The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-10 00:00:00

ILabi *ntelligence.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCR—YEOnADAT..
Iknoso a 641 Na-iota Lean Cuurams, Ma. Jessica Pawn-
ees, Ma. Jame thimumne. ass N.. Joann rasa.
Powata. v. 9gAW.-111M011111017Cr or Ax ATIOIXIIT.
la this ore a rub hod bow meted esillog ea Mr.
Plinth,* the mammy for the he atm ewer why
he shield am be Welk it the nib, the shop egetest lila
beim that of mobas as @Meek of imam upon the taxa.
des of the melt la Ow mote. tibia toms Me to his know-
led., le essenekg fa ha bed peld b die miasma misuse
mow. which et teat time had wa has -aid et ell. Mr.
Pinsk's. bed Med olldswite to 'pretties to the role, in
which he hod esteeed cats eapplaaano.a of the amps mode
against hint, midi amesabd to this, that with moped to
some of the edam= ho bed edwastod matey to bk abut
to pay the witnesses, lad be etippeeed k hed Ileatymid.
And with respect to see "bare of the sees of Nes* to
whom he had agora he had paid da. 198., bet who at that
time had not received anything mad only claimed 41. 13e.,
ho now swore that he considered the witness entitled to
dl. 138., and that he had given a verbal maim to pay him
that amount. _ . .

The adid;;ite had been referred to the Master to report

upoo.
Mr. Chamben, Q.C., and Yr. Montagne Smith now
moved that the report be read, and an elaborate report was
accordingly read to the court by Sir Archer Croft, but in so
low • tone that it could only be collected that he reported
that Mr. Ilewker had answered the charge of prom fraud,
but that the swearing to payments which he had not made
himself, and particularly the swearing to the payment to
Neale when in fact be had only given a verbal promise to
pay him, was one worthy of the serious consideration of the
court.
__

Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Ilayes now showed cause
against the rule, and urged that as the Muter had reported
that the charge of gross fraud was answered, the court
would think that the attorney had suffered sufficiently
in the large sums be had been obliged to pay as costs of
these proceedings.
Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Montague
Smith, centre, left the matter in the hands of the court.
Lord Campbell ssid, this was a rule why Mr. Flewker
should not be struck off the rolls, which had been referred
to the Master, and he had made a most elaborate report,
and he (LoriCamphell) entirely agreed in the conclusion to
which he had arrived. He re that the charge of grow
and deliberate fraud had been answered, and therefore he
(Lord Campbell) did not think Mr. Flewker should be
struck off the rolls. But he also agreed that his conduct, In
swearing to payments made to the witnesses, when in fact
he had only advanced money to a third party, was descry-
log of severe reprobation, and such es he must have known
was highly reprehensible, and particularly Neale's case,
where he swore that he had paid the money, when he had
only given a verbal promise to pay. The court thought
such conduct was deserving of the serious consideration
of the court. The court had given it its most
serious consideration, and thought it most reprehensible.
It appeared that great laxity had prevailed on the
subject of the practice of swearing affidavits of increase.
The court had frequently expressed their dieapprolsation
of it, but had done nothing, and the practice bad not been
reformed. Another practice of a most improper descrip-
tion was when the attorney for the victorious party tried to
inflame the cots, which must fall on the other side, as much
as possible, and among them the expenses paid for the
attendance of witnesses. Those expenses must fall on the
losing party, no improvement in our system could ever help
that; but only such expenses as are unavoidably necessary
should be incurred, and it was most improper for the victo-
rious party to endeavour to put money into the witnesses'
pocket, as if for the purpose of gaining a character for libe-
rality. The court thought it necessary to mark their strong
disapprobation of such a practice, and considered it their
duty to direct that Mr. Flewker should be suspended from
practising as an att...rney for the period of one month, and
should pay all the costs of these proseedings.
Bowe r. MANtIER.

This was an aetion cm a bill of exchange fur 2,00 W. The
material defence was, that the note we. a forgery. The
case had been tried before Lord Campbell, and the jury
had Oven a reedits for the plaintiff. A rule nisi for a new
trial had been granted upon the ground of surprise, and
that the verdict had been obtained by improper means, and
upon affidavits entering into tgreat number of transac-
tions connected with the The facts were fully re-
ported in the Espras of April 2t.
Mr. Bovill and Mr. Hawkins now showed cause against
the rule.

Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., wu heard is support of
the rule, and the came yas then adjourned.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS..—YzwrzapAy.
Orrrotto to Balmo.—Biroan Loan Com loorto Jar's. Ma.
iv., vv. Km; NIL JUPTIC. Caaamui, Mo. JlArtva TAlvvvaio.
Iti/DINSOR AND WIT. i. Pt. MARQUIS OF BRISTOL
AND OTHiII.—Qu•RR borzoi%

This was as actions of quare impedit, in which a special
verdict had bees found. The question in the case was,
whether the plaintiff and his witc were, together with the
Marquis of Bristol, entitled alternately to appoint a rector
to the united benefice of Brauncewell and Anwiek, in the
county of Lincoln. It appeased that before the year 1718
there had beat a vicarage of Anwiek, and • rectory of
Brauneewell, but in that year the then Bishop of Lincoln
united the two parishe.. on account of the small value of the
two livings. The patron of the rectory of Brauncewell was
the Earl of Bristol, through whom the present defendants'
claimed to be the patron of the united benefice. The plain-
tiff claimed through his wife, Sarah Rohinson, who wee the
heiress of a persou named Hazelwood. The claim of Hazel-
wood was founded upon a deed dated in 1760, by which
the right to present a clergyman to the vicarage of Anwick
was conveyed to him by a Mr. Gardner, in whom the right
was then vested. It was now contended, on the part of the
plaintiffs, that, although the deed merely mentioned the
vicarage of Anwick, yet as that vicarage had been united
to the rectory of Brauneewell, they were entitled alter-
nately to present a rector to the joint benefice of Braunee-
well and Anwick. It was further argued that this was the
ease, inasmuch as the deed, in speaking of the vicarage of
Anwick, used the words " alternate right of presentation."
On the part of the defendants, it was contended that the
parishes were united for spiritual purposes, and that the
advowoons still remained separate.
On Friday last, Mr. Peacock, Q.C., was heard on be-
half of the plaintiffs, and Mr. Cowling for the defendants.
At the sitting of the court this morning, Mr. Peacock re-
plied.
The Lord Chief Justice then delivered judgment, and
said that he was of opinion that the defendants were en-
titled to the judgment of the court. If in deciding the
question iu the case it were necessary to seen very nicely
the act of union between the vicarage of Anwick and the
rectory of Brouncewell, he (the Lord Chief Justice)
should have required some time fur consideration before
he pronounced his opinion. The reason of this was, that
as on the one hand he did not consider that the union of
the two parishes gave any advowson to Mr. Gardner ; yet,
on the other hand, he should have been unwilling, without
consideration, to have pronounced an opinion contrary to
that of the number of text writers who had laid it down
that an net of union was a proceeding which might be
made available at common law. He was of opinion that,
as the act of union wes an operative act, and did unite
the vicarage of Anwiek with the rectory of Brauncewell,
the advowson of the united benefice was not passed to Mr.
Hazelwood by the deed of 1760. There were no words in
that deed which purported to pass the advowson of the
united benefice of Brauncewell and Anwiek, the deed
merely abased the advowson of the vicarage of Anwick
with the alternate right of presentation, but if the act of
union was good there was no such thing as the advocaat to
the vicarage of Anwick now in existence. With respect to
the point that the plaintiffs were not seized of the advoc-
aat of the vicarage of Anwick, the court did not think the
defendants were stopped from setting that op as a defence
to the action, because the deed of 1760 did not, in conse-
quence of the act of union, pass any advowson and conse-
quently the plaintiffs were not seized or poesessecl of any
advoweon. For these reasons he (the Lord Chief Justice)
thought the judgment of the court must be for the defen-
dants.

