The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-14 00:00:00

he concurred therefore in the order Which had'heen pro-
nounced.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YESTERDAY.
finToso Ir BANClA—Brroaz Lomat Cwmpseu, Na. JCen mg PArroco,
Mt Jusucs Cutzkiron. aiD Jrencs WIOIMIAS.
REGINA C. THE COUPOILLTION OP LUNDUS.—ST.
THOMAb'S HOSPITAL.

In this case a rule had been obtained calling on the Cor-
poration of London to show cause why a mandamus should
not issue, commanding them, as governors of St. Thomas's
Hospital, to antis the seal belonging to the said hospital to
two several leases of lands belonging to the said hospital.
Sir F. Thcsiger now moved to make the rule absolute.
Mr. Crowder, Q.C., showed cause. St. Thomas's was
one of the four royal hospitals founded in the reign of Ed-
ward VI., of which the corporation were originally the
sole governors. In subsequent years regulations were
made by which each of the hospitals (St. Thomas's, St.
Bartholomew, Christ's, and Bcthlem) were regulated by
rules and bye laws, and were governed chiefly by committees.
The seal of St. Thomas's Hospital was in the custody of the
Chamberlain of the City of London, and should be affixed
to all documents connected with the hospital. The present
mandamus was applied for to cause that seal to be affixed
to two leases, alleging that they had been signed by
the treasurer and two of the governors of the
hospital ; and the corporation objected to &Mx the
sal, because they said it was necessary that the
documents in question should also be signed by two of
the aldermen of the City of London. In 1828 a resolution
was entered into in the City of London, with which all the
hospitals concurred, and which had been acted upon now
for 23 years, to the effect, that in all cases where leases
and other documents were presented for the seal of the
corporation, there must be the signature of two of the
aldermen. In the case of St. Thomas's Hospital, subscri-
bets of 601. were eligible to be elected governors of the
institution, but 16 aldermen must also be governors of that
hospital. It appeared that in 1771 disputes had arisen
between the governors of the hospitals and the corporation
of London as to the right of the latter to interfere. It
did not appear what the disputes were, but an agreement
was subsequently entered into which was embodied in an
act of parliament in 1782. Tho learned counsel was pro-
ceeding to explain the nature of this net, when
Lord Campbell inquired if both parties would agree to
abide the decision of the court ? If so, they would hear
the arguments, and solemnly decide the questions raised ;

but if the ease was to be argued again on tho return to the
mandamus, and there was a grave question of law to bet dv.
cided, the court were of opinion that it was better that the
mandamus should go.
Mr. Crowder said it had been the usage for 23 years for
two aldermen to sign the ducuments in question, aad he
did not see, therefore, how a mandamus would he.
Sir F. Thesiger saint there were 46 years of usage the
other way prior to 188.
Mr. Wortley, Q.C. (the Recorder of the City of London),
said it was must desirable to have a solemn decision on this
question; and, as the court thought it had better be taken
at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, he would not
object, on the part of his clients, to the mandamus being
issued.—ltule absolute.
CORD tlr D. BEATLY.—CIICRCII RATES VT Ii:LIGH lON..

Mr. Peacock, Q.C., moved for a rul to show cause why
a writ of prohibition should not issue to the Arches Court
to restrain them from proceeding iu a suit now pending in
that court for the recovery of a church rate. It appeared
from the articles set out in the libel, and the statement of
he learned counsel, that a meeting waa convened upon
notice by the churchwardens, on the 9th of December last,
for the purpose of tasking a church rate, to effect certain
repairs in the church of St. Nicholas and the new church
or chapel of ease called St. Peter's, at Brighton. The
mectiug was held in the Town-hall, and the vier tool: tho
chair. The churchwardens produced a survey or specifica-
tion and estimate which hod been made of the
repairs necessary to be done, which were computed
to amount to gifil. A motion woe then made that
a rate of one peony in the pound should be levied on the
present assessment of the poor rate. Upon this an amend-
ment was moved and seconded to the effect " that the repa-
ration of the churches should lie done by voluntary contri-
butions, in accordaiiee with the statute law."

