The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-16 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 16, 1862.

Sir G. GREY said that on seeing the statement in the
newspapers he immediately referred that statement to the
chairman of the bench of magistrates at Maidstone, and he
had since bees furnished with • report of the facts of the
case. It appeared there was no doubt as to the nature of
the drew, of which the boy was charged. That offence,
however, was not quite accurately described, either in the
newspaper state/neat or in the question put by the hest.
member. The magistrates, in considering the amount of
I fine they should impose upon the boy, were guided by the
knowledge that the toy was acting as the instrument and at
the instigation of his parents, and the fine, though nomi-
nally imposed on the boy, was intended practically to be im-
posed upon the parents. The magistrates believed the pa-
rents were fully able to pay the amount of the fine, and
they were strengthened in this conviction by a knowledge
of the fact that during the last five years members of the
lame family were, Ike believed, convicted and fined
twenty-four times by the magistrates or at the
county courts, for breathes of the game laws, or
for amanita connected with poaching. In fact, they
lived entirely by poaching, and in every one of these 24 cases
the fine was paid forthwith. The result wee the same in
the present ease. The morning after the conviction of
Thomas the mother came to the gull and paid the fine and
expenses, the boy was immediately discharged, and he (Sir
G. Grey) was informed that the mother, after paving the
amount, said that bad it been three times as large she could
have equally paid it. (Hear, bear.)
REPORT OF THE CADASTRAL SURVEY
001IMITIME.
Sir F. HEYOATE asked the Secretary of State for War
whether it was the intention of the government to act upon
the report of the cadrastrel survey committee ; and if so,
whether he would bring in • supplementary estimate this
session to enable their recommendations to be carried into
effect ! _

Sir G. C. LEWIS replied that the government had not
hitherto come to any decision on the report of the eadastral
survey committee, bat as at present advised they had no
intention of bringing in any supplementary estimate on the
subject.
BRITISH MUSEUM.
Mr. GREGORY wished to sak the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether, before the second reading of the bill for
the removal of certain collections from the British Museum,
he would be able to give the house an estimate of the cost of
the alterations of the present structure of the British
Museum, sod of the proposed addition., and of the cost of
the building and fittieg-up of the proposed new museum of
natural history at Kensington ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that on
moving the second reading of the bill be would be careful
to give to the hon. gentleman and the house the best infor-
nation in his power as to the probable cost of the enlarge-
ments and improvements contemplated as to the Museum
on its present site, and likewise with regard to the site of
any new buildings.
DELHI AND LUCKNOW PRIZE MONEY.
Mr. DEEDES asked the Secretary of State for India what
was the reason that the Delhi and Lucknow prize money
still remained unpaid; and whether he could name any
period within which ell claims would be met ?
Mr. T. G. BARING replied that the Delhi and Lucknow
prize money was now being paid in India. In order that it
might be paid to those officers who had returned from
India, it wlui neceawq that prize rolls should be sent to this
country. They would then be immediately forwarded from
India, and the money paid by the commissioners of Chelsea
Hospital. Previous to payments in this country it would
be necessary for oaken, the head-quarters of whose regi-
ments were in India, to produce certificates that they bad
not been paid in India.
Mr. DEEDES asked whether it would be necessary to
have prize rolls for officers on the stall who had returned
for some time to this country.
Mr. T. G. BARING replied that he could not answer the
question positively.
THE DEFENCE COMMISSION.
In reply to Mr. BICNTINCL,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said be could not name any day at pre-
sent for placing the report of the Defence Commission on
the table of the house.
MERCHANT SHIPPING Ago, hr., AMENDMENT

