The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-06 00:00:00

tab) Intelligent,.

lIQUFFY 001111 T.
Beane the ileadbmeller of Regime.
THE GREAT WISTIERIC RAILWAY COMPANY D. THE BIR-
MINGHAM AND OXFORD RAILWAY COMP AN CTION
GRANIIID.—BROAD AND NARROW GAUOR.—Mr. J. Parker,
Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Willeock were heard on behalf of the
defendants, after which a question arose whether a motion in
a cruse suit by the company and shareholders in the Bir-
mioghain and Oxford Railway against the directors of the
company should be heard before this motion was decided.
The 'Vice-Chancellor said he understood that the second
motion was quite distinct from this, and he therefore thought
it would be better to dispose of the present motion flirt. His
Honour, without hearing a reply, then said it was his opi-
nion, subject to any question which might arise about the
use of particular words in the form of the injunction, that
he was bound to act upon the prim iple he had adopted upon
the demurrer to the bill, and he must as far as possible keep
things in the urns state as they now were. He could not
allow the ultimate question, whether the agreement of the
12th November should be carried out, to be affected by any
intermediate act. It was perfectly true, as counsel for the
defendants had contended, that the Birmingham and Ox-
ford Railway Company could not make a binding agreement
for the sale or lease of their railway to the North Western
Company ; yet they might make a contingent agreement in
the same way that this contract had been made. He would
not introduce any words with reference to that; but the
principle upon which the judgment of the court proceeded
on the demurrer would authorise him now to say that the
parties should be restrained from making er entering upon,
or attempting to make or enter upon, say agreement for the
sale, lease, use, or occupation of the Birmingham and Ox-
ford with the London and North Western Company: the
words, "or any other company," which were introduced
would be useless, and might, therefore, be omit-
ted. The scored part of the injunction applied for
to restrain the defendants from dealing with the railway
in disposing of its monies, property, or effects, without the
approbation of the plaintiffs, he understood was abandoned.
Then followed this clause: "And from passing of giving
effect to any resolution, or doing any other act, for the
purpose of preventing the payment of the call of 61. per
share, as in the bill mentioned."—His Honour said that this
had nothing to do with the present application ; it bad only
reference to the actual call made. The last part of the in-
junction was to restrain the defendants from doing or omit-
tang to do any act, the doing or omission of which might be
• breach or notation of the agreement of the 12th of No-
vember, 1846. His opinion was that, consistent with the
priaciple upon which he had ovet-ruled the demurrer, he
ought to grant the injunction in the form asked.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
81Ildnire In Banco.
Tux Quests r. LONG.—THE KENTISH Town P•vrito
Ac-re.—This was a writ of mandamus, commanding ono et
the magistrates of the police courts of the metropolis to iserse
a warrant for levy rag a sum claimed as paving rate in reopen
of the ownership of a house in Southampton-terrace, Kentish
Town, by commissioners under a local act. A return was
made on which several issues were milted. The cam was
Met, and a verdict given for the crown 'morally. A rule
RIII tar a sew trial was afterwards granted on the ground of
The footpath had been originally made by
emniefeners under an act pared in the onsion of the 4 &
6 VIM. which declared that • the management, pavements,
dust, and filth " of the footways within certain limits
ittbe " the property "of those commisioners. In exe-
cuting their powers at the particular spot, the commissioners
made into spared footway as wells 5 feet footway over which
they had jurisdiction, as two additional feet in width from
the carriage-way, which is the property of the commissioners
et metropolitan turnpikes, north of the Thames, who ma-
mated to the appropriation. The resistance to the writ was
banded on this supposed excess of authority, and the ques-
tion was whether a subsequent statute, passed in the 6th
Vie., had so cured the original illegality as to justify a de-
mand of rate for the additional two feet. If it dad, the judge
had left the case properly to the jury, when he told them to
say, without reference to the enlargement, whether the foot-
way for which the rate was demanded, was the same as that
en which the commissioners had originally had power Ito
epaate.—Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C., Mr. Bogen', and Mr.
Howarth, showed ones against the rule, which was sup-
ported by Mr.. Rtuntrey, Q.C. and Mr. Peacock.—Tie
evert was of o that the directions and the verdict were
Mil:A.—Rule •

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Nan Plll/11, Worsuirrrce--Before Mr. Jo na Croswell and a
Special Jury.
Bin e. CODLTON.—ALLEORD
Tsßeard and Mr. Symonds for the plaintiff; Mr. C
and Mr. Wordsworth for the defendant. —This wea an New
brio=Miss Mary Elizabeth sroith, the *Wit to So
mu of theith o. Earl Forme doll ow lint
▪ to the Gant of Quosn't Bench, wine gooldolor d
do Drilmodo sevrageper, fora libel alleged to km boss
aabYiiad 1a Illot paper on the 7th November, 1846. The
Soiled not Serj. Talfonrd opened
the moos to the ,pary, and stated that the article complained
of to be a review of a pamphlet published by the
&Oral after the trial of the cam abe-vnentioned,
whisk an an
agoloot Fk
wan
Wawa
Wag somotiod.
whisk the
adds Thighp
mend to • "