LordCaiiipbell—Aceording to the statute law?
Mr. Peacock admitted that to be an error; the chairman,
however, refused to put the amendment, declaring it to ho
illegal. This case dilfered from that of .• Gosling r. Paley"
(the Braintreo case), inasmuch as the ;intendment in that
case, not to make a church rate at all, was put to the meet-
ing and carried by a niajority. It had been held by three
of the learned juilgt, in the Court of Each( ituvr Chamber
(the preset Lord Chancellor, Mr. Baron Parke, and Mr.
Baron Rolfe, now Lord Cranworth) that the rate which had
been subsequently made was ; whilst four of the
learned judges were of a contrary opinion ; and that ciao
was now before the House of Lords.

Lord Cumpbell—And will come on as soon us parliament
meets.

Mr. Peacock thought there was a great distinction be-
tween this rase and the case to which lie had referred. In
that case, it was held that the persons who voted against
the rate had thrown away their votes; whilst in the present
ease the amendment was Hotpot to the meeting, and therefore
it did not appear that there Weft: mare than the two persona
who moved and seconded the amendment, who could be
said to have been opposed to the making of a rate. But
another amendment was afterwards proposed by a Mr.
Cunningham and seconded by a Mr. Pass to the effect
" that the consideration of this church rote lee adjourned to
this day six months," This amendment was also declared
by the chairman to be illegal. and he refused to put it to
the meeting. Now, he would take it that the mover mid
seconder of that amendment were also opposed to the
making of a rate altogether, and that would make four
persons who objected to any rate. Immediately after the
question was put by the chairman wit( titer any person
wished to move any thing else, and no answer having been
given, the chairman put the original motion, a lien forty-
seven hands were held up for it, and ninety hands against
it, upon which the chairman declared that the votes against
the motion were illegal and thrown away, and declared the
motion to have been carried. Now, the original motion
was not whether there should be a church rate, but whe-
ther there should be " a church rate of one penny in the
pound on the poor rate for the necessary repairs of the
church." If the votes of the majority were thrown away,
where was the necessity of putting the motion ? If when
negatived by a majority, it was declared to have bean car-
ried, where was the necessity of putting it at all ?
Lord Campbell said it was difficult to distinguish this
case from " Gosling r. Veley," because, substantially, thu
meeting had refused to inake a church rate ; but as that
case was now pending before this tribunal of last resort
the court could net be bound by it, and they would, there-
fore, grant a rule to show cause.
Mr. Peacock also wished to move, on the ground that the
estimate upon which the rate was made was nut merely for
the support of the fabric but for ornamental work, which
it had been held a rate could not be made for. If it was
ultimately decided that the minority could bind the ma-
jority, it could only be for repairing the fabric of the
church, and not for repairs which were not absolutely Ilt-
CCSSary.
Rule granted.
COrtPI.7S.
• _ .

On the application of Mrs. tobbett a writ of habeas
corpus was granted, upon some new frets, to bring up her
husband to this court, iu order that he nVght make au
application tar his disehargo from eatady. The writ was
made returnable on Thursday next.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YESTERDAY.
&WINOS IN 114NCO.—BILYINCE JVATICK
MALL; MIL ,IV4tlrk WILLIAMS, an !to. ltrice TALSOI2kII.

REGISTRATION Al .PEALS.

This monting the court, pursuant to notice, heard appeals
from decisions of revising barristers, and in the course of
the day the under mentioned appeals were disposed of.
PILACTIce COV THE COURT.

Upon the first case being called on it appeared that no-
body was in attendance to support the respondent, and it
was proposed that under these circumstances the court
should in accordance with the previous practice hear the
appellant and decide the case.
The Chief Justice thought this course a very improper
one, for it was hard that they should give a decision bind-
ing upon the public after hearing only one side.
Mr. Serwant Kinglako said that their lordships' decision
was by the act binding, as to the general question decided,
upon WI future committees of the House of Commons.