The rest of their lordships concurred.
Judgment for the defendants.
AILDILN V. CIooDACItn.—ACTIOV AGAINST THI 81111lITIP
OF LSICISTRILSISIAB FOIL TUE &CAP, OF A PRISONFA.—

JI:DOMIXT,

The Lord Chief Instate now delivered the judgment of
the court in this ease, sad said that it was an action against
li the Sheriff of lakesitmahlin to mover damages on amount
of a debtor, whom be had lakes in execution, having
escaped ham his custody. At ON trial he had dimwit the
jury that thry might take iota amsideration the conduct of
the piniadif in the suit, and they might reduce the sat at
ifibuythought that holed beta guilty of may Imam,
asd lilt him elf ham been mere Wive. This direction, it
W bees sealremlett by Mr. &lomat Bytes, was a otisdirec.
dm. and spa osneidention he (Lied Chief Justice Jervis)
=that it was so, and the rule fee • new trial must
be made aboolu'e. The only meths which could
nimbi bewaght against the Sheriff for as agape, wee an
Mies an the awe to recover midi damages ea the plaintiff
might lam seetelmed by Isms et the easege. `moat
rear, eirrelled • piety le have rear le this esemeen law
form et sentely, bat the mart maid ass aims, that the
principle igen width Oa 411. wens to amessed had
been well Alined. Ugmt tiontgen the i.e thoeght
that the tine memos et urea Shovels*
at the era* et the dobaMdiVellareweat when he
alai Iseirdsi ought to he mode en mettest of
gbh mlght hove beea obleined by
is
The nib now pronoun's& buthe mot would
ass egiewle emir* egmbet the Ara Ma newt wee et
males AM if the
acre debtor at is ramert et Ids
mew bad the ome of a*. the debt, d
he Amara word are areas,dd die *lad &a
. certainly
had hot lb apreetodly of obtaining legume et his debt,
sad he was ridded to receiver tie lbi memo
in &ti-
from the
OWE It might he said that the * by MK m
ger% might lave retakes the Maur la abet _sty
ward ea mire weenie*, or boon imstlm~el a *oh suit ;
• but he wee ass eseepellod to do se. The audit however,
might retake the debtor wed ream valet bin, by moms
of a• ectioa, the whisk he bad been sompelled to
the eansation elsflor. All, bowever, Act emit mum
te7eWs ma, Oat the Joey, in otifonageg the amismitsf
damageot metweat et the smug% ought to mho se
la elthe e strldag 'Aid' canned seer ther amp had
Ruh oblehiejte • new
Jcsa 7.
arimme m View—itaseas Lau Cass, heroes Jams, Ma. he.
vas Y4ny Ma. James eastwo.A. Ana Ma. Mere Tat.
men.
DVNIZIIT v. FAI.IIII.—FOROINO • Walt XI Lit
AITORNIIT'a Cs.aan.
In this tem a rale had been obtained at behalf of the
&halms to show rime why the wit Is the aria sad ell

*NMI not be set aside, en the
Vero Criessaralllam& hgjesernment to the writ
Imes keyed ; sad that thim the writ huff wes a
The mailer bed hems island to the Master, who now
reed \keeper& Mthe sem& Teem that report it appeared
that Ire Ind mob the WINN* iniquity into all the meant-
Moses isomers\ mak the imam end • the writ,
sad am thaw logoldoe r. wilatewrot that a of the
=4ll.sarmay, Mo. et Ikees.otreet. in the
81ind linninlendg Wood writ, and had intended
is agrogsielio the vibes of the stamp. The Master said
that-be mainly sorsiMell Mr. Lewis of ell knowledge of
the transaction. Tim sleek. it was nippers& had left
England, es all stoma to God him had proved Mildews.
Mr. &limit Bytes, who appeared on behalf of Mr.
Lewin, said that alter he hail heard the report of the
Mester, he should not oppose the rule being made absolute
out es Mr. Lewis was not to blame in the transaction, he
(Mr. Serjeant Bytes) submitted that he ought not to be
compelled to pay all the costs which bad been ineurrred.
In the ease of a merchant whose clerk ought have eon-
mittmi a forgery, no civil or criminal liability would attach
to him for the improper sets of his servant, and the eue of
an attorney and his clerk was in some degree similar.
The Lord Chief Justice said that in a case like the m-
end he wet of °pude@ that the attorney ought to be mew
detect responsible for the honesty of a clerk in his service.
It was clear that the writ had been served by the direction
of Mr. Lewis, who no doubt imagined that it was a good
writ, as did the parties on whom it was served in the first
instance • but when they found out that it was an invalid
document, they had taken proceedings to set it aside. It
might be a hard case for Mr. Lewis, but it was a misfor-
tune to which any one having a dishonest person in his
employ was liable. It would, however, be much harder
to call upon the defendant to pay any part of the costs.
The rule to set aside the writ and subsequent proceedings
must, therefore, be made abeolute.
The rest of their lordships concurred.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-Juriz 7.
&IMMO ng Banco.
HIN6AOI O. GALLAND.