The house went into committee on this bill.
On clause 36,
Lord HOTHAM moved the omission of the clause and
also clause 37, both of which related to pilotage. He
thought this important question should not be included in
the bill they were then discussing. The present measure
might be taken to be the offspring of the committee which
sat on the subject of merchant shipping in 1860. Although
the question of pilotage formed a portion of the report of
that committee, yet it was not inquired into to that extent
which its importance required and deserved. Referring to
the local boards of Liverpool and Hull, he thought no one
would be prepared to my that those bodies had unsatisfac-
torily or improperly performed their duties, or that they
had ever selected incompetent peruse as pilots.
Mr. LINDSAY said it was well known that st ports
where pilotage was not compulsory the supply of pike. was
greater and better—the effect of competition. It. had
listened to the speeches of the noble lord opposite and the
hon. member for Hull (Mr. Clay), and they were the same
as adduced in years gone by, the doctrines in which bad
been happily exploded. (Hear, hear.) They had emote
evidence of what would be the effect of abolishing compul-
sory pilotage. At present, when it was not compul-
sory, the men were much more attentive to their
duties, and to be found at a greater distance at sea,
and further, they were more numerous and their charges
were lower. The only objection which he had to the whole
of the hill was that it did not propose to sweep away the
system altogether. The right hon. gentleman proposed to
deal with Falmouth, the Dower', Yarmouth Roads, and the
Die of Wight, but why did he not grapple with the question
boldly, and sweep the compulsory system away altogether ?
He felt convinced that that would have teoded to the in-
terest. of the pilot. themselves, and have improved their
condition. It would also have tended to the interests of
the shipowners, and, above all, to the interests of the public
at large ; and if the hams would support him he would, on
the bringing up of the report, propose clauses which should
entirely abolish compulsory pilotage. (Hear.) Dealing
with the question as proposed in the bill was only half
doing it, and that wee unsatisfactory. They would have to
deed with the question again before long, for they had
abundant evidence before them to show that the system at
present in force should be swept away altogether. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY observed that the clauses they were de-
bating did not involve the question of compulsory pilotage,
or the liability of the owners for damage done while their
ships were in drugs of pilots. After the speech he had just
beard, all doubt be might have had about voting for the
clause was swept away. He had known a question of
such serious importance disposed of by provisional orders,
Led his hon. friend might well doubt whether Liver-
pool would be safe under the bill. He (Mr. Henley) did not
like the system of provisional orders to be extended beyond
due limits; and he thought the bill went beyond that. As
fuss be could see, he did not know what abuses the bill
dealt with, unless indeed compulsory pilotage was regarded
as an abuse.
Mr. A. SMITH thought the case of St. Ives, where there
' bad been licensed pilots, was proof sufficieot that the
compulsory system was not necessary to secure efficient
services.
Mr. GIBSON hoped the noble lord would not press
his motion. The only difference between provisional
orders and private bills was that by the former plan •
great deal of unnecessary expense would be spared. If
there was one thing more than another to which provi-
sional orders were applicable, it was to the pilotage of
different ports. Any conditional orders complained against
could be sent to • select committee—they were in point of
fact substitutes for private legislation. He would be sorry
to ace the clauses throw° out, for he believed they would
confer upon a variety of localities very important advantages,
and enable them to make desirable changes in the manage-
ment of their affairs without trouble et expense.
The committee then divided:
For the clause l3B
Against
The clause was accordingly agreed to
On clause 63,
Mr. LOCKE said the clause was intended to enable the
shipowner to go alongside • wharf in the port of London
and deposit the urge there without notice to but at the
risk of the consignee, and therefore he should propose an
amendment in accordance with the acts in force, and which
would compel • longer notice to be given than the clause
pointed out, viz., that after " expressed, " insert "being
subsequent to the commencement of the legal delivery of
the ship's cargo at her place of discharge ; provided always
that the liabilities of the shipowner to the parties to such
charterparter, bill of lading, or agreement sa therein ex-
ensued, and his obligations thereuuder, shall continue in
the same manner and in as full force and effect for twenty-
four hours io the can of • steamship, and forty-eight hours
in the cue of a sailing-ship (exclusive of a Sunday or holi- I
day), after the mooring of the ship at the place of dis-
charge, as if such goods bad not been landed or unshipped."
If these words were agreed to the difficulty which might
arise would be prevented.
Mr. H. GIBSON opposed the amendment, observing
that the objeet of the cLuse was simply to enable ship-
owners to give effect to their own agreements. When no
time for the discharge of the cargo was specified in the on-
,,ract it would be a serious hardship if they required the
shipowner's responsibility to continue for twenty-four hours
after be bed landed the goods.
Mr. AYRTON suggested that • certain time should be
a=ml in the bill of lading, within which the merchant
take thugs of his goods, instead of using the word
"forthwith."
Mr. M. GIBSON said the bill left it to the courts of law
to delr the meaning of words, and merely said that what-
ever the parties wised to should be carried out.
Mr. CAVE believed that the change made is the law by
the bill would give general satisfaction.
The committee divided :
For the amendment l4
Against it
The Chairman was then ordered to report proem, and
the house rammed.
INLAND REVENUE BILL.

This hal was recommitted, and chums weft introduced
allowing a drawback of 7s. • cwt. to all peruses who shall
have in stork a ton of hops el marketable quaky an t►e
15th of September.
TEE PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.,
Os the motion that this 141 be said a naiad tome,

Mr. BRADY moved that the bill be read this day ail
months.
Mr. BLAKE seconded the amendment.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN supplied the amendment.
Sir It. PEEL said that the bill was merely intended to
continue the powers which had heretofore been vested in
the Lord-Lieutenant. He did not expect that alter recent
occurrences in Ireland the bill would be oppoesd. (Beer.)
The house then divided :
For the second reading 7B
it
The Againstrms accordingly read a second time

