The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-17 00:00:00

9Lab3 intenteence.

HOUSE OF LORDS -YVITERDAT.
SfoDIDART V. GRANT.

The artpiment+ were coneluckd in this appeal from the
Scotch emir., the nature of which has been more than
once Mated in this journal.
Judgment was postponed.
MORK T r. OILANT.—QrEartox AN TO THE RIGHT Or
EXECUTOR. TO • SHAILE Or REstucc CS otsrostn UP
ET THE WILL.
_ _ .

This appeal, arising out of the same action as the above,
was appointed to he heard after it, an.l Sir F. Kell)• me
peared at the bar to open it on behalf of the next of kin of
the testatrix.
The Lord Chancellorsaid he had to go away (to a cabinet
council, we believe). The hearing was then tiled for Mon-
day next, and the house ruse at a quarter to 2 o'clock.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH-YESTERDAY.
firrrlKO. AT Nut Pnua,—b■ro=a LOAD (ANIPIIIO.I. AWD • 1-011111011

JusT.
HANDrORD t. Dn VI.ME.-111:r tell Or PROMISE Or
MAttulAnr.

......
Mr. Scrjennt Wilkins (Mr. Montague Smith with him)
said that the court would he spared the trouble of hearing
this case, u he was authorised, on the part of the defend-
ant, to agree to a verdict for the plaintiff, with 3W.
damage.; and to say that be regretted that one of the pleas
whielt had been put upon the record had ever been placed
there ; and that he wished to withdraw it.
Mr. James, Q.C. (a ith whom was Mr. Charnock) was for
the plaintiff, and accepted these terms.
liscox r. BATE+.
Thin was an action for 971. 155., the amnunt of 1 0 U
given by the defendant for the goodwill of a business for-
merly Inelonging to the plaintiff.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Boil% for the plaintiff;
Mr. Lush for the defendant.
Mr. Chambers stated that though Bacon was the nominal
plaintiff in thin action, the real plaintiff was a person of the
name of Freiman, who was the trustee of a deed of assign-
ment, which the defendant hail executed fur the benefit of
hi, creditors, and by which all his property whatsoever
passed. This deed was executed in October, 14)0, and
shortly afterward. the plaintiff retied, and the defendant
took to the business. Since that tit, plaintiff and defend-
ant had been acting in concert to defeat the rights of the
trustee and the creditors.

.... „.
Wm. Underwood nits called and stated, that lie remem-
bered the plaintiff tam ing on the business until October
when he retired, and Bates took to it. The I 0 U produced
was in Bates' handwriting. The bill of exchange for 001.1
.111.1.11111,1a11ed by Bates.
George Taylor said that about January last Bacon came
to hint and gave hint the 10 U, and also the bill for
30 ~ and asked him to keep them for him till he wanted
them. That he (witnens) knowing Bacon had asAgned all
hi, proper? to trustees handed the, securitien to them.
Alfred 1 ughen stated that he was clerk to Mr. Paxton,
the attorney for the nal plaintiff. llc prudecc d the eleoel
of assignment. That Bacon came to Mr. l'axton's other
and said he had brought Bate., who would take the pre-
1111.Vs of the hand, of the trustees, and they agreed to let
him into possession. This was on the '2llth of October.
B:Wel said he had not known Dater more than four days.
When this action wan brought application Sc a. made to a
judge at chimbers on behalf of Bates that the plaintiff
should give security for costs. llama thnok attended bef we '
the judge with Bates to assist him., Bern said Mites told
hint he had lost the 1 0 U, and he gave hint the bill for
901. in lie et of it.
lush addressed the jury for it e defendant. mall %lid
thin env moat be mien in law an ante entirely between the
plaint39'and defendant, and he sbor.ld chow that as between
them :h. re wan agent! defence to the action. That though
warps 111 lc the dry it might large enough. to
pass the good-will of the business, yet no party
considered that it did so pass; and, accordingly,
the truster had sold to Bat, the e.nalwill of the house and
premises for 7/. /is., for whirl' ho should produce the m-
t. ipt ; and on the 31st of (kWh r the def'entlant entered into
, en ago ement with the plaintiff, by which the defendant
wan to Rive 10.1/. for the goodwill of the business, and the
plaintiff les. to rime and help him in it, and not to set up
any bus:uess himself within a reasonable distance. Ile
should produce thin agreement. It was agreed that the
71..1.. should he deducted from the 101/., and the I 0 t"
vi. u for the balance. 5c,,,.' small payments were sub,-'
fluently made on amount of this 1 0 U, and it bill of ex-
change for 901., payable at eight 111011111., W:11 41/1111 for the
residue. Bacon afterwards told Bates that he had lost thin
I 0 U and bill, and asked him to give him another in its
place. In the nwah time further work hind leer done thr
Bacon byßutes, amounting altogether to 271. I Is., and a
hill was given at 111111111 month, fur the residue of 70,., dated
10th February, and a document was drawn up !dating the
facts. Ile should produce all these documents ; and an this
bill was still running that would be an answer to the action.
(i. Field wan thou called, who stated that he wan attorm y
of the deft ndant. Ile produced atiagreemeut for the sale for
the good% ill of the basin,n in die handwriting of Baron.
E[This agrerinent, on inspection, proved to la: dated on the
st of October, not the 3151.] 11, also produced a prontin-
sory flute for 71/., dated Feb. 10, and a receipt fur 71. 14s. ;
some other documents were also put in.
On be ing ero, —examined by Mr. Borah he said there
were two attesting witness-es to the agreement. They were
not here. lie knew who they were, and where they were
to he found.
Mr. Bonin addressed the jury, and said the whole &ream
set rep was a fraud from 6... ginning to end, and the docume at+
themselves, when examined, showed that it was so. lie hull
nut objected to the want of .tamp on the agreement. or the
elsmon.• or filo nit. 11//114 bveituAe it 1111111111 11/ show
the fraud. It was clear these documents won, invented
after the action war commenced. The :tgrcemi at bore date
the Ist of October, yet on the 29th of the come month Baton
acid he had only known Bates four days. And upon in
speeting the bill which purrs mot to he dated :11111 to have
been male on the 10th February, romitemporaneous with
the agreement of that date, which had clearly been drew,.
by some attorney to defeat the pre, at action, it unfortu-
nately appeared to be written upon a stamp bearing the date
of (hl' March.
The jury immediately gave a verdict for the plaintiff for
the whole amount claimed.
Mr. Bovill applied to have the doenments whivh had
been put in evidence impounded, which was accordingly
done.