fir palls
armload pipaie;tft
pupa to
alilitapos 11.
10 scadrlis sp.
bon as air It
Wirt tw, roso
T. whew then
to patois patios,

nor:. Liter lialann. wo ....err........ .
a rasa brash or Serrhge
erl Ferrous, era yid" mi,U= the plaster'
suited. The eldest el the phaelif to haft lids
wee to met OM el
Of peals
-W hoe im ame74, _, ~.....
..J..;
lerfreoe= Weal of the 4.. / mg
..4
I Man: ~ , • . . z... 4
seal eselepoomalbrepmem 11l
_„,..,...;,,,,,.. :: 4
amodepetheeeralissolloAst -.i.......7..a.... ..6.i. re
emortriktore,arV.7•
-
la . - of • gram
*sal" Dam mit peals ads 2 _P. of
6% .1 t Ile wed tot
empire lee Orel= •- •. a
owe ems lemeW a a eml *,..,
me use Wilms os Wirt% • - _ 4.
her Um west ea Is eallttr strata.
relieve of the pamphlet, and after ‘ few .

trust, it must be shown that he had used the money in a
fraudulent manner.—His Honour (Commissioner Harris)
held that the case came within the act of parliament as of
debts incurred by breeches of trust, and he should name no
day for making t final order.—Mr. Dowse asked the court
to tame a day when the insolvent might appear for a pro-
tecting order. —Mr. Commissioner Harris said he should do
nothing of the kind. The insolvent must appear better re-
commended than at nrisient. There were three or four clear
cases against him on the schedule.—Adjourned sine die.
IN NE 080/101 BENUMB. GALE.—LIBUT. GALS AND
Tae BALLOON.—Thia insolvent, described as a comedian
lad teronsut, was opposed by tkree creditors in person—
Rogers, Thornewaite, and Jones. Mr. Commissioner Har-
ris read the description et the insolvent, setting forth that he
had used the style or title of Lieutenant George Bawler
Gale, ft N. He asked the insolvent whether he was in the
navy.—The insolvent said not at present. Mr. Commissioner
Harris What do you mean ?—The insolvent said he had
been publicly known by the designation he had mentioned.
Mr. Mogen was a creditor for 191. for rent of a house in
Bronti-place, Walvrorth. He wished to know what had be-
come of the insolvent's third share in a balloon ?—The insol-
vent stated that he had an interest in a balloon after Mr.
0. Sharp had paid himself the money he had expended thereon.
He had given Sharp • bill of Pale, and when the expenses
were paid he should be a possessor of one-third of the pro-
perty. Mr. Com. Harris remarked that there was no mention
made in the schedule of the balloon.—The insolvent stated that
he had no present interest in the property. The balloon had
scarcely paid the expenses. The first ascent was ,'sheer specula-
tion. The expenses were 1041. , end the collectiononly amounted
to 301.—Mr. Thornewaite stated that he had supplied • ba-
rometer for the balloon, for which he charged 6!.: he also
supplied a pair of spectacles for 11. frs. He (Mr. Thorne-
waite) wished to know whether he had a claim for the ba-
rometer against the other partners ?—The court thought the
barometer should be returned before the neat occitaion.—Mr.
George Sharp stated that he bad advanced upward,' of 3001.
for the balloon, and he held a bill of sale.—The attorney
he the insolvent said that there was • mortgage on the be-
loon.—lt was stated that the lien on the balloon was 7001.,
find it was now not worth that sum—Mr. Stewart, another
partner in tee concern, gave evidence that he had advanced
1001. towards the construction of the balloon.—Mr. Jones,
the third creditor, claimed 12/. for a room in which the hal-
leen was now lodged.—The court told him that he had good
security for his debt ; he was in a situation to distrain for the
rent.—The learned Commissioner, after some further discus-
sion, appointed the Bth lan. for the final order, and. re-
quired further information about the balloon.
PETITION OF RIGHT OF CATHERINE ROBSON
AND ISABELLA AINSLEY.
The proceedings in this case were continued on Saturday,
at the Westminster Seaaionahouse, before a special jury and
the four commissioners appointed by the Court of Chancery.
On the court meeting, at half-past nine o'clock, Mr. M. D.
Hill called as a witness
Sir Frederick Pollock, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer,
who said he re collected particularly well the trial of
the claim of the suppliants to the Troutbeck property. It
t ek place in the city of York. He was attorney-general et
the tine, and conducted the case for the crown. Before the
trial came en,Serjeent Jones (afterwaeds Serjeant Atcherley)
rose and said he appeared for a claimant, and insisted on
being a perry to the in airy. Witness was not sure that the
court did not intimate that the appearance was irregular, as
connected w th the claim of a person not before the court,
and residing at the time near York. Shortly after the trial
witness was told by one of the jury that the venue was laid
in the wrong plsce,and that the jury were all well aware that
there was another claimant, whose title was better than that
of the pieties witness represented. The juryman who said this
was named Joseph Wilson. The value of his remarks witness
would leave others to determine ; but lee said that the jury
were of opinion that though there was the epp..arance of a
title in the case, the claimant had a better one. Now, wit-
ness was sure that there was no tittle of evidence on the trial
which raised that person's claim—in fact, to show that any
claim existed. Wilson was one of the most honourable and
intelligent men that witness had ever met with, and he was
turpeasel that a gentleman of his sense should have given the
verdict against the claimant on the ground that some other
person was better entitled, and that other person not being
in court. The interest he (wit tem) took in the proceeding
was this—that it might be known in all quarters what the
character of the investigation was, and how fur it appeared
that tbere had been a failure of justice.
Mr. Hill (to witness) : Will you allow me, to ask you U
in your opinion there was a failure of justice in the matter?
Witness It would be incorrect to state an opinion of that
