The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-08 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-YESTERDAY.

NM Panes AT WLSTIVICITYIL-BLPOIL ML. BAWL PAILS AND •
MIDDLL•LZ COvnium JUST.

JACKSON V. CAZHINOTON. -HORSE DICALINO.-A POST-
DATED CHEQUE.

This wu an action to recover the eum of 701., the amount
of a dishonoured cheque given in payment of the price of a
horse. The defendant put in several pleas, but the material
defence was that Lo notice was given of the dishonour of the
cheque. The case, it will be recollected, has been several
times postponed in the course of the present term. Mr.
lllmlrey and Mr. Mellor were for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Whit hunt and Mr. T. Jones for the defendant.

Mr. Humtrey very briefly stated the pleistiff's cue. The
plaintiff is a farmer to Hertfordshire, and the defendant a
hone-dealer in London. In the course of the year 1846, a
Mr. Pell, an attorney at Northampton, Fold a horse to the
defendant, who paid him a cheque for 701., drawn on the
banking house of Ransom and Co. The cheque, it was al-
leged on the part of the plaintiff, was dishonoured (the de-
fendant having no account at the bank), and it having been
transferred by Mr. Pell to Mr. Jackson, the plaintiff, the
present action was brought to recover the annum.
It having born arranged that the defendant's case should
be first proceeded with,
Mr. Whitehntst addressed the jury, stating that the reel
farts of the ease were these. Mr. Pell is an attorney at
Northampton, and he instructed a person living there,
named Mullinder, who was employed by horse dealers to
buy horses for them, to procure him a pair of horses.
Mullinder bought two horns for 1101, but some time after
Mr. Pell sold one of the horses for 6.51., and employed Mel-
finder to dispose of the other, a black horse. After some
negotiation between that person sod Mr. Carrington, the
defendant it was arranged that the horse should be sent up
to Carrie:Owes stables in town for inspection. The
pole. asked for the horse was 1001., but the
defendant having demurred as to te amount,
Muilinden agreed on the part of Mr. Pell, to
teke a dimes horse and a cheque for 701. The chesnut
horse was taken to Northampton to Mr. Pell, who, soon
after, sold it for 4.51. The defendant drew the cheque for
701. on Ransom and Co., post-dating it some days, namely—
May 21, 1846, lathe expectation of having a sum there when
it became due. But being disappointed in this expectation,
and there being no money at Ren,ool.B to meet the chelue,
it was pr posed that Mr. Pell should take back the black
horse and keep the chesnut one, and that there the matter
should be at an end. However, it was arranged that Mr.
Pell should give the defendant a little time, and that if the
liatter paid the cheque for 701. in six weeks, he should have
beck the black horse. In the meantime the horse was
Fent to a brother of Mr. Pell, a farmer at Greenford, in
Middlesex. The cheque was not taken up on the expiry
of the six weeks, and the horse was again removed to Mr.
Pella, at Northampton. Mr. Pell hunted with the animal
that season. The next year Mr. Pell lent the horse to his
agent, an attorney in London, who hunted with it till the
conclusion of the season. In the spring of 1848 the horse
met with an accident, end he was sold at Tattenell's for
261.; and shortly after Mr. Carrington was served with a
writ, at the instant* of Mr. Jackson, the present plaintiff,
who is brather.in-lawtoMr. Pell. Mullinden thereupon went
down_ to. Mr Jackson in Hertfordshire, and was assured

Jaekton ham nothing of the proeesainge, but was told
that he theta write to his broths:-in•law, Mr. Yell, on the

. - --
subject.
Mu'Haden eras examined at considerable length, and sub-
stantially confirmed the above hem. Other evidence also was
adduced to show that Jackson was only the nominal plaintiff,
Ms. Pell being the real one.
Mr. liumfrey then proposed to cell Mr. Pell, to contradict
the evideroe for the defence ; but it was objected that he
cool.' not be put in the witains.box, inasmuch u he was the
real plaintiff.
Mr. Pell was examined on this point. He said be eollreted
rents for his brotber•in-law, Mr. Jackson, to the amount of
4001. a year. He mentioned the matter of the cheque,

telling I Ms that he wished to bring an action against Car.
ring.on, but in order that he (Mr. Pell) might be a wi:ness,
and able to explain the transaction, he asked him to take
the cheque in part payment of the tents. The cheque was
not ac•ually handed over to Jackman, bat he cook nted to
tAte it.

Kr. Baron Parke, therefore, d tided that Mr. Pell could
not be ',emitted Si a witnew in the case.
Mr. Lovell, • coal-merchaut at Northamptoa, was then
call. d. He was present when Mullindea gave Carrington's
cheque to Mr. Pell. Three or four days after be heard that
it bad bees dishonoured, but he could not speak to the
date.

The plaintiff ;laving no oth:r evidence to adduce,
The learned Baron said he wee of opinion that the cheque
had been postdated, and, therefore, that the plaintiff must
he noo-wiled.