having been taken before a magistrate she was, after a re-
mand, discharged, and she now sued to recover damages for
false imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded a special plea, which alleged that
awes the halfpence stolen there ass a halfpenny which
was battered in a peculiar manner ; that the door of the
bedroom where the locket and the halfpence ware
kept was usually locked, but that some days before the
charge was made the defendant's wife showed the locket
to the plaintiff, who admired it ; that the defendant's wife
then went downstairs, leaving the door unlocked, and that
the plaintiff might then have committed the theft ; that
after the theft the defendant received information that the
battered halfpenny had been hi the possession of the plain-
tiff's brother, a boy eight years old ; that the boy, on being
questioned, stated that be had picked it up in his father's
room, and that the plaintiff told him she bad dropped it ;that
the plaintiff on being questioned said that her brother had
told her that be had seen a strange woman go up stairs,
though the brother, when asked, denied this, but said that
the plaintiff had told him to say so. When the brother
made thew statements in the presence of the plaintiff she
said that he was a liar. Further, that the policeman told
the defendant that be believed the plaintiff had been in the
service of Mr. Drury, and that after she left some articles,
including • gold brooch, were missed. In addition the plea
alleged that the plaintiff at the time of the theft was in
such poor circumstances that her father, mother, brother,
and herself all lived in one room.
Mr. M'lntyre appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bannon
for the defendant.
A good deal of evidence on both sides was given in refe-
rence principally to the plea of justification.
Mr. Justice Bylesdirected the jury that it was not now im-
puted to the plaintiff that she had actually stolen the pro-
perty, the real question being whether the defendant had
reasonable ground for suspecting her.
The jury were locked up to consider their verdict, and
after they had been absent about • couple of hours they
sent • note to his lordship to say that they had not
and never should ; but as the plaintiff's counsel worn
consent to their being discharged, they remained in their
room. In the course of about an hour after they came into
court, and gave • verdict for the plaintiff—damage., 401.

TILE CONSOLS INSURANCE COMPANY O. =WALL. -AMON
FOR DEPOSIT MOM! UPON SHAMS.

This was an action to recover 1251. for deposit upon 500
shares in the plaintiffs company ; and the defendant
pleaded, among other things, that he had been induced to
take the shares by fraud.
Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. Merewetber appeared for the
plaintiffs ; and Mr. Giffard for the defendant.
Evidence was given that the defendant, a pattern designer
at Leek, in Staffordshire, had executed the deed of the
company in the presence of Mr. Hart and Mr. Rayner, two
agents of the company, and had taken 500 shares in his
own name and 500 in the name of his wife. The deed pro-
vided that a deposit of 5.. • share should be paid. It was
denied that any misrepresentation had been made, or im-
proper inducement held out to the defendant to take the
shares or sign the deed, and the evidence of the defendant
was generally denied by anticipation.
!&r. John Newell, the defendant, was then called, and
mid that he had been at one time • designer of patterns for
buttons, but his present employment was that of "weigher."
His first introduction to Mr. Hart was in this way :he
was sitting after his work by the fire with his wife, when
Mr. Hut, • travelling agent, and also Mr. Rayner, the local
agent of the nom piny, knocked at the door and asked him
to take shares. He said be would have nothing to do with
it, and that he had no money. They asked to be allowed to
emu into the house and show him the names of some per.
sons in the town, and, having done this, he thought the
scheme was " well laid out." They said the company
would pay 20 per cent., the same as the Westminster Bank,
and that it would pay • bonus in • short time,
and they " puffed it off " in what they said.
They showed him a book (the deed) with
names in it, and he signed it. Mr. Rayner said if witnem
put his name in the book they couldget other names, became
witness was known as • steady hardworking men. Witness
said he had no money, but • person owed him 2371. 10e. ;
and they replied that only se. • share was required, and he
could make up the difference upon the 1,000 therm Wit-
ness said that if be got the money be would take the shares,
but if he did not get the money he would not take the
shares. They said—be should think twenty times—that
he need not mind singing his name, for it would not bind
him. He did not know he was 'Main • deed, and if he
had known it he would sooner have had his finger cut off
than signed. He had never got the money which he bad
lent to a relative, and he feared he never should.
Mr. Justios Byles drew attention to the deed, and to the
fact that the place where the witness signed was headed,
" Schedule of signatures to the foregoing deed," the first
three words only being upon the pip which hare the names.
Witness continued—The word " deed " was sever men-
tionml, and he never said that he delivered it as his deed. It
was a " list of shareholders " he was asked to look at.
When the allotment was brought by Mr. Rayner witness
said that he had sot got his money, and he should not take
the shares ; but Mr. Rayner said he must take them. He
recollected that "lords" and "esquires," and other high-
sounding names were mentioned to him as directors, but he
could not recollect whether that of "Petat Morrison" wee
one of them.
Cross-examined—His position at the mill was one of
trust, or he should not have remained there 23 years. He
was a self-taught man, having been at work since he was
eight years old, and never having been at schooL He had
learnt to write, sett bad walked seven miles every Sunday
for • time to kern. He had never seen the prospectus of
the company before he signed, but he was told that half the
money was to be invested in Consols. He recollected exe-
cuting a deed at the time of the railway mania, when he was
" jun: led " out of some money-501. He had had shares in
the South Eastern Railway, and he signed • paper when he
sold them. He bad had three shame in the Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire line. He did not remember
having had any other shares. When he was asked to take
the Consols shares, he was told that it was • great favour to
let him have them, and that they had oome to do him good.
To the Judge—Neither the title page of the deed nor any
part of the body of the deed warn shown to him when he
aqind.
Mre. Hart was recalled, and said that he showed the de-
fendant the title page, and also the first and second pages
of the body of the deed. When he had signed witness said
" That is your seal, you must put your finger upon it," and
the defendant "delivered " the deed in the usual way.
His lordehip put several questions to the jury, and they
in answer seA that they found for the defendant upon all
the issues.