The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-13 00:00:00

Lord Chief Justice Jervis wu clearly of opinion that the
conviction wu wrong. There was no option left to the jury I
to convict of assault or not ; and in all cases in which the 1
statute applied the prisoners were in jeopardy. The act i
was compulsory, and in his opinion it would he a dangerous i
course to speculate on the motives of the legislature, espe-
cially where the word, of the enactment were so clear as
they were in the present statute. lie was of opiuion that
the conviction was wrong, and that the prisoners were en-
titled
to judgment, on the plea of autrefois acquit.
Mr. Justice Mettle was of opinion that the prisoners might
have been convicted of as cult on the charge of felony.
The present conviction was therefore bad.
Mr. Justice Coleridge said though his mind was not free
from doubt, he was, under all the circumstances, of opi-
nion that the present conviction was right.
Mr. Just ice l'atteson could not distinguish between this and
the Cale of the " Queen v. Phelps." The verdict of assault
would depend on the nature of the indictment and the
evidence adduced to support it. The prisoner could nut be
convicted of an assault not included in the felony. lie was,
therefore, of opinion that the conviction was right.
Mr. Baron Alderson was of opinion that the conviction
was wrong.
Mr. Baron Parke said the difficulty solely arose from the
enlargement by this statute of the plain, intelligible rules
of the common law. Ile thought the proper construction of
the statute was that laid down in the "Queen T. Binh," and
that it ought to be abided by. To bring a cat,• within the
statute, the charge of assault should be part and parcel of
the felny. He was of opinion that the conviction was
wrong.
Lord Campbell, after long and anxious consideration of
this ease, was of opinion that the former trial was a bar to
the present conviction. He should deeply regret the escape
of of•nders, still justice demanded that the forms of
judicial roc, dure should be strictly preserved. In
Vie present case it was not a technicality, but a sacred
maxim of the law, that no man could be twice
imperilled on the same charge. lie was of opinion that the
conviction ought to be quashed. But, as a majority of his
learned brethren held a different opinion, the conviction
must be affirmed, and judgment will be given at
the next assizes for the county of Devon. At the same
time he trusted he might, without any impropriety,
OIJOreW a hope that the legislature will, as speedily as possible,
take steps to explain or repeal au enactment which led to
t so much confusion.
t The conviction of the prisoners was, therefore, by a ma-
r jority of the court, affirmed.

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT.—YEsrzaDAT.

llEra.. I). 1). Hamm Erik

CAIWZX T. ROPER.—A BARRNTER PASTRYCOOK.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff*, against the
defendant, hon. secretary to the Distressed Needlewomen's
Society, to recover WI. Ids., alleged to be due ter use and
oceupotion.
Plaintiff is proprietor of the house No. 5, Rathbone.
place, in which, about two years ago, he let a suite
of rooms and shop to defendant, ut 40/. per annum, the
shop being used by the hitter as the office of the Distressed
Neetllevromen's Society. The defendant subsequently
falling into difficulties became an inmate of Whitecross-
street Prison, from whence,
_on his release, he sought the
plaintiff, and was re-accepted as a tenant of the KUme apart-
ments, at 11. Is. a week, that including the use of furniture.
On the 24th of July last a summons was taken out by
plaintiff for the above amount, and on the 3rd of the
following month his agent, named Southgate, by his direc-
tion called upon defendant fur the rent due, 71. 75.:
of which was paid to hint. The case at this court still went
on. and by its prom ...allows the defendant was ejected the
premixes, and had since been again insolvent, the present
being a new trial.
In answer to his solicitor, the defendant caused much
MOTTilliellt by stating that, in addition to his practice as a
barrister, the plaintiff had started the business of pastry-
cook, in which line he had opened the shop in Ruthbone-
place. The plaintiff could nut deny that he had done su,
but received no benefit therefrom, he allowing the female
who conducted it to keep all the profit. (Laughter.)
Ili, Honour observed that the transactions between the
parties seemed almost inexplicable, but the plaintiff send-
ing for 71. is., after summoning defendant for Iffi. 19s. im-
pressed hint with the idea that that was all he considered
due to him. Ills judgment would, therefore, be for 71. 7,,
from which would be deducted the 71. 25., leaving him only
to receive ss.

WHITECHAPEL COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY.

Baru'', Ma. Salutwr: ?IAMPINO,

MILLER AND Nt,ItAN C. ILE.—A BAD STAKEHOLDFR.
The plaintiffs in this case each deposittsl 15/. in the hands
of defendant, as money staked on the result of a fight
which was to take place between two men named Tyler
and Abraham. The fight, which came off near Longreach,
was disturbed by the authoritie,,, but Tyler was &eland
the winner. When called on to give up the money, Vile
declined, alleging that the whole thing was a sell. In the
end, as neither depositor could get his money, the present
action was brought.
Vile said that the money sued for being for anillegni con-
sideration, it was not within the jurisdiction of the court.
His Honour said he would obese him the law on that
point, and ordered defendant to pay both the plaintiffs
before leaving the court.
CILILLINOWOHTIL v. PARKIINIC—DRTAINING TUE FI:NDEI