The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-29 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 29, 1862.

tab inteingnut.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 28.
Sittiug• at Nil Prior at Westminster.— (Before the Lord
Chia Justice and • Special Jury.)

THE QUEEN V. WELLS.
This was an action for libel The defendant pleaded nut
guilty.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Gray were counsel for the
prosecution ; Mr. Serjeant Shee, Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., nod
Mr. lleoisfurd, were counsel for the defendant.
The Attorney-General said a criminal information bad
been filed aiisiust the defendant, the printer and publisher
of the Rail way Tinics, for printing and publishing four
articles rellectiug on the conduct of Mr. Whalley, M.P. for
Peterborough, relative to certain railway matters, particu-
larly with reference to the Downier), andliewtown Railway,
and in disparagement of the plaintiff's standing and re-
pute in his own neighbourhood when be exercised the
functions of a magistrate. Mr. Whalley had denied the
allegations and charges in an affidavit, and upon it and
others the criminal information was filed, and upon that the
defendant pleaded not guilty. He understood it was now
proposed to withdraw that plea, and plead guilty.
Mr. Serjeant Shea said be was instructed by the defend-
ant to withdraw the plea of not guilty and plead guilty.
He was further instructed by the gentleman whoLe
servant be was, and who wrote the articles com-
plained of, and was the proprietor of the public*:
Mon, to express his regret at having published them. He
was now satisfied, from Mr. Whalley s affidavit and the
others that had been filed, that the articles were written
under an impression of dates which entirely altered the
chsnicter of the traoractions which were the subject of
comment, and he withdrew unequivocally the commenta
and expressions contained in the articles which were offen-
sive and had been painful to Mr. Whalley's feelings.
The Lord Chief Justice—Are you satisfied Mr. Attorney-
General
The Attorney-General—Yes, my lord.
The Lord Chief Justice, addressing the jury, said they
would have to return a verdict of guilty, upon which he
presumed they would hear nothing more of the cue. The
parties appeared to be satisfied, and no doubt it was a
satisfactory termination for all parties.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. 2&
Sittinp at Nisi Prime in Middlesex.—(Before Lord Chief
Justice Erle and a Common Jury.)
The only case of any public interest which came on to-
day was an action against " Professor" Holloway to
recover 500/. for procuring a patent for the sale of his
ointment in France and the French colonies ; tbe matter
wet not concluded when the court rose, and the further
heaf.og was appointed for Monday, to snit the convenience
of counsel.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 28.
Sittinp at Nisi Prim after Term at Weatininder.—(Before
Mr. Baron Martin and a Common Jury.)

MORTON AND ANOTHER r. lILISON.—THE OXFORD MDBIO
HALL.—DRPACH OP ENOAGEHMIT NT A VOCALIST.
This was an action to recover 551. in penalties for breach
of au agreement entered into between the plaintiffs (Messrs.
Morton and Stanley) and Miss Maria L. Ellison, on the
23rd ot March, 1861, whereby the latter agreed to sing at
the Oxford and Canterbury Music Halls every night, except
on Sundays and certain holidays, for twelve months, at •
salary of 61. per week. The alleged breach was that she re-
fused to sing on 11 nights in December, 1861, by which she
had rendered herself liable to an many penalties of 51. each.
The defendant pleaded • number of pleas, the principal
of which were that she was compelled to be absent owing to
ill-heelth, and loss of her voice in consequence of being re-
qured toeing at unreasonable times and to an unlimited
extent. She also claimed as set off to the amount of 15/.