The plaintiff was accordingly non suited.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—YESTERDAY.
Harms roe elltF7 Cosnonstotesa.
IN RS THE HON. ADOLPIIUS FREDERICK CAPEL.
This use, which was reported in our paper of Monday,
mails came before the court, and occupied some hours. Five
counsel appeared : Mr. Bagley, Mr. Dowse, and Mr. Sar-
g sod were for et.. titers ; Mr. Cooke and Mr. Sturgeon for
the insolvent. The e .mplaint on the rart of the numerous
creditors was that debts had been incurred without reason
able or probable expectation of payment, and, therefore,
under the plot etion statutes, the applicant was not entitled
to the r- lief he sought. From the evidence given by the
insolvent in the course of a long examination, it appeared
that he had made various payment. to crt•aitors who had
sued him before he had petitioned the court, and elm before
his property was sold off at his otablishrnent, Theyden-
house, Eplitsg. He was questioned as to the debts owing
Vie various opposing et, dhow., and the payments he bad
I made them. Mr. Mitchell, of Bond-street, was a creditor to
fill., for hooks, opera tickets, &c. Mr. Heath, a jeweller,
was a creditor to 761.14 s 61., and he bad received no money.
Some of the articles be had of him he gave away as presents
and. on being asked, said he was not at liberty to mention the
names of the pries.
Mr. D role inquired to whom he had presented the eme-
rald ring with two diamonds. Was it to a lady sr gentleman ?
Insolvent—l must decline.
Me. Dowse—l repeat my question. It is important that
creditors should know.

Insolv.-nt—lt was to a laely.
Mr I) wee—Not given to your wife ?
Insolvtnt—lt was given to a lady. Other articles he had
of the same creditor were made presents ; and a pair of gold
Nissen, charged seven guineas, were for his elver residing
abroad. Very likely she would pay for them if he applied
for the money. Be must decline to state where she was
residing.

Mr. Dowse—l repeat the question. Where is else residing ?
The learned Chief Commissioner thought it would he a
dangerous precedent to allow an applicant to decline answer-
ing such questions.
The insolvent said his sister resided at Paris. When he
ordered the scissors he intended them as a present. In con-
tinuation of his examination he wasasked as to other debt-
ors, including Megan. Groves, fishmongers, Mt acre. Cham-
berlain, to whom he had made pa, merles. Mr. Tonkin
was an iron bedstead !raker, and a credit r for 781. Had
paid him from 151. to 201. He believed he promised pay-
ment when the last goods were delivered. Mr. West was a
cutler and dreseinptseme maker. Owed him 1671. for articles,
some of which were sold at the auction at Theyden-house
A eperting knife, for which he wee charged 21. 12e, he gave
to his little boy. There was a smelling-bottle, five guineas.
Other debts were inquired into with the view of establishing
the point of opposition—that there were DO reasonable means
of payieg the large sum owing.
Mr. Temkin mid he was an iron bedstead maker in
Oxford-street. In December, 1847, Mr. Capel required
goods to near), 301, which he suppliel on a promise that he
should have a cheque for them in a few days. Had not re-
ceived any money since that order. He had opposed with
other creditors, and believed he should have to pay a share
of the expenses.
Mr. Seeley, who appeared for Messrs. Knight and Parry,
nurserymen. and • lady named Woodhouse, examined the
insolvent, and in answer to the learned counsel he said that
M . /Wait and Parr 7 were creditors for 3041 He had
eleven other nurserymen in the schedule. Hi- reeulsr allow-
ance from 1835, when he marred, had been 9001 a year-
-3001. from his brother, the Earl of Essex, and GOO/. from
Lord Maynard, his father-in-law; besides which, he had re-
ceived gi.te fr m his brother to the amount of 9001, and tem
other Mewls, whose names be was not at lib-rty to disclose,
to 1.2001. Hit emosideratien d. hes were 23 0001. He had •
family of five children. In 1844, when he owed shad
3,0001. to tradesmen, and had two annuity transactions, he
borrowed 4,0001. of Mrs. Woodhouse on his own personal
security at 4 per cent. He had paid some money for pre-
mium and interest ; the lest ply.nent was in July, 1816.
Chit f Commissioner—And why have you not gone on pay-
ing since July. 1846 ?
Insolvent—l found myself unable to do to. Ile had pre-
viously said that his wile expnted 20,0001. on the death of
her father.