'The Chief Justice referred to the authorities, and ex-
pressed his opinion that they must hear the case, although
he still thought the practice a very bad one.
The appeal was then heard.
roWNALL (APPELLANT) C. HEAD (RESPONDENT.)—
CLAIM HY AN EXTItA TIaIt•WAITEIL
The case sent up by the revising barrister for Harwich
stated that the respondent was, iu November last, appointed
an extra or glut tide-waiter ut Harwich, a class of men who
were appointed by the Customs, and who were liable to be
called upon at any time to do the duties of a tide-waiter;
They also made the usual declaration upon being appointed,
and they remained permanently upon the list, and were
discharged only fur misconduct. The vote was objected
to under 22 Gee. 111., cap. 11, sec. 1, which enacted that
any person "in any way concerned in charging, collecting,
levying, or managing the customs," should he disqualified
from voting. The question was whether the respondent
was within this provision, and the revising barrister held
that he was not. The objection was therefore overruled,
and the name was retained upon the list.
Mr. Serjeant Kioglake, for the appellant, now submitted
that the respondent was clearly not entitled to vote, but
was disqualified by the act of parliament.
The Chief Justice thought that the decision was wrong,
and should be reversed ; for there was no doubt whatever
that the respondent fell within the meaning,
and the mischief that the act of parliament
provided against, inasmuch as he was appointed by
the government, sad might be influenced by them.
The finding in this case showed that the respondent
was employed in the collection or management of the
Customs, and therefore fell within the act of parliament.
A tide-waiter was not always emnloyeil, although he was
clearly within the act, and the respondent was liable to do
the duties when called on. In what way then did this
differ from that? for the extra tide-waiters were bound to
be ready, and were liable to be taken front other work when
required to act as tide-waiters. The only difference between
the two classes was that one was regularly employed and
regularly paid, whilst the other was employed only some-
times and paid by the job. It was clear that the respondent
was within the act of parliament4the voter was disqualified,
and the decision was wrung.
Appeal allowed.
. _

BON-NALL (APPP.LIANT) T. DAW6ON (RHSPONDENT).-
MEANING) OF THE WIHIDE 4.0111E1t BUILDING.' IN TILE
REPOHIt ACT.

The appeal in this case also was from Harwich, and in-
volved the right to vote of Daniel Dawson, who claimed in
respect of a stable and workshops, but it was objected that
the property was not so joined as to form a qualification.
The property in question consisted of two brick and one
wooden erection, between which there was no internal com-
munication, and the whole was surrounded by a wall. The
question turned upon the construction to be placed upon
the 27th section of the Reform Act, and store particularly
upon the worth "other building" in that section. The
property in question was worth 101. a year, was rented of
one landlord, and W 'IS used by the respondent in the way. of
his trade of a wheelwright and coachbuilder. The revising
barrister held that the whole formed one "building," and
he therefore disallowed the objection, and retained the name
upon the list of voters.

Serjeant Kinglidie appeared for the appellant, but
the respondent was unrepresented. The learned Serjeant
submitted to the court that the question raised was an im-
portant one, and he contended that the building was not all
one within the act of parliament, inasmuch as there was no
internal communication from one part to the other, and as
it did not appear to be all under the same or a continuous
roof.

The Chief Justice said that there seemed to be no ques-
tion whatever as to the law in this case. As the respondent
did not appear, his brother Kinglake had very properly
cited all the cases, some of which were much against psim.
The building was under one roof, that was, it was not se-
parated by any intervening building or space. The pro..
perty was one building and the respondent was entitled
to vote. _ _ _

Appeal dismissed.
RADER (APPELLANT) O. COOPER (RESPONDENT.)—
RIGHT OF THE REVISING BARRISTER TO AMEND TIIR
DESCRIPTION OF VOTER'S QUALIFICATION.
This case stated that at the court hold for Cambridge the
name of John R. Mann was objected to under the follow-
ing circumstances. The borough of Cambridge contained
fourteen parishes, and the claimant described his qualifica-
tion as the successive occupation of two houses in St.
Andrew's-hill and Hills-row, in the parish of St. Andrew
the Great. The fact was that the house in Hills-place was
in the parish of St. Andrew the Less, and the revising bar-
rister held that the claim as it stood was bad upon this
allowed the
secondheelaiman parish. In pursuancetoamend fiaclnim byo
gonoaround,jicbtuht nameheo al
of th
' this ruling the claim was amended, and then the vote was
allowed. The questions now submitted to their lordships
were whether the revising barrister had power to amend
the claim, and whether he bad power to receive evidence

