The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-22 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

The special paptrwr.taliento:dai. Ihepart -heard case
of " Pilbrow v. Pilbrow's Atmoephetic Railway Company,"
which was a technical argument on demurrer, was eoucluded.
The rest of the day was occupied with a case of " Smith r.
Kenwick," in which the question was, whether the owucr of
a mine who so digs his own coal as to cause a flew of w.iter
into a neighbouring mine is not liable to an action for the
damage. The case wu not concluded when the court rust.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Idort.rote AND WIFE E. CAMMODI.—ANNEITV DEED.
—Lcxavic ENEOLMENT.—This was a special case arising
out of an action for money had and received under the fol-
lowing circumstances : The plaintiffs sue as administrators
of Thee. Lee, who purchased two annuities, shortly before
his death, at the office of the National Loan Fund and
Life Insurance Society, of which body the defend-
ant was sued as the secretary. At the time he
entered into these arrangements, which were of a
very sound and prudent &erecter, he was, in fact, in-
sane, according to the opinion of the jury; but they also
found that the company acted bona fide, and were ignorant
of his real condition. It also appeared that the deeds had
nut been enrolled pursuant to the statute within a limited
period, and the question raised fur the opinion of the court
was whether, under these circumstances, the plaintiffs or the
personal repreu ntatives of the deceased, could recover back
the consideration money paid by him to the office.—Mr.
Needham, for the plaintitti, contended that the action would
lie, ass the deceased, being a lunatic, could not contract, not-
withstanding the bent fides of the office, and also that on
the true construction of the statute, the deed) were void to
all intenta end purposes for want of enrolments,. so that
the purchase money might be recoverable,ipAeineyt
and received to the use of the deceased. In a rt or
latter view many cases were cited, but it vi •a: ••• • •7 "-
Opinion of the court that they rather went to .4,,t;
of enrolment was cut on the grantee and 41, 4.... ' ' I,
and that therefore the plaintiffs could •', •
of the omission of Mr. Lee to take that et • . I • won't?,
on the other side, was requested to confinil. guasenl
the But point. He amordingly argued: thtt

i
~ ~9

,
1
1 '
H 1
1

•
question were binding on the deceased though he was a
lunatic, es the company had no notice of that fact, end Wag
executed contracts, and L)t eve story, the defendants could
not be compelled to forego them by this or any other form of
action. No doubt • lunatic was protected from the con-
sequences of a criminal act, but that woe because the act, if
committed by a lunatic, ceased to be a criminal one. They
were, however, civilly responsible in many cease, and ea
these contracts hid been entered into bonalflde, and the risk
encountered by the defendants,it was most inequitable ea the
part of the plaintiffs now to seek to upset them. If the
plaintiffs could recover howaverwhen the deathhad occurred
almost immediately after the execution of the deeds, they
would be equally entitled to recover if Mr. Lee had lived 60
years in the receipt of his annuities, an extreme cue, which
years
the unjust nature of this action.—The court
took time to cousider.—Judgment postponed.