This was a rule calling on the defendant to pay the costs
of the trial of a feigned issue framed for the purpose of
appealing from the decision of the tithe commissioner,
touching the right of the defendant as vicar of Kelstern,
in Lincolnshire, to the small tithes of a district celled
lAnibserolt.

Mr. Hominy and Mr. Boden appeared for the de-
fendant, and submitted that the ease set up before the
jury by the plaintiff was totally at variance with that on
which he had proceeded before the Commissioner, and
that, therefore, though he had obtained the verdict the de-
, fondant ought not to be called on to pay the costs of the
trial. It appeared that the grounds of exemption advanced
before the Commissioner were that the lands in question
belonged to a dissolved abbey, and were not titheable as
the property of the church at the dissolution, and that no
tithes had in fact been paid for sixty-three years. The
answer of the vicar was the endowment of the vicarage
with the small tithes of the parish by Thornley Abbey in
1278, and the proof that Lanabscroft formed part of that
parish, it being claimed also by the rector of Brinbroke.
The Tithe Commissioner decided in favour of the vicar of
Kelstern, and this issue having been framed under the act
the use came on for trial before Mr. Baron Alderson
at Lincoln Assizes, when, in answer to the case of the vicar,
the plaintiff advanced a grant of these tithes and of Lambs-
croft by Henry VIII. to ono Ratcliffe, which wu prior to
the endowment by the abbey, so that the latter, though
general, could not pass the tithes of Lambscroft. On this
evidence the vicar was put out of court, and it was now
insisted that the use was so new as to amount to a surprise,
the plaintiff
tion before the commissioner.
Sir F. Pollock saying that their client was clearly enti-
tled to the costs. It appeared that the materials on which
he tuiceeded had been extracted from a public instrument,
to which the defendant had equal opportunity of access.
He alight and ought to have discovered this grant just u
well as his opponents had done, and the came did not there-
fore present any grounds for departing tress the general
principle adopted in all the courts, am* thee the party
succeeding was to have his costa unless he was shows to be
indebted for his success to some trick or coals praxis. Here
there was no such imputation sustained, and the rule must
be made aboolute.—Rule absolute.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COl7 RT.—YrzrzsDAT.
SWOON F. BATLIT, RlO.. JOllOl4
HAY= 0. Tea O'OOEXANI Id•eotto

TARIFF.

This was as action brought by the plaintiff, a tailor, to
recover from the defendant, The O'Gorman Mahon, M.P.
for Clan, the sum of 64 Bs. for goods supplied and work
and labour done. 41. 16s. had been paid into court.
The defendant said he had paid only that sum into court,
being all he considered the plaintiff entitled to. In the
first plate he was induced to patronise the plaintiff by seeing
one of his circulars, wherein he proposed to make a dress
coat for a lON., and, wishing to save a better one, he gave
him an order and was charged 31. He then gave him cloth
to make a Chesterfield fur If. Is., but was charged 11. 10s. •
and on showing it to some friends at the "house," instead
of a Chesterfield it was pronounced by them to be a "sack."
(Laughter.) In the next place, he supplied cloth for a pair
of trousers, and fur spoiling the cloth plaintiff had charged
Be. 6d., besides 25.6 d. for altering and respoiling them b
stitching up the front part instead of the back. (Laughter.)
The other items were similarly exorbitant.
A witness named Whitney thought 11. Is. for making the
Chesterfield a fair charge.
Plaintiff said that the coat was a full-dress blue body-
coat, and a regular wedding coat. (Laughter.)
Defendant—A wedding coat ?
Plaiatiff—Yes • you told me it was to attend • wedding
in—(laughter)—lad you wore the trousers for twelve
Imonths.
I Defendant—Why, I declare that I never wore them in
my life, for I couldn't get into them. (Loud laughter.)
His Honour, having inspected the plaintiff's bill gave
judgment for 305., in addition to the money paid into
court.

Hers v. O'Mooaa.