L
i

t lb. aconpation of different boners in different parishes;;
list the real point to he disputed was whether be had power
to attend then claint 11 altering the deseriktiun of the
qualification.
Mr. Cr: u h app(arol to support the appeal, and argot
that the birristei ong".t not to have showed the amend-
ment, and that the ...at should be disci:lowish
Thee t, h without hearing the course lon the
ether sit:, approved the decision of the revising barrister.
Appealdiuniserel.
Hamm* ( ) e. TM' 0•111114111111 Or THE
Peyote is Stoat. (xesrotenterm).—Ties Bi;11.01)iu
rftlialloth LANii S0(1117113 QVIIITION.
This appeal was from the decision of the revising barris-
ter acting for the northern division of Warwickshire, and
laveived the important qusstion which has been raised be-
fore in this court, though not in precisely the same form,
as to the right of the ntecithra of building and freehold land
eacietios to vote before they have paid the full amount
of the purchase money of their property to the society.
From the opening statement it appeared that the cue
found that the claimant was a member of the Coventry
Baddiug and Investment Society, established under the
prieviaians of the G and 7 Will. 1%., cap. 32. In the society
Le bed thee:. shares, with the advances upon which he, on
the Pith of October, lbk/, purchased an estate in fee simple,
is the parish of Stoke, of the annual value of 61., cod had
the property conveyed to him ; but he afterwards mort-
gaged it to the trustee, of the society to secure the advances.
The clai:nant paid to the society ill. Its. per annum,
V. lbs. of which was applied to the payment of interest,
and the rya-Under in liquidation of the principal. The
ease found that le, default had been made in any payment,
and the amount due on the lot of January to the society
was 47; 19s. 3d. Under these circumstances it was
contended that such contributions were in law and feet an
sonnet thus;(- upon the estate, beyond the annual value,
which, tlieria,re, did not amount to 405. annually after the
payment of all charges. The revising barrister was of
opinion that the weekly payment of 4s. 6cl. was charged
upon tte, estate, and should he deducted from the annual
value thereof, which was thereby reduced below 40m.
This being an, he held that there was no right to vote,
and Lc soar( d the name of the claimant. If only sc much
of the weekly payment as was payable in respect of in-
terisit. viz., 2/. IG.. per annum, was to be deducted from
the annual value, the same was to be restored to its
place upon the list; but if not, the decision was to stand,
and - wee to be struck out.
Mr. It Keane now addressed the court on be-
half of the appellant, and contended that, hot-
withatandiug the derision which been given by
the court on previous occasions, it was the duty of
the revising barrister to estimate the property of
the appellant at larger earn than 40. h. a year, inasmuch as
the only distinction which ho ought to make was tam
21. lbs. pa3able fur interest, leaving his annual estate to be
31. 4a. fhe :set stated theta mu/wager in actual powession
or receipt of the rent or profit should vote, notwithstanding
midi mortgage • and is this case the appellant was a mort-
gagor in PEtetlo.ols' having more than 40a. a year
interest in Hie same alter the payment of interest upon the
an borrowed. The statute tS Henry %I. enacted that all
personas dwelling in counties, having 411 s. a year at least
out of laud above all charges, should be entitled to vote.
He had looked into the matter, and he found that the
French word used by, the legislature was " reprisee,"
instead of " charges ; and he inquired into the
aheaning. of this curd, end found in a book
of high standing, called " Terms of the Law,"
the word defined to mean, "deductions and payments
which go patty, and are pail out of manor," este. ;
cad in " Jacob'. Law Dictionary " it was described shortly
no
"deduction, fruits profits." Now the only outgoing of
this kind paid by tile appellant was for interest, and the re-
mainder of the payment made by him wan not a deduction
from Kolas, but a payment for which the repellant got a
benefit, for in the ratio in which ho paid his interest 111 the
estate was enlarged.
The Chief Justix—You mean that he is a growing free-
holder, so to speak.
Mr. Keane —Yes, that was sn. The amount paid for in-
terest was paid by him for the privilege of being allowed
time to pa) the principal in, but beyond that every pay-
ment increased the talent ul his estate.

