 17th ; and to the fact that plaintiff was then in-
debted to Steward
get threeto some ou, and yet he refused to
advance 12s. to goods out, though he knew
them to be valuable. There could be no doubt the value of
the goods was much exaggerated, but if they thought the
plaintiff entitled to the verdict, they would give reasonable
damages. If the plaintiff never had these Roods, where did
the 401. come from, by means of which the plaintiff compro-
mised the action? The learned judge then made some
strong remarks upon the affidavit sworn by the plaintiff in
the prison, that he was not worth IUI. ; but at the same
time reminded the jury that his being guilty of wilful
and corrupt perjury would not deprive him of the verdict
if otherwise entitled to it.
The jury, after a short absence from court, returned a
verdict for the defendants.
THE QI'KEN E. JACKSON AND ("THEM.
The Attorney-General (with whom were Serjcant Wilkins
and Mr. Huddlestone) said that in this case he felt bound
to say that he had no evidence upon which he could hope
to &stain a verdict, and, on behalf of the prosecutors, he
should therefore offer no evidence and consent to a verdict
of acquittal.
Sir Frederick Thesiger (with whom were Dr. Robert
Phillimore and Mr. Bodkin) stated that lie was instructed
for the defendant', and begged distinctly to say that the
enurestaken by the other side was taken without any soli-
citation on the part of his clients. tie felt perfectly certain
that the ease could not have been proved, and that his clients
would have been honourably acquitted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—SATCRDAT.
SWUNG' AT NM PRIV, AY CCM Loan Cain
holes limy,' at, stomaTeem.
SPECIAL JURYMEN.
In the neat case which was tried there were nine special
jurymen who did not answer to their name'.
.the Lord Chief Justice inflicted in each ease a fine of
IW., observing that whilst gentlemen of the common jury
were compelled to attend day after day without any pay-
ment and neglect their business, the jurio, who
were liberally paid, were so very unwilling to attend and
give a few hours of their time for the benefit of their fellow-
...die eta. Ills lordship also said he would inflict a penalty
in every ease where a ',pedal juryman did not attend. A
jury was then sworn composed partly of common ,jui7 men,
but Mr. Serj cant Ryles stated that the record was withdrawn,
as the action was settled.
SMITH V. BROWN.—I'ROMISAORY NOTT.4.
This was an action on u promis,ory note for 95f. The
defendant pleaded, first, that he never made the note;
second, never indebted; and third, payment.
Mr. ficijeaut Ryles and Mr. Gifford appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Ball repre-
sented the defend:-nt.
Mr. Serjeant Bylew began his case by putting in a pro-
missory note for U 51., bearing the signature of George
Brown. To prise that this was the el, fe nilant's hand-
w rain,: a w itnem named Cash, a Qualwr, oas called, who
stated that he hail seen the defendant write once, and he
thought the handwriting on the note very like Mr.

Brown's.
Mr. M. Chambers then addressed the jury for the defen-
dant, and stated that his elicat had never made the note.
This was a very envious case. The defendant was a cab
proprietor and leslging-housekeeper in Jermyn-street, and
hr (Mr. Chambers) should prove that in point of fart there
was no money due Irons the defendant to the plaintiff, but,
it anything, the boot was on the other It g. Mr. Brown,
the defendant, formerly resided in the Waterloo-re:La, and
a young woman named Hughes lodged in his house. This
individual was in the habit of receiving visits from the
plaintiff, who passed by the name of Lyndon, and who
rendered himself responsible to the defendant for her
board and lolling. In the month of May last Miss Hughes,
who had been rising with the pltiutilf as his wife, was
married, at the plaintiff's desire, to a person of the name of
hacker, and it would appear that the plaintiff had agreed
to pay far the support nut only of the lady, but also of her
husband Thacker, until they were established in business.
It was at the plaintiff's desire that tho deferolant moved
from the Waterloo-road to Jerniyu-street iu January
last. \Vhen rising in the Waterlood-road the plaintiff had
agreed to pay 21. tlei. a week for Miss Hughes a board and
lodging, but when they removed to Jerrayn-street the pay-
ment
was reduced to 30s. • week, as Miss Hughes had
smaller rooms. When Miss Hughes married Smith asreed
to pay 30,• a week fur her god Vat. fur her husband.
On be half of the defendant the first witness called was a
Mrs. Austin, who stated that she was a sister of Mrs.
Brown's. The plaintiff was intimate with Miss Hughes ;
he had promised to pay for her board and lodging, and
also sire that of Mr. Thacker, for a certain time after the

marriage.
Mies Eleanor Lloyd said she was an unfortunate lady, re-
siding at 16, 'favistock-street, Covent-garden. Witness
had met the plaintiff lately at the Argyll Rooms, and, on
her asking him how Miss Ilughes was, he said she was
very well, and he was sorry for her marriage, us before she
was married he had only Ler to support, now he hail her
husband as well.
Several letters from the plaintiff to Miss llughes were
put in and mail, which went to prove the agree-
ment to pay for her board and lodging. The letters
were couched in very endearing terms, and some of
them displayed great jealousy on the part of the
plaintiff at the conduct of Miss Ilughes, in speaking to
and ilat,eing with other men tit the casino, the saloon in
Piccadilly, and other places.
Mr. scrjcant Bylca then replied, contending that the
plaintiff was the dupe of the Browns and Misa Rushes,
and that he had become security for the Browns for a sum
amounting to 62/., fir which Brown had given him a pro-
missory note for U.V. 'there were certainly RUMS due for
Miss Bushes's keep for a short time which might be de-
ducted, but the plaintiff was entitled to 621., being the
amount for which he hal become security, and which sum
waaadNunced to enable the defendant to purchase certain
fixtures when he went into the house in Jermyn-street.
The Li rd Chief Justice then summed up, and
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.--SATmAT.
Bcrok! Mx. CONNIMIONLI Goousvax.
IN RE 11 azEbs AND BIINISAE.