Mr. Overeod, Q.C., and Mr. Tindal Atkinson were
counsel fur the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Huddleaton, Q.C., and
Mr. Quaid for the defendant.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson, in opening the case, said the
plaintiffs were the proprietors of the Oxford and Canterbury
Music Halls, and the defendant was a young lady who bad
been engaged to sing at those establishments nightly,
at a salary of 64 • week. Broughams were
provided by the proprietors, to convey the crudes from one
ball to the other. The engagement with the defendant was
entered into in March, 1861, and she noon became a general
favourite of the public, and was very success...l. Finding
she had made • bit" she began to show dissatisfaction,
complained of the salary being too small, and that unsuit-
able pieces bad been selected for her. She abet nted her-
self from reheareals, and then performancea and showed •
good deal of temper, which was not at all ble to the
plaintiffs. This conduct greatly inter' with the ar-
rangements for the performances, but it was continued until
the 12th of June, when she wrote &letter to the plaintiffs,
raying she wished to he excused two nights a week without
loan of salary, or to remain at the Oxford entirely, adding
" the going to and from the Oxford and Canterbury every
night is what I cannot and will not do. I would
rather give it up altogether than be subject to such slum j."
The learned counsel then detailed the other circumstances
which led to the plaintiffs bringing this action, and called
the following witnesses :
Mr. Freak. Stanley, one of the plaintiffs, said they had
nearly,lo.l performers, and that the engagement of the de-
fendant commeneed with the opening of the Oxford. She
tint star 1 away from rehearsals and then objected to sing
in the chorused'. Man) times the performances were de-
layed by her refusing to go on the stage. Sometime, she
objected to sing because she had gut • cold, and at others
said she would not go tram the one place to the other. She
would speak to him in • violent manner for twenty
minutes together without the least chance ot his
saying • single word in reply. (Laughter.) He then
declined to accede to the terms of her letter. She then
complained of not being paid u much as Mimi Ramat',
another vocalist, and the prima donna, who was in receipt
of a much larger sum. She said money went • long way,
and that if she got as much SA Miss Russell she would do as
much as was required of her. She went in July to the sea-
side on the ground of her voice being affected. She refiLed
to take her salary minus the deductions for the nights she
was abeent. He thought there was nothing the matter with
her voice. He considered it was in its prime ; and he denied
that she had say ground for complaint in having too much
singing imposed upon her.
Cross-examined—Smoking and drinking went on during
the performances. There was a good deal of smoke from
the smoking, but not • crest deal of noise from the thinking.
(Laughter.) The place was well ventilated, and the smoke
readily escaped. One night the defendant would not go
borne, and remained at the Oxford all night. Mr. Weston,
of the Holborn Music Hall, wished to enter into an engage-
ment with the defendant to sing there • but Mr. Morton
objected, and said if it were enteredlinto'he would move for
an injunction. She never sent to him or Mr Merton medical
eartificates, or complained of the night air. Four broughams
with warm rags were provided for the ladies in going from
one hall to the other.
Mr. Baron Martin—Are the broughams commonly con-
f led to the ladies ? (Laughter.)
Mr. Stanley—O yes, and we only put four in &brougham.
Mr. Morton deposed that he never saw any appearance of
illness in the defendant. She sang the night she com-
plaiumi as well as ever, and with the same applause.
Crosirexamined—She afterwards complained of a sore
the oat, and I gave her claret and Cayenne pepper. (Laugh-
ter.) Thai ie a very good remedy. Once the defendant re-
fused to leave the Oxford unless she were paid her salary
without deduction, and she remained there all night, and
until 10 in the morning.
Mr. Baron Martin-1 suppose she walked about all night?
Mr. Overend—Yes, with the watchman, I behave.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Morton—The defendant was to forfeit 51. per night
if absent without permission.
M. Ferdinand Jonglimans, the musical conductor, said he
made the engagement with the defendant. She came with
her music master, and of course sang her beet. Afterwards
she did not sing well at all. One night she objected to go
on the stage because she had a bad throat, but Le gave her
some claret and cayenne, and he never beard her sing
better. (Laughter.) On another occasion she declined to
go from the Canterbury to the Oxford. She tdked and
talked. and he allowed her to go on because if he intei,xised
she talked the more. (Laughter.) She was • terrible
temper. (Loud laughter.)
Cross-examieed—There was a good deal of trouble in
managing the ladies. It was the only trouble he had.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Quin—That is the only trouble of your life?
Wituess—ln business hours. (Laughter.)
Mr. Quoits—You go, I believe, every night from one hall
to the other with the ladies?
Witness—Oh yes. (Laughter.)