The Chief Justice—But 111. 11,. was paid yearly, and
that reduced the value to lee. than the amount neeetwary to
give the mite.
Mr. Keaue submitted that the profit was the difference
between the hi. and the amount paid fur interest on the
sum borrowed.
Mr. Justice Maule—One of the old statutes said that
voters wen• to be those who could " dispend " 40e. a year.
Mr. Keane said that that was the statute of Henry VI.
to which he had ieferreil. Themetutittg of the statute was,
that voter. should have a. much as 4Us. a year its laud, aced
he ►ubmitted that theappe limit had value to the extent of
31. 45.; for it he were to lay out that amount in buying
land, it would c!, irly be dispensing" it within the mean-
ing of the art. and it was the wase thing it lie expended it
in payiug Ins mortgage mt. Supposing that the decision of
the revimq barrister ware correct this year, it must be true
in the last year of the society, wbeu there would be uuly
111. Ha. to be paid.
The Clitef Justice—But the fact would then be different.
The revising barrister found that what had been paid was
net worth 4th. a year ; but in the last year of the society
anybody would give that amount fur the interest which the
clamant Lai in it.
Mr. Jamie, Williams—Suppose a man were devisee of an
estate worth lOW. a year, subject to an annuity for tire years
of 11,10/ , would he be entitled to vote during the bye years
for which the annuity was payable ?
Mr. Ke my agreed that he ...tuna not.
Mr. Ju•tux Maule thought that the question at present
as what could be gut from a teuant for the appellant's
estate. . . .

'Me Chief Justice--Would a tenant take the estate of the
appellant, awl give him year for it ?
Mr. Krim admitted that he would not, but contended
that hit client's interest iirthe property was measured Ds the
ditferessee between IV. and'!/. Ilia. fhe remainder ups the
PAM paid was not interest our a " reprise," for it was ex-
pended is such a manner that he always got an equivalent
fur il._ .