sort. I aniline myself merely to stating facts.
Mr. Hill Has nothing occurred to change the opinion
which you then contracted that these had been a failure of
justice ?
Witness: Certainly not. I was aware then, and am
aware now, of the difficulty of correeing a verdict ; bat I
have a perfect reliance on the truth of the communicatiod
made to me. Speaking as a private individual, I became
satisfied that it was ten unfortunate thing for the claimants
that the trial took place at York, and I had no doubt that
the jury decided on grounds which were not befit.° them' In
1835 I laid the circumstances before Mr. Oral at the tresaury,
but I have a very imperfect recollection of what peeled. My
statement, however, seemed to make a strong impression on
him. The judge at the trial was unable to raise his voice,
and the jury apparently heard very imperfectly what he
said. The will (of Samuel Troutheck) was not puein at the
trial, but I remember that one of the jury asked a question
as to its MMUS, as if they were aware of what theme cos-
tents were.
Mr. Hill then read the fiat sentence of Sir Frederick Poi-
lock's speech in the House of Commons on Mr. Warburton's
motion for an inquiry into the case of the claimants, whose
Fide Sir Frederick had espoused. The counsel asked him if
he was still of • similar opinion ; the witness replied that
they were his sentiments then, and were so still. With re-
gard to a certificate in favour of the claimants which had
been signed at the time by several counsel of distinction, he
said that he had no doubt that he had signed it, but he had
no recollection of having done so. He was present at a vote
on the motion of Mr. Warburton, but declined stating what
had taken place in the House of Commons while he attended
there u • member.
A variety of documentary evidence was then put in by Mr.
Chisholm Anstey, consisting of registers of baptisms, mar-
riages, and burials of 'anew members of the Troutbeck
family, tending to show the descent of the suppliants. Mr.
Henry Warburton was then called and examined by Mr.
Hill. He said he had been a member of the House of Com.
mons, and was well acquainted with the nature of the claim of
the suppliants. In 1838 he moved fora committee to investigate
the claim. There was a debate on his motion, which was
i once adjourned. In the course of the debate he had mini-
' dared it his duty to refer to a report which Mr. Ord bad
made on the subject. He had expressed his opinion that, as
the matter had been referred by the treasury to Mr. Ord, the
tries ought to have the benefit of the report which he
deved to he made in their favour; the persons, however,
who represented the crown, did not accede to his views. Bit
, Frederick Pollcck was present during the debate and 'im-
ported his motion, but did not vote, for private reasons. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer resisted the motion, stating
that there were already several claimants supported in the
house by an hon. member. Witness believed he had stated
at the time that " ho (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
was trying to raise the ghosts of imaginary claimants In
order to guard the treasury ." Witness allowed the motion
to be negatived, because he was given to understand that
there would not be forty members present when he again
brought it forward. In • subsequent interview with the
Chancellor el the Exchequer, he believed there was another
attempt made to raise the ghosts of those claimants; but he
I never heard of them any more, nor did be believe them to
have been bona fide claims. The interview to which he al-
.
laded took place 2nd Feb., 1838. He went by appointment
and was accompanied by Mr. Hawes, the present Under-
Secretary for the Colonies, and, he believed, some other
member of parliament. The Soliciter-General was not pre-
sent, but he was represented by Mr. Maids and Mr. Spear-
man, of the Treuary. At that interview witness urged on
the Chancellor of the Exchequer either his consent to anew
trial or his agreement to a compromise ; but the Chancellor
datelined both alternatives. Hs (the Chancellor) proposed to
refer the matter to the Lord Chancellor, to which witness
and bis friends contented. The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer then withdrew his proposal, on the ground, as he
Mated, that it would not be smiler; with fairness to the other
claimants. Mr. Mauls, on that occasion, referred to Broad's
claim, and spoke of it as being well founded, on which wit-
ness referred. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the opinion
of Lord Langdaliewho had spoken in strong terms of the fraud
and perjury by which that claim had been supported. At
that interview the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted
that Mr. Ord had made what he called • draft report, and,
on his making an observation on some of the opinions con-
tained in it, the reply of Mr. Ord I who was present) was,
" Rice, you know nothing about the matter." The result of
the interview was, that the Chancellor said the matter
should be referred again to the Lords of the Treasury.
In 1838 Messrs. O'Femll and Parker also made a
report. The witness spoke to the identity of those reports
which were read over by Mr. Hill. Thatof Masan. O'Ferrell
and Parker was in favour of the crown, and that of Mr. Owd
in favour of the claimants. He also deposed to the identity
of a letter predated, written by himself to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, urging upon him the settlement of the case.
It was dated March 18, 1839. He said, from the time he
had written that letter, nothing had occurred to alter the
views which he had therein expressed.
In answer to one of the jury, as to his object in moving in
the case at all, Mr. Warburton replied that cabmen, law-
yers, and members of parliament, were at everybody's bid ;
but he had taken up the matter on public grounds, because
he conceived it to be one in which justice was needed to be