Evidence was then given to show that 101. was once de-
ducted from the defendant's salary for ten nights' ab,ence.
Miss S. Meta, a vocalist at the Oxford, said the defendant
frequently told her she would not sing if she did not get the
whole of her salary. She often said she ought to be paid
as much as Miss Russell. She was a very violent temper.
Other witnesses having been dated in support of the
plaintilra case.
Mr. Quid° then addressed the jury for the defence. He
contended that the absence of the defendant from the
Oxford end Canterbury Halls on the nights in question was
owing entirely to ill-health and loss of her voice, brought
on by the hard work which she had to undergo, and not
from any desire to evade the agreement and get :a more
lucrative engagement elsewhere. He commented on the
hardness of the agreement to the defendant, who though
she only got 11. • night bad to pay a penalty of 51. for every
night's absence, and said that the object of the action was
to compel her to resume au engagement which she was inca-
pable of fulfilling with due regard to her health and voice.
Miss Maria Lenexa Ellison, the defendant, was then exa-
mined. She said—l am the daughter of a Sheffield die-
maker. For two years I received Emmons from Signor Cre-
velli, at the Royal Academy. Afterwards, in 1857, I had
my first engagement. Previously I had song at several
concerts in the country. The engagement with the plaintiff
was made for me by Mr. Scalds. Mr. Stanley gave me t
ie
agreement three days before I 'rived it. I signed t
ignonince, believing that I was my teacher's property. The
first time I appeared at the Oxford I sang a selection from
Dinoraa, which I had never seen before. It ie very
heavy. I also sang in • selection from Norma at the
Canterbury. I complained of bevies to sing these as well
as soup and duets in one evening. One night I song as
many as seven songs. Afterwards' I fell ill, and wanted to
go to the seaside. I left for that purpose In
July. Previously Mr. Mottos said if I did net
sing at both please I should have nothing. I
returned from the seaside la August and rammed my duty
.1
, 1 and continued to sing as they deleted me. I Ant time

sang the" Circassian" after five minutes' notice. I got an
encore. I was nightly encored in this and other songs.
Mr. Qll3lilll-1 suppose it is difficult for a lady to refuse
an encore
Witness—l like, of course, to sing again ;at least I like
to be encored. (Laughter.) I don't object to sing encores,
of course not. (Continued laughter.)
Examination resumed—l found that the work affected
my throat and voke, and I sang under very distressing
circumstances. On the 14th December, 1 broke up almost
entirely, 1 could not rings note. Mr. Morton has several
times given as a remedy, claret and cayenne. I was not
able to sing on the sth of Deoembei, and I sent an excuse,
being quite boars. On the 6th I sang first at the Center.
bury, in Norms. I made several breaks, not being able to
' reach the notes. Mr. Morton saw the state I was in ; but
he still desired me to sing. On the 14th my
mother gave me linseed tea and salad oil.
When I received the writ 1 went to Mr. Stanley to see if I
could make things comfortable. I had complained to him
of the effect of the night air upon my voice in going from
one place to the other, after having sung in a heavy selec-
tion of music. I have bad to wait at the doors of the Ox-
ford and Canterbury in thin satin shoes and • low-necked
dream, on wet and other nights. I had to wait until " God
save the Queen" was sung at the Canterbury, and after-
, wards had to par through the building after all the lights
were put out in my thin clothes. I used to get home
about one o'clock in the morning, and sometimes at nearly
two. 1 applied household remedies to my throat until Jan.
8, 1802, when I went to Dr. Petlow, who gave me • certi-
ficate. Be said I was not to sing for three mouths, and that I
should go to my native air or Italy. I went to Sheffield.
(Laughter.) It is not true that I cover refused to sing on
account of my health. lem too fond of singing when I
am able. Probably I may have said to Miss Russell when
she asked me what salary I wanted, "As much as you, of
course '." but I never refused to sing in consequence of not
having the same salary. lam aware that I said to Mr.
Morton, "If you pay me more money, I will do more
work." I could not do more. I was singing all night from
seven to twelve. There were a great many rehearsals in
the day, and I attended them ell.
