The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-01 00:00:00

tat Entelltscnct.

LAW NOTICES.—Tau DAT.
Corn or Cuaircritv, Lincoln's Inn, at 10.—Appeal Notions—
Tonßain v. Coupland ; Chuck v. Cromer ; Coombes v. Ramsay ;
Stocken v. Hammel; heath v. Chadwick; Rigby v. Strangeways.
Appeals—Lord v. Wightwick, by Order ; Strickland v. strickband (a).
Vics-Ouscluoas' Comers, Liwoin's Inn, at 10.—Before Sir 1..
Shadwell.—For Judgment —Neste r. Pink; ex parte Fletcher; Rus-
sell v. Smith ; after which Motions.—Before Sir J. Knight Bruce.—
Tompaett v. Wickens, to produce will ; after whiLla Motions —Ottawa,
Sm.—Bogard v. Bateman, part beard ; Pearre v. Pearce (2), part
beard; Fuller v. Woods.—Before Sir J. Wigram.—Knight v. Knight,
for judgment ; after which Notions.—Causes. &c.—lfoward r.
Howard, by ortkr ; Lewis. T. Thomas; Bell v. Alexander; Bull v.
Pritchard; Dolman v. Land (2).
Roma' Comm, Chancery-Lane, at 10.—Motions, Causes, tc.—
Ottley Gray, part beard; Willis v. Douglas.
Comer or QUIIION layers, Westminster, at A p. 9.—leddlesez
0011101011 juries.—Jefferies v. May; Tingley v. Dalton; Melton v.
bl•Murmy ; Martin v. Sharp; Helmet v. Gray; Bird v. Defonvielk ;
Williams v. Creswell ; Smith v. Hill and another ; Birkhead c. Law-
rence ; Gay v. Woodham. The last cause is No. 79 on the liat.
Cover or °MIXON PLZAP, Westminster, at A p. B.—Middlesex
special juries.—Wareham v. Prance; O'Connell c.O Connor. Middle-
sex commas juries.—Fadenilhe v. Smith; Thompson V. Stocken;
Parkes v. Strong; Bunn v. Addiwm; Whitbread v. Hampton. The
last cause is No. 46 on the printed list.
COO:HT or Excuzuezz, Westminater, at 10,—Middlesex special ju-
ries—Attorney-General v. Allen. Middlesex comma jurtea—Biggs
v. Laurie • liatchinscat v. Blake; Ward v. Audltutd; Keep v. Rob-
son; Eakins v. Wilson; Piiklock v. Fitzgerald; Crockford v. Lord
Maidstone ; Geraghty v. Bernard; Chapman c. Foulard.

QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings at Nisi Priuet. Before Mr. ivatiee Petticoat'.
THE QUEEN E. GEORGE LONO, E.Q.—IdAND
This was an issue on a mandamus directed to Mr. Long, the
police magistrate, for refusing to grant a distress-warrant to
levy a sum of 31. 9s. 4d. from the oceapier of • house in
t3outhampton-terrace, Kentish-town, as a contribution for
the paving of a footway before the house. A great number
of witnesses were called for the prosecution, and the case
occupied the whole day, but the only real question was,
whether a foot-path had been in existence previously to, and
in the year, IS 11, the time at which the pavement was laid
down by the commissioners for the psrish.—The jury re-
turned a verdict that the footway bad existed at the time.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NVEsTmixsTss.
Sittings at Nisi Prima. Before the Lard Chief Justice Wilde, and a

common jury.
VARNEY V. HICKMAN --QC EsTION As TO THE RIGHT OP
RECOVERING MONEY DEPOsITED VFW: A WAOER.--Serjt.
Talfonrd and Mr. Phinn for the plaintiff; Menus. Parry and
Joyce for the defendant.—This was an action brought by a
dust contractor against the defendant, the landlord of the
Cobham's Head public-home, at Clerkenwell, to recover the
sum of 201. which had been deposited with him (defendant)
upon a certain wager made with a cab proprietor, named
Isaacs. It appeared that in the month of March last plain-
tiff made a bet with the said leases, that his hone would
make the best of his way for two miles against Isaacs' horse
on the Uxbridge road, on or before a certain day named—
the weight on each side to consist of 10-. wt. besides the cart,
and the horse belonging to Isaacs to be proved to have
been his property for etghteen mouths. The amount of
the wager was Nt. a side, and the defer :gut became
the stakeholder. Previous to the time appointed
for the race, the plaintiff, as he alleged, gave notice
to the defendant that be should " break off " the bet, and
that he shottid require him (defendant) to return the money
to him. The day came, and Isaacs made his appearance on
the road. ant having " walked over the course," he re- ,
turned to Hickman and claimed the 40Z, stating that he had
won the wager. Hickman did not deny his cLtim, and hence
the present actioa against him as the i-•.i.ktinsidcr. F r the
plaintiff ;t was proved that the defendant had received timely
notice of his intention to withdraw from the bet, as the man
who was to have driven his boric had and with a serious
accident, awl that, therefore, the defendant was bound to re-
-4 him the money he ha I &warated. On the part of the
defendant, it was contended that, according to the lith and
9th Tiet., sectionlo9, any gum of moe alleged to
be won upon a wag •r, or deposited to abide the event of a
wager. was not recoverable Wan action at law, and upon this
round it was urged that the plaintiff ought to be amounted.
The learned judge overruled this objection, and decided that
the statute WA not meant to apply to such a case as the prrent,
in which the party depositing the =may had expressed his
wish to recover it back before the time had arrived for the
wager to be decided.—Witnesses were then called to prove
that the plaintiff was seen in his cart on the Uxbridge-road
on the day appointed for the race, And that the defendant
bad received nothing is the shape of a " notice!' except a