by way of alb Pith's ingenuity in otimpotis
don," the following occurred
It is tbia Ude girl. white endeavouring to de-
laseeYteem tbeebeimirtiblebead, Wows it to be mew dam do
WNW 0011••••••••••IWIMMON••
dulailtasubstps as set emu* mem seethes
OM dole mq •Ws IIW• WIND. In herat
ara flat das prebably maxi all% • gblieb hide
mem espeder•
kiwi, and le mmidittlis Animal alga demur-
'ANS ear •• • • W• willtbet Mow Ms /ma kilbee.
rerraichlet b • pig It meg take its dem mud * mow
it literature. erywdeltbor la names ee Wu* So
Me twesktlme of Marie but it beluga Wow* thaa
thews the awe Mad of perread ingasentairiliwietZter.
libeirmirkarte awriwtt is vomiessmit. elmligiw. di ma =reets• se Use
eplies Oat IMAM krmil et km kibmies eempkweg, est the
M emits brawl* • drier et ineletwed
mowed. gams deitemadet—to gird •• •
lo • at CON Odd mil lodkrom to Minus
the rat futile ass le ewer eileehood by
the unhappy persaw qM bens pledged themselves
111 •t Maw. -How mew ebembalde rumba bme this
PIM I/Mown aconant, WA le ~el Me mreselmew
withire wawa tee set out Mr elimehra be wife kee lather,
bee aMateer. mlblissr elm wapplit bee wltb • sew lemask Me
Meet est letter bee WM Idled Amur want S. "Ives*, Wm
Itimkb. Oar ad dense pea art tee suds
bled. wasthe esdamdles et the week melee& .10 tkatldea
erred tali OW the deb mad; mit elir (t settreelf< Ino
limitk). Vet .he semweisi imeedue d the memmeses MN* be-
eimese, se else mid, ibe Maned dig bed been deafer 1. We awed
lope this wretthed wsezit te..bsee lbw Morena we desubt hope
lorestans& would segesithr be the yang, a seism wining
tram truh, and the Warfel evils
=ay =Cm ft However we may account for the
=ft le areas that wath is naturally nollned to false-
De Witeate is the conetitutlen of our
wad nature—.o frequent are the ere of inteloctual mathematics,
w frequent perhaps, as the awn al Web dein miry—that we goad,
wet of mud t., burnt Wparliedue, be careful how we conned the
balmy ef eau' udilt with pee gar 'Me of moral turpitude. For
Wean. we Snit bet roam pity than egret'. and ...menu
Yew to leans swam new than to severe punishment. This un-
-Ihrtiwele giet Mare le be Mimed with • preening to falsehood
dm* Mem" bar W smems. With alt her talent she
seelity, very enakme. Or la to be pitied ; but as she is
isaireese. awe Ida Moe dr Merge of her 'Weld be careful to
heist kr sober sow Irbil d redmiset, and pement her from elm-
din her Wadden= pamimilliws It is intimate be bee that the n-
ewsefbfPotdideseegiefsefWlbeMe te than those she
two employed. This balsam lobe agreeeed en the minds of the
wow, that there le as uteae, however redress, however repug-
nant to natural feeling, to which a canned ilahebeod may not tend.
It id at the bottom of all dearer icy, u troth is the foundation of ell
virtue.
Ttea learned eerjeant having read those passeees in the ar-
ticle which constituted the lthelicomplained of, proceeded to
say that if the present defeadant had meant to wen in plain
terms that the young lady was guilty of a foul conspiracy the
defendant in the former action might himself have been
called as • entitle's, end if no ground for th original com-
plaint had really existed he would not have hesitated to
give his evidence to that effect, whilst Mr. Coultoe could
have effectually cast upon Mies Smith the stigma of having
eatered into a conspiracy ; but from that course the partied
had shrunk. The defendant had not thought proper to jus-
tify his statemeots, and therefore he (Mr. Serjeant Talfourd)
was not permitted to lay th fore the jury evidence of theyoung
lady's is nocenee: He had • right toren upon L ee l Ferrer, to
give evidence of the true facts of the as;. Ho could do no
more than pimply prove the circumstances under which the
libel in queatioe wee written, cod then ask the jury whether
trey would hesitate to afford to hites Smith reasoaable com-
pensation for the injury inflicted upon her. He did not ask
the jury to apiove of the act which the plaintiff acknow-
ledged she had committed but he thought it right to ask
them whether her conduct in early life was to be placed be-
yond the power of retrieving because she had endeavoured
to lay before the public something by way of answer to the
speech of the learned counsel at the former trial. He confi-
dently in treated the jury tong by their verdict that she was net
to be made an outcast in the world, but that she might still
continue to enjoy the comfort of those who were dear to
her. Ile trusted that when they lied heard the whole of
the facto the present appeal for protection and redress
would not prove to have been made In vein.
The publication of the article in quo mien was admitted,
and also the fact of the defendant being the proprietor and
publisher of the Britannia.
Mr. Thomas N. Smith, the plaintiff's father, was then
called, and he stared that he was a firmer in Warwickshire,
and that his daughter was 21 years of age last January. He
had five other children. His daughter was plaintiff in an
action against Earl Ferran for breath of promise of marriage.
He had read the article in the Britannia on the 7th Novem-
ber, and ho understood it to apply to his daughter.—Crow
examined by Mr. Cockburn : A. near as be could recollect,
his daughter's pamphlet was published about September last
year. It was the production of hie daughter exclusively.
The manuscript was corrected by himself. She was not in
communication with any other person when she wrote it.
She was residing with her grandfather at the time, about six
miles distant from her home. Did not know that some
observations upon the trial contained in the pamphlet sew
sent from London —Re-examined The hi S. or the pam-
phlet Was entirely in the plaintiff's handwriting.
Ale. Cockburn addressed the jury for the defendant, and
stated that the alleged libel was but the last chapter of a se-
ries of proceedings upon which, taken alone, tt was quite
impossible for the jury to forma correct judgment. Same
facts, however, were apparent even in this case. The present
plaintiff had also bun plaintiff in a former action, which he
(Mr. Cockburn) was justified in characterising as one of the