Cross-examined—A general fine of half-se:own was not
imecaed upon the company in consequence of my absence.
I began my singing career at Sheffield, where I sangat the
Apollo and Atheneum concerts.
Mr. Baron Martin—l suppose, Mr. Overend, you have
attended those concerts yourself ? (Laughter.)
Casa-examination resumed—l also went on • tour with
Miss Susan Pyne. In concerts given by Mr. Bodda I sup-
plied the place of Mae Birch. I have snug duets at the
Royal Academy concerts, at Hanover-square-rooms. At
the Oxford and Canterbury I sang the "Shadow Song" and
the recitative in DinoraA, and the "Costa Diva" in
Nora, and there were always encores. I sang all these in
one night, as well as Scorch songs and joUiog in parts of the
choruses. I sang "Coming thro' the Rye."
Mr. Baron Martin—ls there any wish on the part of the
plaintiff to keep this young lady ?
Mr. Overend—Yes ' • we think she is improved very much,
and will make • very good singer. She is very awkward to
manage, but we wish to keep her.
The witness was then asked by Mr. Overend if ohs had

shown any temper?
Witness—lf I said "No " I suppose I should not be
believed. (Laughter.) I have been sometimes • little
annoyed, but I suppose I have not shown more temper than
other professionals. (Laughter.)
Mr. Overend—Have you ever said that you could sing as
well as Mies Russell?
Witness—l don't think I ought to be asked to answer
that question.
The question, however, having been repeated, witness
maid, "lf I did not say it, I ought to have done .so. (Great
laughter.)
Examination nor tinned—l told her and Mr. Stanley
that I wee deserving as much.
Mr. Overend—Did you tell Mr. Stanley that money did
one as much good as oil to the throat?
Witness—He knew that as well as I could tell him.
Mr. Overead—Did you say that if he paid you as mach
as Miss Fussell you would do as much work?
Witness—Miss Russell had • good deal more than I, but
Ido not know how much. I never applied for a situation
to Mr. We ton. He inquired about me, not 1 for Mir.
I never applied for any other engagement, either at the
Alharnbt• or elsewhere. I may have told a Mr. Etartleman
that I would require 16 guineas a week.
Mr. Overend—l suppose you made great progress during
the lost year?
Witness—" Practice makes perfect." (Laughter.) When
I wra my tucker's pupil, of coons, I attended to his in-
'tractions.
By Mr. Baron Martin—l am now free.
Dr. Petlow said he saw the defendant on the 6th January
last, and gave her a certificate. She was suffering from an
affection of the throat. It was in • kind of chronic ulcerated
state, and the disease may have existed ten days, • fat-
niqht, or more. I advised her to take cod liver oil and rest
from singing. I thought it desirable that she should not
continue the practice of her profanation, but could not say
for how long a period.
Mr. and Mn. Ellison, the parents of the defendant, and
several professional lollies and gentlemen, were called to
prove that the state of her health and voice was such as to
prevent her singing in public at the time she was alleged to
have broken her agreemeut.
Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Overend then addressed the
jury on behalf of their respective clients.
Mr. Baron Martin summed up the evidence, and said if
the jury thought the defendant had broken the agreement,
i he supposed it would be sufficient to give only oue or two
penalties, as the object of these actions was generally only
to enforce the contract entered into.
The jury, without leaving the box, found • verdict for
the plaintiffs—damages, 101., being two penalties of U.
I each.

Georg* 33r aid James Anderson were first placed
at the bar.