ADMIRALTY COURT.
Before Dr. LEsbington.
Tea OSCAR—SALYAOR.—This was a snit promoted by
two sets of sa:vors to recover remuneration for salvage ser-
vices rendered to this vessel about six miles from Has-
bonsugh, en the 3rd September last. The Oscar was pro-
ceeding from Hull to Queenle,rough with a cargo of barley,
and when near Cromer came into collision with a vessel un-
known, by which she sustsined considerable damage. The
William and Mary immediately on discerning her con-
dition, put off to her aid, and, with the insistence of the
crew, conducted her towards Yarmouth. The water, how-
ever, coutinuiug to HICEREJE, a waif was hoisted and a second
boat, named the Jemima, responded to it. The crew of the
latter, consisting of four men, were then engaged to assist in
pumping, and, by their united efforts, she was conducted in
a few hours into a place of safety. For the services of the
William and Way a tender was made of 501., and for those
of the Jemima, 251. This offer was rejrcted, and an action
entered for 5001 The value of the ship and cargo was
2,os7l.—Dr.:Jenner and Dr. Hayford were heard for the
leavers; Dr. Addams and Dr. Twin for the owners.—The
learned judge considered that the vessel was in great peril,
and that the services of the first set of salvors had been very
effectually rendered; he therefore over-ruled the tender
made to -.them, and decreed 1001., with costs. The services
of the second set consisted simply of pumping, and 251. was
an ample remuneration. He pronounced therefore ter that
sum, and condemned them in 101. nomine expensarum.
THE CHARLOTTE LETMA—SALVAOR.—This also was
cause of selvage, and was promoted by 32 sailors. The
vessel in question was in a ants of distress near the Scroby
Sand in the early part of October, when the salvors en-
two yawls, the Royal Sovereign and the Sailor's
S7ii;;;d, and put off from Yarmouth to her aid.
By great exertion, and at considerable peril they sue
ceeded in her in safety to Yarmouth-reads.
The value of thproperty was disputed, and the salvers took
out a commission of appraiseent. The owner stated it to
be 2,600/., but the commissione mrs estimated it at 1,8671. 10s.
—The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Jenner were heard for the
lICYOIS • Dr. Bayford and Dr. R. Phillimore for the owners.
—The 'learned Judge expressed his approbation of the
promptitude with which the salvor. had acted, and awarded
thmi 350/. with costs; but he felt bound to act on tho prin-
ciple that, where a commission of appraiseineat was taken
out and the value proved to be less than that alleged by the
owners, the salvors must bear that expense. The salvors,
therefore, must pay it in the present instance.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Helms D. C. Moyle', Esq.
OASSON v. MALCOLII.—Tam JuDOll OP • COUNTY COURT
RAS NO POWER TO RESCIND AN ORDER OF CORMITTAL
WREN IN THE HANDS OF Till HIOR BAILIPp.—The de-
fendant in this case, Mr. James Malcolm, the manager of
the Western Literary and Scientific Institution, is icester-
square, appeared in the custody of Bartlett, one of the officers
or the court, to make en application for a release from cus-
tody, under the lullowiog singular circumstances. Mr.
Malcolm stated, thatainee the ordre for his committal to prison
was made oat he bad erranged with Mr. Gauen by paying
him a sum of el., and that that gentleman had pro-
mised to write to Mr. Cuff, the clerk of the
court, to rescind the order. He understood, from
the officer who took Lim into custody, that no letter had
been received, and his application to the court was for the
judge to allow the of to withhold the execution of the
warrant for two days so as to enable him to write to Mr.
Galloon for on explanation.—The learned Judge said he had
no power to interfere at all. If Mr. Gamin had acted as
Mr. Malcolm stated after coming to an arrangement out of
court, there could be no doubt about his having rendered
himself liable to an action for false imprisonment. By the
direction of Mr. Gamma himself the *mention of the warrant
was staved until the 17th of the present month, and was not
put in force until three days after.—Bartlett, the officer of
the court, said the execution was for 151. 17s. 9d.—The
learned Judge: Then I am afraid, Mr. Malcolm, you must
pay that before you can get discharged.—Mr. /tlalcelen :It
is impossible for me to do so at the present time, your
honour. All I want is for you to withhold the warrant un-
til I am able to get en answer from Mr. Oasson as to his
having szttled the matter out of court.—The Judge : I have
no power to interfere, and I do not know but what the offi-
cer has travelled a little out of his way in allowing you to
come here instead of taking you at once to prison. If
I were to entertain your application, and allow you to
go out of the custody of the officer for a single minute, the
high bailiff would become responsible for the debt, and very
properly so, for it could be considered in no other light than
as an escape. You appear, Mr. Malcolm, by your own
neglect to have brought this all upon yourself ; you have
been summoned to this court on many occasions, and have
never appeared. On the 17th of December you are ordered
to be committed for contempt for not appearino, and a notice
is served upon you to appear on the 28th, to show cause why
you should not be committed. This you treat also with con-
tampt, when, if you had appeared, I would have endeavoured
to induce the plaintiff to come to some terms with you. For
your Lon-appearance the warrant of committal was issued,
as smatter of course.—The defendant, in a most energetic
manner, begged the learned judge to rescind the order, as
he could show, by the production of books from the root-
office in Coventry-street, that he bad sent a rostuffice order
to Mr. GiaSOn during the present week, to his residence
at Tottenham—The learned Judge said the production of
the bcoks would be of no use, for they would not show that
the plaintiff had assented to the arrangement The only way
that the order could be rescinded was under the 90th section of
the act, by a certificate signed by the clerk of the court, stating
that the debt or judgment had been satisfied ; or by the 105th
section of the act which gave him (the learned judge) the
power to suspind any order on account of the sickness of the
defendant, or on any sufficient cause being shown. He could
not cor.sider what Mr. Malcolm had stated a sufficient cause,
and had therefore no power to interfere.—The defendant
having once more in vain urged the judge to rescind the
order, Mr. Malcolm was then removed in custody, the
learned Judge telling the officer to request the governor of
Whitecross-street prison to place Mr. Malcolm, if he could,
not with " fraudulent debtors," as there was some mistake
about hi* right to be committed at all.