most remarkable dues ever tried in Westminster-hall, and
would be handed down to posterity as one of the cativo
cSkbres of Europe. In that action the plaintiff's cans was
sought to be established by a series of letters purporting to
be in the handwriting of the defendant, Berl Ferran, and
when these letters were read it was easy to conceive that the
cue appeared to have been clearly made out. However,
certain anonymous letters were afterwards predawn' by the
defendant's counsel, and the witnesses for the plaintiff ac-
knowledgel them to be in her handwriting. The counsel
for the plaintiff thereupon slued to be noneuited ; and he
would ask the jury to infer that they could not adopt any
other course under the circumstances. The plaintiff
had not thought proper to briog a second action
against Lord -Ferran, which the might have done,
the proceedings having resulted in the manner 4e-
scribed, but six months afterwards the had published a
pamphlet relative to those proceedings. The defendant was
the proprietor etor of a publtictonehrpar, and probably, this veryi:l
CEdngheen written, hd nsaid his learned friend, Mr. SerejeautpTi:lt-
fourth, to avert a little of the public indignation, and because
there had been no opportunity of answering the speech made
at the former trial by Six Frederick Theeiger. But why was
there no such opportunity offered? Simply because the
gpoech was founded upon facia which were wholly unan-
swerable. If it had been otherwise did the jury suppose
that counsel of such skill and ability as Bir F. Kelly and the
gentlemen who assisted him possessed, would have aban-
doned i case which involved not merely • question of matey,
but sacred considerations of character and honesty ? The
defendant in the present action had felt that there had been
a gems outrage upon public decency and morals, and was it
to be said that a public journalist was to be made
liable for somments on • pamphlet of such a nature ?
The learned counsel went on to say that the
defendant had not transgressed his duty, considering the in-
iquitous conduct which had been shown to have been pur-
sued by the plaintiff. It did not require much asteteneee to
see what the plaintiff's object was in bringing the present
case forward ; and he (Mr. Cockburn) almost regretted that
a plea et justification had not been put upon the record ; be-
cause, if it had, the action would not have been proceeded
with. Ile trusted that the jury would say that the defend-
ant had not gone beyond what was fairly and legitimately
his duty as a public journalist ; but if they should be of
opinion that the defendant had exceeded the strict limits of
his public duty, then he (Mr. Cockburn) would ask them
whether they thought that a person in the situation of the
plaintiff was entitled to anything more than nominal
damages ?
Mr. Justice Cresswell having gummed up, the jury with-
out hesitation returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
One Farthing. The learned judge refused to certify that
the alleged libel was wilful and malicious.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
TN RR MORSE.—TEE COUNTRY BANKING SYSTEM.—
This bankrupt had carried on business at Neithrop, Oxford-
shire, as a woolstapier, and now came up for hit certificate.
Mr. Sturgeon appeared on behalf of the bankrupt, and stated
the facts, there being no opposition on the part a the credi-
tor. The bankrupt bad carried on business at the above
place for 40 years, and bad kept en account at the same bank
for the game time, but never kept any book. His failure
was attributable artly to misadventures of a young man
whom he had brought op from childhood, and during the
last few years had taken to assist in business, and finally, to
the stoppage of credit by the bankers. The bankrupt had
been doing business to the extent of about 20,0001. a year.
It was explained to the learned commissioner, that the wool-
stapler bought the wool of the farmer for cash, and re-sold at
Oa market. The capital was a fluctuating one, as shown
at lb* banker's books, the only enes kept, the outdoor busi-
er= "cash." In 1820, bankrupt was possessed of
mew to retire, but the " panic " left him little better than
beakrupt ' • he continued his business, sad although he suf-
fered a loss in one firm alone of 3,0401., through
the Inexperience or ill fortune of his proteg4e,
he recovered that, and went on again until Jane
this year, when his bankers suddenly stopped his
credit and reduced him to bankruptcy. The learned
Counsel contended this was not a case in which the bank-
rapt ought to be subjected to inconvenience or punishment.
He was now seventy years of age, and had been deprived of
aL—His Honour intimated that the commissioners had come
W • decision to lay down • stringent rule to punish all per-
missive% keeping books, which had become a growing evil.
• naked yesterday consulted his brother commissioners on the
=The learned cowed hoped it would not be brought
cm this case.—His Brier said there were many
Mir: of the haskrugt. The apparent truthfulness
iibilMenet. and ids mai }nexus! expenditure ; but he
) amat,ta mark the feeling of the court as to not
keeping of boo* under any sireuwataeses visit the bank-
rupt with a powishateot which would have Wow heavier had
there bows say sgpeastion. As to the eowaisy hookiog sys-
te', be aunt sop ibot la this owe, as k wry Mbar ores,
peons won bier& by thou to sestistwo badmen by ed.
mow to amigo tbeSr mom sad wire a sbogogs task
atriawee robiootts list !taro, sad able, beffirg Bum
Ha /* bound to ammarilthe owtafieato hir mix smaistha—Mr.
latierdrairt osollit=rsq—Barrollasti,
as Le .btnkinropt's
Bo basks—war friendly to him ; but,
emir 4 be wadi rot grant protection.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
br am RICHARD CALLIS.—BILILLOHLS OF I ause.—Tlia
=lis a collastat ern* at Hararamatith., mai
olture mm K ilbms, m Imaiblaa marl Yr.
a
rein& ha asmisimiMits le tip
Xamma be baiadilimilkamtdmir Immila.-34.
Ea Imaabkmoaltai lie omit Is aijoaam the
elltralleadieterristmsbaa attempt be Imt, mow
=L. amairs, mod *et the imehmat hot
e ; 14 Is win to Immo a lama at