In this case the same plaintiff rued the defendant, who
was not present.
Judge—Do you know he lives where you have stated ?
Plaiutiff—l have given his address at "The O'Gorman
Mahon 's chambers, No. 4, Arrabella-row," where I have
every reason to believe he resides, for he is an inseparable
companion of the O'Gorman's, both out of doors and in.
(Laughter.)
Judge—You must be able to swear exactly where he does
live before I can make an order, and to give you time to
ascertain that I will postpone the ease.
Adjourned.

TRH POLICE COUBTS.
MANSION-ROM&

n 7.
Joseph 44 (of maiimad dimdWers mown) appeared
before the Lord Kam to mower the complaint of Mr. Pea-
cock, the *elicitor* the Peet-edee, for non-payment of the
sum of 171. lho, doe to the Queen for the postage of
letters.

The defendant, elm galled upon to say whether he
pleaded guilty or net guilty, said ' I object to your lord-
ship's jurisdiction ia this ease. An act has passed since I
was here before which gives to the Judge of the County
Court the power of dealing with all cases under the sum of 1
801., so that your lordship has nothing to do with the mat-
ter. I have besides to beg the indulgence of your lordship'
upon the ground that I am an infirm man, now nearly 80
years of age, and I have been unjustl imprisoned, I think,
and contrary to have
Chart*, and I'
require some days for
the examination of the letters I am accused of having
prated"
The Lord Mayor (to Mr. Peacock)—How many letters
form the subject of inquiry ?
Mr. Peacock-2,142.
The defendant—Aad I wish to examine every one of
them. (Laughter.)
The Lord Mayor—You say you object to my jurisdic-
tion ?

The defendant—Yes ; I have several objections to offer.
The Lord Mayor—There is a concurrent jurisdiction.
The Post-odlee authorities have the power of applying
either to the Lord Mayor or to the Sheriff's Court. They
have preferred the turner, and I most proceed with the
nee.

The defendant—Thee I lave to say that my debt, if I
owe anything at maw& _ ,201. and that fact takes the
business out of yogi 's Mad& The amount they
dune me with Wog boloAso them is only 171. ISe.
They cannot fry pm of (Later
The Lord Uwe within to do with say amount
except that Ind we no idea is oil** by tlas government
The def pew loodship would like to
take time to wsoidor tq
ett:Lorter.)
The Lott Xere—Tber• as may postpone-

7 As dedramen—Then I plead sot guilty.
Mr. Pena* this aid the Pea-ernes did seedily ex-
pect that after the easseakely behairost restsser is which
Mr. My had ben teaseled ups the amiss Olio lest sow
reties se es maim of a tiler demurrals. =
ansental ho hit diosinqa boa anineweet, there
be no ether Imaipm aser aien Is kin of as regarded bier.
The calculatiss ups OW pearews, however, teised est
to hequite Callemisse lasesdiseely after the MS= et
the hen andniesset Ms sapid the
bops to
sheerer Ye 1.19 110111161111181, med hew may thousand
omen letters wow lonia by hia besides three which heard
the of the yenent amplaint could not be saw-
tabled. lt wee vermarry to state that it had beans
obligetery be pews ihe paws Nurse. The Madam
aawfilialsaliss the mina emetares tremelleed to
the nufardlias ble wales, that he weld sot pest an
vapid Warr who. ressamemmed bin spun with inasead
Mew, as V deamnamel le Wow that he would resist the
law mime any sheenelsores.
Mr. Wiliam Mesas" ask in the dead Was efts of
the Gemmel Pu 011 ms. et fit. Kartia's4allmend, said, I
produce a pant et bases lama the_peekiesa I haw;
entwined all ei dela There are 2,lme, at to
and
ban Jos* hip They bare hem as
and losers, sad *wilier re wasps
In
dry web( est be loftiest There were retied% ;
wiles set head. 1111; sal par
as dead, 177. .)
Tbeiebeie mem& is 17L and that sua is by bia.
dehniento-diew I wash swains every we of
these ham _ _

142.—Ponelikpeeineed a papa, Intimating that the de-
Isedust alibt Awe seen all the letters, and .:named then
at dr peoboliin.
The impondent—lt will take no several days to look at
dims Wei M genet in Timber they aro inanine. Upon
a tare aseadon there Was (
)ems bars with whisk I nes
theard. losaginse.