Mr. Judie.. Maule supposed the learned counsel num-
bered that t., le wan.. similar coo. in this court some time
sem is whieti the V 111110.1131, a member of a building society,
lad tnertgueed his estate for lIWJ.
Mr. Kesse--Ymi. That was the cue of " Lee v.llntehin-
see Ca Let. Hew caws, lie), which turned upon the 28th
Urine 111., and he SUOUtitted that the court, in deciding
that use, dad net IMMINS to have barite in mind that that
act was repeeled in the following year after it was enacted;
nod in fact the words in it did not govern the mints is the
$ Henry. 6.
Mr. Justice Mettle —The court, in deciding that case, was
sot, by any means, ignorant that the act hail been re-
pealed, fur tiny knew that the practice was very different
now to what it would have barn under that act, although
they had not mentioned it partieularly. Suppose, for in.
stance, that the dieing° laid down in one of theStar•ehamber
CAW, was reternal to in a judgment, would it be said that
the court was not counasaat of the het that the Star-
chamber Court was abolished ?
Mr. Keane drew the ultimata's of the court to the ease of
Copeland v Bartlett '• (6 B.), in which cue Mr. Justice
Mate was reported to have said " It is said that the ap-
pelleaps infra st in the mot team was not stated, and if it
were ant.-li.ii it might be thated.•• So that then the court
iseided without ►mowing the amount of his interest: bat
is the present ewe their lordships were enabled to WC what
meow of thy annual rav lactlt was sof tests-tOst anti what
for principal, This being so they mull see that the amount
paid for interest lilt MM. than 10s. a sear. and be there-
fore whin:hal that to decide against the right to vote
would b to depart from the intention both of the statute of
Henry VI , and id moil, rn legoletiim.
Mr. Beaman, for the reeporident, shortly addressed the
court, sad submitted that the question was simply what
was the value of the estate in question to the appellant when
hie income from it was W., and hie outgoing* amounted to
upwards of 111. Thu being the state of facie, i was diffi-
cult to come to any other conclusion than that the appel-
lant's proecrty was ant of any annual value to him. The
learned counsel on the other side appeared to have con-
founded the value of the land with the voter's interest in
it, but if the question were properly considered he submit-
ted that it would be found to be preeisely the tame as that
decided in the use of Lee r. llutehinsos." and that the
app .oil must accordingly be dismissed.
Mr. It I:eane them replied. and contended that the
learned comael foe the respondent had not at all dealt
with the line of argument which he hail adopted.
Ther'lnet Justice said it seemed to him that this ease was
governed ba thou. of "Lee r. liatchiuson,- and •• Ceps:limit
e. Bartlett,'• for the real matter was not to enter into any
minute and subtle way in which the statute might be avoided,
but to look to see what citate this claimant had. 'The court
must molt rstand this estate to be worth what was paid for
it, and applying that tint the value was fouud to be W., but
lie paid in respect of that interest a sum of money amount-
ing to 111. and upwards. This being so it was worth to
him yearly a minus quantity—nothing. That was the
simpler, way of deciding the matter. A society of this
!Ind might go on foe twenty years, and in the 20th year a
altareholdir might commi. such a breach that his estate
would be entirely gone. It teemed to him that this was
another attempt to avoid the plain meaning of the statute.
The other judges concurred, and the appeal was dis-
missed with costs.
UUSTON (APPFLI.tNT) r. Bnooes (Resroatarar.)—
CLAM OF a HAPTII,4 MI2II.IEK atarieT Or Tea
CIIALPFL Horse..
This 11"3. an appeal from the southern division of North-
amptonshire, and arose out of the following circumstances.
The respondent was minister of the Baptist Chapel, at
Rude, and he claimed to vote in respect of his interest in
the chapel-house, which by the trust deed he had a right
to oecupy without paying any rent. The revising barrister
held that the vote was good.
Mr. Ilumfrey was proceeding to read the case, when a
difficulty arose in consequence of its not being signed by the
retinas, barrister; and, after some discussion had taken
place, it was agreed that the matter should be heard by
consent of both sides.
The Chief Justice—My learned brother Miule informs
me that I have to give an account to the House of Com-
mous of what I do under this act, and if this ease is heard
and I report that we have repealed part of the statute under
which we act by consent, and also have by consent rejected
a vote which otherwise would have been allowed I shall
violate the law. (A laugh.)
Mr. Hayes—Then I must withdraw my consent, for I
cannot consent to a violation of the law. (Laughter.)
Some further disenssien then ensued. and the books ulna
the matter were referred to; and it was at length arranged'
that the appeal should be bend.
Their lordships however, without hearing Mr. Hayes,
dismissed the appeal with costs.
Janne (Arreta.asr) e. Tea TOWN-CLARK or Saaawl•
scar (itssrotewawe).
la this ease It was stated that the ',easiest only op-

peered out of respect to the court, but his counsel thought
the point raised could not be argur.,d, end the appeal was
thcretnre allowed.
SHEDDEN (APPELLANT) r. BUTT (RrsroNneNr).
This appal was struck out in consequence of only two,
instead of four, paper books baring been delivered.
BURTON (APPELLANT) IL IliAnn AND PIPTEZN OTHERS
(I:aerosol:Nth.)
This appeal was from the southern division of North-
emptonshire, bat t►e revising barrister had not signed the
case, and nobody appeared for the reapoadeata. Under
these circumstances the appeal was struck out.
Morro:is FOR Now TRIALS.
In the following cases, which were moved during the
term, the court to-day granted rule., Tic , Bloom v. Bell,
White v. Morris and others, and Macdonald v. Evans.