.., ..
.- -

_; ._~, ..

tom.

done.
Kr. Benjamin Hawes, the Under.Becretary for the Colo-
nies, wu the next witneas examined. He wu well an-
quaintest with the case of the suppliants, and took up their
one with the simple object of renderinf justice where he
emeesived it to he due. Since that tune, whatever had
Meoitpked bad 'twinned him in the view he then took of
the one. He reetheeted having a convenation with the
Obeneellor of the ingioper m the year 1838, and no:a-
bated him propeetei a smnee to the Lead Chancellor..
Kr. Hamm,. this ad wernhothor ilmsionsasi tie
',Kenos of Xr. Wasboolon. Eb Imposoloa repo* to
Ha claim wad that ft was psoalleely a sea !eTotomy
to Mahe; that it wee boa to fano inillehboh le Sibt he
tilde rights; that the Temeenry had not tam a just view of
1 dr toss, and noise Alit alreuetetaneee they were bound to
„maw*, qualm ale tether of arbitratioa than of lin-

Mr. 11111 (to whom) • Hate pa we keeei the ebbe et
other roftiool co nears arta atispersomse wli•
of "lir liddiavisliti Zobittabmbote 470Alleg=
nail • quilisg.4o ismot. IV is list
bAisetembi
Amen= woe Mimi toierpo
sk•rted•PlidlarbllisurTrbie is a
walla la eadoisii% Ws's," sod weft ,

...


THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 6. 1847.