The Chief Commissioner resulted to ask whether this was a
ease contemplated by the I.gislature. Could he say, after
the admission 'hat the insolvent could not pay the inters t,
that he had a right 4s get into debt for the luxur'es they had
beard ofd Wee he, in poi it of fact, a person to he protected
under the particular act, under which he at plied ?
Ir mime, t the Court, the ioeo!vent said unfortunately
for him he bid not been brought up t ) any profession.
Chief Commissioner—Very unfortunate. He had no
wish to ireerpose, but it did emu? to 1 im, after the admis-
sion, that he had no jurisdiction to grant a protection, and
that he must be left to his creditors. He was, however,
ready to hear Mr. Cooke.
A discussion erase whether the case should proceed. Mr.
Cooke felt anxious to address the court, and the other learned
counsel wished to be furthe r beard. The court commented
the insolvent for the straightforward manner in which he
had answered. A pause occurred, and it was arranged that
the case should be adjourned, with protection fir ne month
without prejudice, to etc what could be done f. r the creditors,
and applications, it was state!, would be made to certain
quarters for the benefit of the creditors. A creditor present
wished to know whether the insolvent could bike himself to
the continent instead of meeting his creditors, but ouch a
course was at once repudiated as against his interest, and he
said he did not know why be should be suspected of intend-
ing to leave the country.
The case was adj >tuned to the 12th of July, with protec
tion, to effect an arrangement with the creditors, or to re-
sume the hearing.

THE POLICE COURTS.

BOW-STREET.

CHARGE OP ROBBREY AGAINSTi LETTER CARRIER.—
Chas Warren, • letter-carrier, employed at the branch
post-office, Chasing cross, was charged with stealing a letter
containing two shillings, the property of the postmaster-
general.
Mr. Peacock, jun., attended to conduct the prosecution.
It appeared from the statement of another letter-carrier,
named Lawrance, that on Wednesday evening. having met-
sion to retire to the area of the builoing, near the cistern
from which the cloeets are supplied with water, he placed his
pipe behind the pariiion, and on taking it out errant he
found the letter produced apparently containing wins, and
addressed" Robert Elder. Fusilier Guards, Vauxhall Hoe.
pital," which he re p!aceel, an 'I communicated the &ream-
stance to Mr. Heath, the inspector. The letter was not dis-
turbed, and in about an hour the prisoner was detec'ed by
the porter, who was ordered to watch the place, in removing
it, upon which he threw it into the cistern. He was then
conveyed to the general peat.office, and on passing by New-
gate he burst into tears, saying that in another hour he sup-
posed he would be an inmate of that prison. The letter was
not in the prisoner's delivery, but he was on duty during the
sorting
Mr. Sculthorpe, one of the presidents of the London dis-
trict, proved that when the prisoner was brought before
him he said that in the first irstance he did not secrete the
letter, but observing it through a hole he intended to have
stolen it.
The prisoner was committed to Relegate for trial.
SOUTHWARK. _

CHILD MURDSR.—Mary Anne lloyden, the wife of one
of the porters of Guy's Hospital, was charged with the
murder of her infant child.
Mary Buckle stated that she lived in King-street, Snow's-
fields, and that, on the preceding afternoon, the prisoner's
husband called on her and informed her that his wife had
destroyed their child, and that it was then lying dead at
home, and he bagged of her to go there with him. She ac-
coreline4 accompanied him to their boas., in the same
neighbourhood, where she found the prisoner sitting on a
safe in the parlour, and by her side her child was lying dead,
with a cloak thrown over it. She appeared to be in a very
d. spending state of mind, but aai i nothing until witness took
the cove& g off the child, and, observing that it was quite
dead. melted her how it happened, and she then told witness
that she had drowned It in the copper boiler in the back
kitchen. She added that she had first washed and dressed
the child. Witness then asked her the reason she commited
such a dreadful act, and as to whether she and her husband
had any previous quarrel. but she replied that they had not.
Police Sergeant Letchfield gave similar testimony, and
added that the prisoner's husband told him that he left home
at 9 o'clock in the morning, and returned about 2, when his
wife opened the door to him, having the dead child in her
arms at the time. The witness also stated that, upon his
questioning the prisoner as to her motive for committing the
deed, she said she was fond of the infant, and that her fear
was that she could not do her duty by it, and had therefore
availed herself of the means of putting an end to its
miseries. _ _

A it mate relative of the prisoner's said that she nursed her
when she was confined, and that she (witness) never saw her
exhibit any symptoms of aberrrion of min:l, and she seemed
to be much attached to her offspring. The witness, how-
ever, said, that the prisoner's mother was now an iumste of
• lunatic a•>lum.
Mr Cottingham asked the prisoner whether it was true
she had destrnyeel her child in tue manner before-stated by
the wi,nesses ?

Prisoner, in a low tone of voice : Yes, it is true. I was
not a care of what I did at the time. I attend chapel re-
gularly, and I loved my child dearly.
Mr. Cottingbaus—Then why did you destroy its life ?
Prisoner—l am sorry for it now.
Mr. Cettiegham said it did not appear that the prisoner
had ever betrayed symptoms of insanity, although it seemed
that one of her parents had been afflicted with that malady.
The prisoner also by her answers before him showed that she
was in poss. s•ion of her faculties, and she confessed that she
had celaminei the crime. Whether she was conscious at
the time that she destroyed her infant was a question not for
him to decide, and therefore he felt it his duty to send her
fey 'viol. 'I he prisoner, who merely nodded her bead, wu
then removed from the bar.