-
fhe rest of the cimm in the list were then disposed of.
Lord Camplull told the jury he had km:at pleasure in dig-
charging them from further attendauer, m the whole of the
list w,i got through ; and he was •ure the public could not
complain of the delay of ju..tice in that court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAY,
•ITTllltill AT NIM PITT. AT W.:+l,llN.Trf.-13Fr6CK ML JWITICII

CRIO.RII.I. AND Jets.
GRtVES C. BRITTAN.-FAI..E 1141•KNONNENT.

This was an action brought by a puhlican, carrying
on business in the neighbourhood of Clerkenwell,
against the defendant, who was also a instal-
can, to recover compensation in damages for the
defendant having given the plaintiff maliciously into
custody upon a charge of assault. The substance of the
plea upon which the defence rested was that the plaintiff
had committed an assault upon the defendant's barman in
the public street, and within the view of a police constable,
awl Out% fore the defendant was justified in giving the
phtintar into custody, under the Metropolitan Police .ket.
From the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses, it would lip.
pear that on Sunday evening, the 9th of March, in the pre-
sent year, the plaintiff went to the defendant's house, w here
he nanained drinking fur a long time, and upon the de-
fraud refusing to serve him with any more liquor, he
became very violent in his conduct. After some time
Use defendant and his barman put him out of the house, and
is doing us, as one of the plaintiff's witnesses said, struck
Wm
two blows. When he was turned out of the house,
the &fold:ant ease the plaintiff into the castusly of two
policemen for an assault, the plaintiffs witnesses now say-
ing that it was for au assault upon the defendant, the de-
fendant's witnesses asserting that the plaintiff was given
into custody for assaulting the defendant's barman, Upon
the parties going to the station house the inspector refused
tot tke the charge, stating that it was a proper case in
which to apply fur a warrant. It was for having given the
plaintiff into custody under these circumstances that the
action - brought.

present .4 was ht.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, for the defence, said that he
should he able to prove that the plaintiff. who was well
known to the defendant, bad not assaulted hint at all.
but that on the Sunday evening in question the plaintiff
and five or six other persons, bud wine to the defendant's
house, and whilst be was taking tea with some friends, the
plaintiff bad created a grzat disturbance. and upon bring
turned out by the defendant'. barman, he had struck that
person a violent blow, fur which he was givtn into custody
by the defendant.
Several witnesses were then called on the part of the de-
fendant, consisting of his brother-in-law, and his wife, who
were taking tea at the dekudant's house on the evening in
question ; and they deposed to the violent conduct of the
plaintiff. Pearce, the defendant's barman, was also called,
and stated that he alone turned the plaintiff out of the de-
fendant's house, and that when he got into the street, ti,
plaintiff struck bun a violent blow iu the face.

Mr. Serjeant Bytes having replied,
Mr. Justice Creswell told the jury that he thouaht the
plea of the defendant was not strictly proved, inasmuch as
the policeman who had been called said he could not tell
positively whether it was the defendant or the hernial' who
had been strirk by the plaintiff in the street. Ile would
reserve leave, however, to the defendant, to move to enter a
verdict upon the plea, lithe court should think that it was
proved. As to the damage which the plaintiff had sus-
tained, what was it? It was clear that he had behaved
very improperly in the defendant's house. The plaintiff had
been taken through the streets when it was dark, and de-
tained at the station-house for half an hoar, and it wai for
the)uvy to say, under the circumstances, %that damages the
plaintiff was entitled to.
The foreman of the jury inquired whether in point of law
they were bound to And a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Cromwell replied in the affirniative ; on whit%
the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, one
farthing.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Yrsrup.ts.
stin Pairs.—Bssoir MIL RUT. MAITIN, AND COMWM teams.
Doe DEM. BENSON r. Fliwr.—EJECTssissT.
Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Ur adcolin were counsa for
the plaintiff; Mr. E. Jame Q.C., for the defendant.
This was an action of ejectment recover possession of
the holm and premises, No. 64, Itus,sell•sluare, with rea•
pert to which the caw tried in this court resterday, arose.