The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-10 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

COHBETT T. HUDSON.—Is IT FOR TUE PLAINT VF 1N AN
ACTION FOR A FALSE RETURN TO PROVE TILT TIER
Rartatx Fatss ?—The plaintiff in person moved for •
rule to show cause why the nonsuit which had been entered
in this cue should not be set aside and a new trial had.
The defendant is the keeper of the Queen's Bench preen,
and to • writ of habeas corpus, issued at the instanse of the
plaintiff, who was end still is a prisoner therein, for not
putting in an answer to • oill in equity, made a return to the
Court of Common Pleas which the plaintiff considered false.
The present action was then brought to recover damages for
the alleged false return ; but the plaintiff failed at the trial to
show affirmatively that the return was false. Thereupon
the learned judge directed a nonsuit to be entered. The
plaintiff now submitted that it was for the defendant in suck
an action to show that the return we; true ; he also suggested
that he had been taken by surprise by the ruling of the
learned judge, and could, if a new trial were granted, pro-
duce thereat evidence to show that the return was faise.
—The court took time to consider the application.
CONNOP AND OTHERS O. LEVT.—CAN A TR.TATORI
PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY 31 PLEADED TO AN ACTION
,ST EIS ESECUTORS I—This was an action for work
sad labour done by the testator of the. plaintiffs, who sued
u executors. The declaration r-
mime to the testator,
selves. The defendant

hour bad been done
Dover, and Herne Bay .
projected by the testator ;
to join that company, ann
harmless from all resulting
was brought against him as
committee of that company
mended in this action were
lost to the defendant. He r
which the plaintiffs sued
be made by the fraud and
pleas there was a demurrer.

lecraratio; ContiledcOw;ts on pro-
T, and also to the executors these-
ot pleaded that the -.and la-
by the teetato ......—"°%;'"l
ay Railway Co ....1172,Z.„T_fir.
or; that the •pt:7 .• =it
, sad had • •''''.
darrizs
molting oldi tW4"g'rr
him Lai dr the Foe •
,mpany ; and tlea tlt•.• .d ~
were to be • 4 . `lil,
He also ple .
Lied had bee • •.
l' , k
and covin 0 lit, a •
arrer.—]fir. Crow ; . .445 .

of the demurrer, contended that the defendant could not
oppose the promised indemnity of the testator hirase:f to the
action of the executon, because if the demand sued on were
to be satisfied by payment, the money paid would constitute
assets in the hands of the executors, and be distributable as
suds, in which ease there might be nothing left to satisfy the
simple contract debt on which the defendant, should he be
compelled to enforce the indemnity by action, would have to
sue. lie also insisted that to the counts which were founded
on a promise to the executors thenvelvie the plea of the
testatoes fraud and eosin was no answer.—Mr. Pea-
cock, in support of the demurrer, urged that the
defendant could not be called on to pay mosey
for the recovery of which he was entitled to bring
a cross action against the party suing for it, especially
as the plaintiffs must be taken on the record to have
admitted that the money, if paid, would be wholly loft to
him. With regard to the plea of eosin and fraud, he sub-
mitted that if the original contract on which the alleged pro-
mise to the executors was founded had been fraudulent, the
promise to them was void and the plea good.—The court
took time to cansider the judgment.
BAIL. COURT.
IN THE MATTER OP ROBERT VICKERT.—ATTACHMENT
POR CON TTTTT IN NOT GIVING EVIDENCE BEFORE MA-
GISTRATES TO ESTABLISH A SETTLEMENT ET HIRING AND
SERVICE.—Mr. Pashley moved for a rule calling on Mr.
Hobert Vickery to show cause why an attachment should
not issuo against bias fur contempt. It appeared that in
1814 one Mellish. with his family, lived at SIG/ley, in SOnler-
aotabirs. He subsequently deserted his family sad went to
America, and a child became chargeable to the parish. The
settlement of the father was found to be in the parish of
Raddiegton by hiring and service to Mr. Vickery. No one
wee prevent at the hiring but Mellish and Mr. Vickery,
and Mr. Vickery was the only witness to prove the set-
tlement. Oa iffs being first applied to he stated
the fact of the hiring in 1828, and he said he would
attend before the magistrates on the application for
an order. He did not, however, appear in pursuance of the
summons, and a subperna was issued, by which he was re-
quired to attend and give evidence on 3d Jane. He did
attend, but refused to take the oath, on the ground that he
would not give evidence to fix a settlement in a parish in
which he was a rate-payer. This was the contempt com-
plained of. A role nisi had been granted against Mr.
Vickery on the 12th Nov., 1848, and when it came on kw
argument as objection wss taken to the affidavits, and on
that ground the rule was discharged. After that, a second
application was made to Mr.Vickery to give evidence, but
he had refused, and the contempt IV IA so committed.—Rude
to show cause granted.
The court afterwards took the peremptory paper, and was
occupied for the remainder of the d,y with an agreement
with reference to the reversal of an award.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
hitting* in Banco.
The court was occupied the whole of the day in hearing
motions for new trials, &e., but the cases were devoid of
general interest. In the course of the day the Lord Mayor
elect. accompanied by the sheriff., the recorder, and suite,
attended in court, for the purpose of inviting the learned
judges to the civic banquet at Guildhall.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Innings in 11.inon.
WALLER v. BISHOP.—RAILWAT LITIOATION.—MT.
Crowder, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict, for 3,9251., which hal passed for the plaintiff at the
after sittings of lest Trinity Term, at Guildhall, should not
be set aside and a new trial had on the grounds of
misdirection, and that the verdict was against evidence.
The action was brought by a stock-broker to re-
cover the price and brokerage of a 'large number I
of shares in the Dutch Hanoverian Railway Com-
pany, of which the defendant was a director. It appeared
that the directors adopted a resolution in December, 1844,
pledging each of them, upon his individual responsibility,
to purchase as many skarn as possible, for the purpose of
.•rigging the market," or, in ether words, avoiding the de-
pression which all railway projects, however bona fide, then
suffered front. The plaintiff, who was employed as broker,
purchased the shares in question, and continued them, from
time to time, upon the orders of a Mr. Ogle and a Mr.
Cavallo, promoters of the scheme. It did not appear that
they had ever received express authority from the directors
to employ the plaintiff, but it was proved that, on one
occasion, he had received a cheque for 1921. on account, from
Captain Hamilton, one of the directors, and that, on the
19th of June, 1846, the defendant, in a letter to Mr.
Ogle, stated that "Mr. Waller bad consented to con-
tinue the shires, but, that something should be done
respecting his demand." The defendant denied that
he had ever sanctioned or known of the orders having
been given to purchase the shares in the hands of the di-
rectors. The misdirection complained of was, that the Lord
Chief Baron told the jury, " if the defendant knew that
the orders given by Ogle and Cavallo purported to be on the
authority of the directors, or if he bad the means of knowing
it, so as to justify the plaintiff to believe that the shares
were purchased upon the credit of the directors, and that the
orders had been given with their unction and concurrence,
the defendant was responsible."—A rule nisi was granted.
THE SWEARING IN OP THE NEW LORD MATOR, who,
accompanied by the civic authorities in state, arrived at half-
past one o'cloci, interrupted the ordinary business of the
court for nearly an hour and a-half. The eulogistic addresses
of the learned Recorder and the Lord Chief Baron were
brief, but much time was occupied by the administration of
the necessary oaths and the other formalities observed,
according to ancient custom.