The bankrupts, ironmongers, at Aylidiani, in Norfolk,
applied for their certificates. The balance-sheet, prepared
by Messrs. Hart, of George-yard, extended over a year and
a half, and showed 737/. due to creditors; assets about:Mt
The profits hail been 1301.; losses, 691.; expenses, 4871.
There was no opposition.
%Lis Honour said it ought to be generally known that
nothing was more common than for collusion to take place
between aesizners and bankrupts. The result was that
other cmlitors were unwilling to come in and oppose,
thinking that they should be throning away good money
and time atter bad. Then, at the meeting, it was stated
that the assignees had no complaint to make—in fact, all
was friendly. The last act, however, provided expressly
that the court should watch the certificate, whether opposed
or not, to prevent the evils resulting from the practice he
had relernd to.
. . . .

After hearing Mr. Doylo, for the bankrupts,
His Honour said that this was oue of a class of cases in
which the most vicious principles were assumed. One was
that suy man had • right to cuter business without any
capital at all, and keep running into debt for his soon sup-
port. This he utterly denied. If such a person did begin
business, he ought ti use extreme caution, and, abuse all
things, to keep proper books, without which creditors never
could be satisfied. There was nothing like fraud in this
ease ; the worst was the bankrupts had been thoughtless.
By neglecting to keep a cash-book they had gone the high
road to bankruptcy. Had they kept au account they must
have seen that their outlay was regularly exceeding their
profits. They could now only pay Ss. in the pound ; the
result was a loss of lis. to the creditors—which never could
be called good trading. It was the duty of the court to en-
deavour to check such practices. The bankrupts had the
merit ofhaving at once placed themselves in the hands of
their creditors, when, had the property been sold, it would
have paid lfts. in the pound. Certificates of the second
class would be granted at the end of three months, with
protection in the meantime.

Mr. Nichols represented Messrs. Marshall and Stades,
and Mr. Cooke (Mr. Barg with him) supported the ap-
plication.
A creditor, name Moilne, a stout merchant, complained
that the insolvent, when involved, had bent him from the
East Indies an order to 401.
The eve oceupi: d some time on the present occasion.
The insolunt was promoted from Denmark to Hayti, which
bad produced 1,5001. a year. lk found the city had been de-
stroyed by an earthquake when he refined the place, and
a series of misfortunes hail occurred, which, with the aboli-
tion of the office, and his non-appointment to any other
situation, had rendered it necessary to applj to the court.
His Honour was of opinion that the debt with Mr. Moline,
who Pent the stout to Hayti, bad been incurred when the
insolvent was not justified in sending the order, although
others had joined him, as he stated, in the order.
The cast was adjourned sine die, and it was stated that
the insolvent could apply for a protecting order.
In RE CIIAIILES IiTLAND.—FALSE lnraisoNnifinr.—
SINGELAR CASE.
. . - - . .

This insolvent was a butcher, in Great Guildford-street,
Southwark. He was opposed by Mr. Sargoed for a journey-
man carpenter, named Motton. and Mr. Cooke supported.
The case was a singular one. Motton went into the insol-
vent's shop on Sunday morning, the 16th of February, and
made a purchase of meat, which came to two shillings,
tendering, as he (Mutton) alleged, a sovere:gn in payment,
but only, u the insolvent alleged, a half-sovereign. The
insolvent said he put down on his shopbosrd eight shillings
as change, upon which Motton took it up, and also the half-
sovereign which he had laid down to pay for the meat. A
dispute arose. The one declared that he had given a half-
sovereign, and the other that it was a sovereign. A police-
man was sent for, and Mutton was given into charge for
stealing the halt.so et: reign. Ile was locked up all Sunday until
Monday morning, when the charge was preferred at South-
wark Felice Court, before Mr. A'lleckett, and dismissed, the
magistrate thinking that it was a matter for the county
court. Minton brought an action in one of the superior
courts for false imprisonment, and the insolvent pleaded
•• Not guilty." The jury awarded 101. as damages, and the
coats had exceeded .iOl. The insolvency was caused by the
action. The insolvent now swore that it was only half a
sovereign given hint by Mutton, and a Mrs. Bull, who was
a customer in the shop, confirmed his evidence. On the
other hand, Motion now swore that it was a sovereign,
which he had received with another from his master on
the Saturday previously, and that he had not a half sove-
reign in his possession.
Mr. Commissioner Law, after a long investigation, held
that the insolvent had a probable cause for giving Motton
into custody, and therefore there would be no judgment
given on that ground.
Mr. Sarguod said Motton was only anxious to clear his
' character.
Mr. Commissioner Law said he had no doubt there had
been a mistake. lle believed Mrs. Bull's evidence.
The case was adjourned to next week to produce a young
man named Cooke, who hail purchased the insolvent's
business.
The insolvent was remanded to prison.