Baron Bramwell, addressing them, said they had been con-
victed of &robbery with violence, committed jointly. They
met the prosecute'', • strong young man, in one of the moat
public thoroughfares of the metropolis, Bloomsbury- street,
at six o'clock in the evening, and one of them pushed him
down, and they then robbed him of the property be bad
about him. This wee in Well &crime of great enormity, but in
their case it wee aggravated by the fact that after they had
robbed him they beat and ill-used him In the most cruel
manner. Such proceedings ma these were undoubtedly well
calculated to produce great terror and alarm in the publics
mind, and it was his duty to award a punishment canteen-
eurate to the offence. With regard to Roberts it appeared
that he was convicted in 1858 of a burglary and sentenced
to four years' penal servitude, but he obtained his liberty
before that time expired, sod he bad only been at large
six months when he committed this fresh offence. As to
Anderson it appeared that he was convicted of a robbery
with violence in 1859, and sentenced to three years' pearl
servitude, and he had also suffered fourteen other convic-
tions, so that the present was his sixteenth conviction. He
was sure therefore that with regard to him it was unneces-
sary to make any observations to justify the sentence that
he was about to pronounce upon him. As to any chance of
their being reformed, be feared that it was utterly hope-
less. He did not believe there were any of the materials
of reformation in them, and that they were utterly desti-
tute of morality, shame, religion, or pity, and that if they
were let loose they would do what any savage animal would
do—namely, prey upon their fellows. As to the effect of
punishment upon such persons, they'did not, no doubt,
like confinement ; it was irksome to them, they were de-
te.i.vc:d, of their accustomed enjoyment. of spinet and to-
but they were fed, and kept warm, and the labour
to which they were subjected was not of • very severe
chancre, and when they came out of prison they
speedily forgot what they had endured, and re-
turoed to their old courses. It was necessary, therefore,
that the public should be protected from such persons for
• very long period, and the sentence upon Anderson would
be that of penal servitude for life ; and upon Robert %whose
case did not appear to be quite so had, the sentence would
be penal servitude for twenty years.
James Mound, 31, and John Allen, 30, were next placed
at the bar.
Baron Bramwell said these prisoners bad been convicted
of a similar offence, in another public thoroughfare, Long-
acre, and it appeared that they knocked the procecutordown
and kicked him. hlowatt bad been before sentenced to six
years' penal servitude, but he supposed for some sort of good
behaviour be obtained his liberty in four years sod a
half, when he appeared to have resumed his old courses, and
at the time he war taken into custody there were found
under his bed a jemmy, • life preserver, and a quantity of
' skeleton keys. It was manifest that he war a sort of person
who must be kept out of the way of harming the public for
some time, and the sentence upon him would be one of
penal servitude for twenty years. With regard to Allen,
it appeared that this was the only time that he bed been
convicted, and he should therefore sentence him to penal
servitude for ten years only.
Charles Jones, 18, was the next prisoner that was placed
at the bar.
His lordship said that this prisoner bad been convicted of
robbing a gentleman of his watch in the day time, in COW..
crams. He did not, however, use any violence, and he was
a young man, and he hoped there might be some chance of
his reforming. He should, therefore, only pentanee hint to
four years' penal servitude.
John Redwood, 22, was the next pi:soner brought up.
Baron Bramwell said that the mroner had attacked the
prosecutor in High Holborn, in company with several others,
and hie throat was squeezed so violently that he spat blood
for fifteen days. There were also several previous convic-
tion', and the ser.ence upon him would be that of penal
servitude for ten years.
John Painter, 21, and Charles Thompson, 22, were the
next prisoners brought up.
His lordship said the prisoners had been convicted of
robbing a men in Cockapurstrest (the prisoner, Painter,
exclaimed in an impudent tone, " Yea„ sir'), a place in
which it might be supposed any one could walk with safety,
sod the only favourable circumstance in their Case WAS that
they did not use any violence. The sentence upon them,
however, would be penal servitude for ten years.
1710114:18 Redshaw, 20, James Dixon, and Charlotte Bed-
shaw, 19, were next placed at the bar.
His lordship said that this was a case that required
a great deal of self-command to deal with with anything like
calmoses. It appeared that the woman had induced the
prosecutor to accompany her to a by place, and
there he was attacked by the two men, who as-
saulted him and held him while the woman
robbed hint, and not content with this, they
got him down and kicked him with savage
violence upon the head until he was almost left for dead.
When he was discovered the blood was streaming from him,
one eye was completely closed, and be could not see with
the other. It was a most atrocious case of cruelty, and the
senterce upon the two men would be twenty years' penal
servitude, and upon the woman, who was probably their
tool, be should par the seniors of penal servitude for four
years.