whatever had occurred to break his confidence in that letter,
but that the contrary had been the fact.
Mr. Joseph Parkes, the next witness, is a taxing-master in
Chancery. Hu pursuits Tad drawn him for a great many
years to the subject of pedigrees. He undertook to be the
professional repreeentative of the suppliants without profit,
being simply guaranteed his expenses. He corroborated the
statements of the preceding witness with regard to the nego-
tiations with the treasury. He had been in communication
with Mr. Dent, the grandson of Me. Pelling, Samuel Trout-
beek's solicitor and had, on the death of his grandfather,
managed a good deal of his business, having himself re-
mitted a large part of the property of Samuel Troutbeck
from Madras. A great number of Mr. Pelling's papers had
been destroyed, and he suspected that they were burned.
One of the jury wished to know if toe witness thought
that any person had thrown any impediment In the way of
the investigation of the claim /
Witness could not answer the question exactly, but he
thought the solicitor of the Treasury had done wrong In
keeping the narrative of John Treutbeck so long. He did
not, however, wish to prejudice that gentleman, who had
doubtless acted under orders. Witness did not know if any
other person or persons besides the Prince Regent had rtici-
paced in the money of Samuel Troutbeck. He had traced about
50/. to the Pavilion at Brighton, but had not followed up
the investigation. He thought there were several persons
who could give better information on the subject than him-
self; there was a late distinguished physician who would
have bees able to tell something about the matter.—Re-
examintd : About three months elapsed between the time
when Mr. Ord told witness he had made a report on the case,
and that gentleman's death. At the time he was attacked
with brain fever, witness never knew a person of more sober
and steady habits. and one no little likely to be subject to
insanity. He was of very w yak physical frame.
The formal documentary evidence was then resumed, and
a variety of registers of baptism and burial put in, after
which
Mr. Hill said that he now wished to bring bard a new
kind of evidence in tke torn of affidavits, some of tin m
made by persons who had sires died, but which had all been
used before, some of them in the Court of Chancery, and
under circumstances where the representatives of the crown
had amule opportunity for answering them.
A diicustion ensued as to bow far such evidence was ad-
. missible—Mr. fierjeant Manning decided that it could be
put in, but he must leave the question of its value to be
fur.her considered.—The court then adjourned to this day.