BRO2IPTON COUNTY COURT.
refuse A. Abrahams, Ere., Deputy Judge.
',EVERETT V. PATTEIISON..—Is THE bIANAGER OT A
BrILDING SOCIETY RESPONSIBLE FOR A DEFICIENCY IN
HIS ACCoENTS ? —The plaintiff in this can.- was one of the
directors of the Brompton and Chelsea Building Association,
and the defendant the late manager. The summons was
for the sum *Elf., money deposited with the defendant, and
which he should have paid into the bankers'.—The
stated that on the 2d of September last he paid to the de-
fendant 11. upon two shares in the association ; 181. more was
paid to him at the same time, all of which, accordieg to the
14th rule, should have been paid into the bank of Sir C.
Seott and Co. by four o'cick that day. This
money the defendant bad apporopriated to his own
use.-I,lr. Osborn, the present manager of the so-
ciety, said it was the defendant's duty to have done as stated.
Mr. Bradley, far the defendant, took two objections to the
summons : first, that the defendant, being a partner, could
not be sued ; and secondly, that, pursuant to the 9th rule,
the action should have been brought in the names of the
trustees.—The Judge said he would look over the rules, and
consider the objections. The
tI qustios.n
aid to hi was had the
thdefat end-
ant bound himself in any way. rm he
acted as agent for the trustees.—The defendant said it was
his own money he had taken. Re withdrew his money and
shares from the society, and the chairman, who knew it,
made no objection.—The plaintiff said that the defendant,
before he withdrew his shares, had raised money on them.—
The Judge said there was no doubt the defendant was im-
properly possessed of the money. As it was a case of con-
siderable importance, he would take time to examine the
rules of the society, and give his decision at a future eitting.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
Before Mr. Walealg and a Stench of Artices.
ROBIIING FURNISHED LODOINOS.—G. Stewart was in-
dicted for stealing property from the apartments he occupied
of Charles Crompton.—The prosecutor's wife stated that she
lived in John-street, Fitzroy-square. Ou the 22nd of Dec.
the prisoner, accompanied by a female whom he stated to be
his wife, took furnished apartments in her house, and they
continued in occupation till the Bth of the present month,
when, suspecting that all was not right, she (Mrs.Crompton)
naked the prisoner to permit her to look over the apartments.
The prisoner refused, and he and the female went out, but
did not return. The apartments were entered, when it was
found that a great portion of the furniture had been re-
moved. Tue prisoner was found and given into custody.
The woman, stated to be his wife, was not found, nor was
any portion of the property recovered.—The prisoner in his
defence said the property had been taken away by this wife,
bat he did not know of it. lie was willing at the time to
replace the stolen articles.—The jury found the prisoner
Guilty, and he was sentenced to six months' hard labour.
TUTORING A SISTER TO THIEVE.—C. IVatkins, 21, was
indicted for stealing a pair of boots, value Is. 4d., the pro-
party of J. liornby. It appeared that the prosecutor was a
dealer in old clothes and shoes, and on the evening of the
4th inst., the prisoner and a little girl, who, it seemed, was
his sister, were seen to take up a pair of hoots, which were
exposed for sale outside the prosecutor's shop, and walk
away. The attention of the prosecutor was called to this,
and he went after the prisoner and his sister, and the boots
were found upon them. The little girl declared that her
brother had taken her from her home for the purpose of
stealing something, and that he had told her to take the
boots, upon which the prisoner seemed very anxious to get
away, and oared to pay for the boots. Mrs. liornby pressed
her husband to accede to this, but the prosecutor refused,
chiefly on account of the culpability of the prisoner in
tutoring his sister in the paths of crime and depravity.
—Tbe prisoner protested that it was not true that he had
been beetling his sister to steal.—The learned Chairman said
it was evident that the prisoner was training his sister to acts
of theft and wickedness, and the prosecutor had done him-
self much credit by not listening to the terms on which he
wanted to purchase his liberty.—The jury at once found