Joseph Hall, 30, and .Robert Last, 25, were next brought up.
His lordship said that these prisoners had been convicted
of assaulting a gentleman with intent to rob him,
and it was very mach to be wished that persons like
them should often meet with the same sort of treat:rent
that they bad at his hands. It appeared that. in company
with another person, they had attacked the prosecutor,
but, although there were three of them concerned, he made
a gallant resistance, disabled one of them, and gave these to
the other, and they were both secured. They were, no
doubt, both engaged, in concert with • woman, in an or-
ganised planto-rob any one that might come in their way,
which was an offence of a very aggravated character, and
the only circumstance in their favour was that they did not
appear to have attempted to make use of any violence.
He then sentenced them to be kept in penal servitude for
the space of five years.
The prisoners who had been convicted in the early part
of the day were then brought up. The first that was
placed at the bar was John Kingston, 19.
His lordship said that he had been convicted of • robbery
accompanied with very considerable violence, but be was
very youug, and it did not appear he had been convicted
before, and he hoped that under those circumstances the
sentence be was about to par was not an inadequate one
to his offence. He then ordered him to be kept in penal
servitude for ten years.
Edward Marks, 41, Jaw Lane, 18, James Butler, 18,
and John Ford, 18, the four remaining prisoners, were
next brought up.
Baron Bramwell, before paring 'enter" inquired of the
officer in the case if be had ascertained how it happened
that Ford had got out of the reformatory before the expi-
ration of the term for which he was sent there?
The prisoner Ford, before the officer could reply, called
out io a loud tone, " Why, for good conduct, to be sure."
(Laughter in court.)
The officer said he bad not learned under what circum-
stances the prisoner referred to was released from the

ref
Hceirt2hip then addressed the prisoners, and said that
they had been convicted of a robbery in the public streets.
The prosecutor, while going to his own home, and when he
was close to it, was seized violently, throttled, and robbed,
and then--and he really cwild not understand why such
an act of wanton brutality should have been per-
petrated—be was struck a furious blow in the face,
which did him grievous injury. The prisoner Marks
appeared to have been already sentenced to seven years' trans-
portation, but it appeared that for some reason or other this
sentence was not fully carried out, and in a very sbm.
time after he regained his liberty be committed this offence,
and there was no doubt that be was the roan who indicted
the injury upon the prosecutor. That there would always
be thieves, that persons would always be found ready to
appropriate the property of others, he was afield would
ever be the case, but be hoped the sentence he was about
to pass upon this prisoner would be a warning to such per-
sona to be content when they bad obtained possession of
the property of their victims. and not aggravate their
offence by the use of brutal violence such as bad
been exhibited in this cue. He then said that
the sentence upon Marks would be that of penal
servitude for life (when the sentence was pronounced, this
prisoner called out, "That is no more than I expected") ;
and as to the other prisonen, they were young. and pos.
sibly the scene they had witnessed that day might terrify
them, and induce them to refrain from evil courses, and the
sentence upon them would be one of penal servitude for
four years. It might perhaps be thought that the was too
light a punishment, but it should be kept in mind that
courts of justice always desired to give young men a e.hance
of retrieving their character. He would, however, warn
those who might be inclined to repeat the offence,
that if the law as it stood at present, and
the sentences now awarded. were not found outd-
o:lest to protect the public from such outrages, some
revision of the law would certainly take piece and
alterations made in the punishment with a view to produce
that effect.
The prisoners were then removed.
Baron llnunwell, before he left the court, directed that a
reward of 5/. should be given to each of the constable.,
William Gordon, a sergetnt of the C, Walter Holmes,
a sergeant of the F who had 'hewn great activity
and zeal in apprehending the prisoners Anderson and
Roberts.
It was anticipated that some act of violence might have
been attempted when the prisoners were brought up for
judgment, and all the warders and an extra somber of
police were in attendance in case of any emergency 'riming.
No disturbance of any kind, however, took plane, and it 11
to be hoped that the severe sentences Tema upon some of
the prisoners will bay. the effect of awaking Boa outrages
, for the future.