POLICE.—SATURDAT.
MANSION-HOUSE.— Cirmwea or 1

....
AGAINST A COLLECTOR OP HERTS.—W. H Cupper, col-
lector of the rents for Mr. T. Flight, of Bond Courthouse,
Walbrook, was finally examined, charged with having em-
bezzled several sums of money received for his employer.
J. Cohen, of 36, lioundeditch, tenant of Mr. Flight, owed
the landlerd 51. at Michaelmas, and paid it to a person who
brought a receipt signed by the prisoner. R. Miller owed
him 6!. at Michaelmas, and peid it to the prisoner on the
27,h of October. Sarah Lewis owed him 51. 155., at Miehael-
map, and paid it to tee prisoner on the 27th of ()debt r.
Elia Ibeth Alford ;seed him 51. 10s., and paid the pretence.
Jones, clerk to the prosecutor, said he was authorised to
receive all amounts collected by Mr. Flight's collectors—had
not received any nue of these sums.—By Mr. Wontner, for
the defendant :Witness could not swear that Mr. Flight had
not received them, but did not believe be had ; witness al-
ways received the money from Mr. Flight's collectors, and
he came to wituem when he wanted money ; believed his
wife called, and saw Mr. Flight on the sul,j;e: ; understood
from report that the prisoner was out of his mind ; h-lieved
she sea the was out of his mind.—Mr. Wontner : Do you
net know that Mr. Flight declared that he would overlook
the deficiency if it was true tbet the prisoner's mind was
affected ?—Witness heard Mr. Flight say he would forgive
the prisoner if he had 1 st the money or been robbed of it.—
Mr. Flight mid : The prisoner Me coil( ctor in my employment,
and is paid by a weekly salary, He has accounted far none
of the sums of money for which the receipts are now produced
by my tenanta.—By Mr. Wontner : Did you not make any
promise of forgiveness to him ?—I knew nothing of the
prisoner being out of his mind ; was told that it was
feared that be was out of his mind • never saw him in a
state of insanity. When he recovered he called upon wit-
ness ; did not request him to come again; was thunderstruck
at his assurance is coming and saying his amounts were right.
He made a general assertion that he bad paid money out of
his own pocket, but witness' did not go into the detail, it was
too absurd.—Mr. Wontner: Did you tell hie wife if the de-
ficieney did not exceed 501. you would forgive him ?—Mr.
Flight . I told her that I would cheerfully forgive him even
if the amount of his deficiency reached 501., provided the loss
were a clear one on his part without any fraud.—By Mr.
Mohler, for the prosecutor : None of the money
which the prisoner tomtit hate paid out of his own pocket
had reference to any of the Cases Upon which he was charged.—
Mr. Wontner called the attenticn of the Lord Mayor to the
facts of the case against his client, which differed from every
other ewe of embezzlement of which be had heard. The
unfortunate man at the bar bad been found in an insane
state, and placed under medical treatment, and the
moment he recovered he called upon his employer, declare
that he believed, upon the balance of the accounts between
them, nothing was due upon the part of the individual em-
ployed, and offered to go into the details—a proposition
which, although the most reasonable that could be made,
wee rejected es absurd. Had the other proposition—namely,
that the prisoner should go round to the tenants to ascertain
bow much he was in advance to them in the settlement of
their rents, met with a more favourable reception ? No ;
Mr. Flight did not give that opportunity, to clear himself
from the imputation of embezzlement, to the man who was
always obliged to apply for the rents in his collection with a
warrant of distress in his pocket, end who woo compelled,
except he resorted to his own pocket, to prevent the sacrifice
of their goods, to carry that warrant into execution. The
prisoner had since, from compulsion, advanced so much
money to those who were indebted to his employer, that
lees than 201. would not settle the difference which was in
Amour of the former —The Lord Mayor said he could not get
over the fact that, by the agreement made between Mr.
Flight and the prisoner, the latter wee bound to account for
whatever rent he received for the former on the following
day. That had not been done. On the contrary, there
were five or six instances in which sums had been received
of which no account whatever had been given. The prisoner
bad pleaded a set-off against the deficiency laid to his charge,
hot that set-off had nothing at all to do with these cues.—
The prisoner was committed for trial.
BOW-STREET.—Em BEZZLEUENT.— W. Starling, in the
service of Mr. H. Bohn, bookseller, York-street, Covent-
garden,
was charged with embezzling 41. 10s., the property
of his employer—The prosecutor stated that the prisoner
was in his service three yearn as collecting clerk, and in con-
sequence of his not accounting to him for the amount in
question' which he had received from Mr. Hearn, book-
seller, 81, Strand, he gave hint into custody. He then ad-
mitted having appropriated other sums, amounting to 201.,
to his own use; but he had so wish to proceed against him
for them, having en former occasions experienced much dif-
filer% and delay in getting witnesses to attend; particu-
the punishment was usually the some for ono as for
several offenees of the same kind.— Mr. Henry said that
when several offences could be proved, it was usual to prefer
three bills of indictment, and he would take care there would
be no difficulty in compelling the attendance of witnesses.—
Yr. Hearn proved that he paid the prisoner the amount in
queition and he affixed his signature for cash in the book
The prisoner, who declined saying anything in
Is defence, was about to be removed from the bar, when
an essistant in the service of the prosecutor came into court,
and presented another account to his employer, from which
it appeared that the prisoner had embezzled a further sum
of Iffs 165., which had not been discovered when he was
given into custody.—Mr. Bohn said there was no doubt of
his being robbed to a large amount, and if the prisoner was
remanded for a few dayr, he would take occasion to look over
his books and melee other discoveries—Mr. Henry ordered
the prisoner to be brought up again in a week.
WORSHIP-STREET.—CHARGE AGAINST A RAILWAY
Cistax.—J. S. Foster, clerk in the goods department of the
Eastern Counties Railway, was charged with having ob-
tained various arms of money, on account of his employers,
under false pretences. The prisoner had been two years in
the service of the company, at a salary of 30s. • week, and
it was part of his duty to make out the hills of charges fur
the freightage and certue of goods transmitted to town by
railway. It had recently been discovered that he had, in
numerous instanter, sent out tickets to persons to whom
packages had been consigned containing an excessive over-
charge, although he bad only accounted to the company far
the proper amount. After hearing some evidence, which
went to establish a clear case against the prisoner, the ma-
gistrate remanded him.
ROBBERIES iIY RAILWAY GUARDS.—R. Rowse and
G. Crane, guards on the Eastern Counties Railway, were
charged with stealing_from a van belonging to the company.
—Polies constable 138 H deposed that he was on duty that
morning in Spitalfields, when he saw the prisoner get down
from behind the van in question and lift his apron, into
which something was thrown by a person in the van. Wit-
ness took charge of Crane, upon whom he found a large
piece of pork which had been purloined from a hamper in
the van, as also of Rennet, who we. in the van.—A gentle-
man, who appeared on behalf of the company, said that a
vast quantity of meat which had been consigned to the
wholesale butchers of the different markets, had been lost in
a similar war—The prisoners were remanded.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.—Are lama CLERGYMAN
AND 1118 Sore.—S. Walsh, eon of the Rev. J. P. Webb, et
No. 7, Arundel-street, was charged with having acesultal W.
Prentice.—ThecemplainantuidhewenteaFriday t with
P. Henderson to the defendant's recidones in -street,.
for the purpose of being witness to • segmlielt he imp:tent of
a debt for bread supplied by Handsaws to the Mon. J. P.
Walsh, The servant said Mr. Welshmen et bone, but s•
many persons called for debts that the wee 1111611110 i to go se
him, and desired witness and ileademma to op Seim sad
knock at the Rev. Mr. Walsh's doer me They Mime
proceeding up stairs when they met the delbeihat mid kb
brother. In reply to the defendant, Handeass odd he hid
called for a bill for bread supplied to his latkehu. Ds s•t
,
said his War wenkl not me thine, and maie
there :Eke ad=stetliejeamilliNey,eM this,
upon *e asomblemat ea tie arra
with a The ddindant's haw come est el hie room,
and egliel ad, ihe it, boys)—. mid pt the poker!"
The dsfVdsrt IPSO away, and seemed with a poker,
Ind Oa* eempinisent on the bead. The blow twat
in his *AL sad stretched !ha smosims as the
pound. Whin whoa meoviisek he head that the de-
hadent wse is aseledy.—P• he lied him
mt. Antra mown Weal tithe dohs&
Atte. Heath to be s abases,
bad eammemel, de llashars lam firths
peh blow was la=bilt,tillitatigr,:,
was killed. Wet the beet peasemilma toss
Wham
even tithe dehadoots—st Mat who eso st the
time the aunahwaseellaleilitimar Wilke the

..A.11,16 • Ali

":,
.1/4