COURT OF EXCHEQUEIL—YESTERDAY.
eirretas ass NlO l'Arlo.llll7ool MIL MAIM. Moans.
O'REILLY S. eIItaCEILL.—LIDEL.T/CE " MEDICAL
Tutus."
This was en action to recover damages for a certain false,
scandalous, and malicious libel, published by the defendant,
the publisher of the Medical Times, in his newspaper of
Nov. 2, 11110, reflecting upon the plaintiff.
Mr. Ilurnfrey, is ttatin2 the case, said that in the
course of the lest year there was ,a society called the
Medical Protection Office, in which the plaintiff had been
engaged tot atone time as the assistant secretary, and in
which he had conducted himself entirely to the satisfaction
of those by whom be was employed. The society, however, '
fell into difficulties, and the plaintiff thought that he could
set up another bovine-4 of a similar character for himself.
Ile accordingly established a new office in Foley-place, to
which he gave the name of the Medical and General
Agency Office, it being, in fact, a society instituted by
medical teen fur the purpose of protecting themselves from
various frauds, and to enable them to procure without the
expense of • lengthened litigation sums of money which
might be doe to them from their patients. The plaintiff
bast had nothing whatever to do with the unfortunate cir-
cumstances connected with the old office, for he
had only been its servant. His new office was being
carried on with every prospect of success, and
was doing very wcU, wlieu there appeared in
the Medial Tines one of the most tc endalous libels that
coukl be issued by an anonymous scoundrel, who had not
the courage I. put his name to what he wrote. He (Mr.
Ilunsfrey) did nut think it would be for the good of society
to criticise over nicely what might be said of public per-
sons or in.titutions ; but when an individual adopting the
title of " Fiat Justin.," or " A Lover of Justice," or such
ponsense, chose to publish an atrocious libel to which he
dared not affix his own name, lest he should be soundly
horsewhipped, it became their duty to mark in an unlae-
takeable manner their sense of such conduct. Ihe learned
counsel then read the libel, which was as follows
" The Medical and Surgical l'ractitioners' Society.—('To
the Editor of the Medical Tiates.)—Sir,—The manliness
and public spirit with which you have exoosed, from time
to time, the shameless conduct of the Medical Protection
Office entitle you to the gratitude of every member of our
profession. ]our faithfulness to our interests will be re-
worded. The profession are too easily duped, and seem
positively to delight in the process, in accordance with the
old Iludibtastic principle, that
The Mason is as grist
in tame seemed sa t chest.
I nnelentsind, sir,that notwithstanding all you have written,
one Mr. O'Reilly, the managing man of Brearey's office,
and, as lam told, the getter-up and factotum of the cele-
brated Mail Delivery Office, has had the audacity to at-
tempt the establishing of another nautical protection office,
somewhere in the locality of Foley-place, and that he had
actually sent round circulars to the profession, and found
men silly enough to confide their account,' to him for col-
lection. This hornet's nest must be dispersed and every
member of it driven beyond the limits of the :prokasion.
If the 'imitator' honestly wish to dissociate themtelver
from disreputable connezious, and to protect the it own in-
terests, they will effectually put down all such attempts as
I have referred to by joining the Medical and Surgical
Practitioners' Soeiety—a society founded and directed by
media men, and subjected to an excellent code of laws,
which, faithfully administered, will secure the interests of
all the members. The men now at the helm are, for the
most part, well known to the profession, and worthy of aU
confidence ; and I trust that the society, to which I may add
I have entrusted my own accounts, will be warmly sup-
ported, 110 that by union and co-operation in a truly frater-
nal spirit we may promote the common good. I say, then,
to all my brother members, rally round the Medical and
Surgical Practitioners' Society, and defeat all the efforts
made by a set of cunning sdventuters to impose upon your
confidence. As an evidence of what this new society is
doing, it has collected fur me since its formation IV.
from among a mass of debts which, whilst in the hands of
the defunct Medical Protection Office, brought me exactly
twelve pence. 1 was informed at the office last week that
it was going on prosperously, and I have no doubt, if the
profes-ton do their duty towards it, that it will prove •
great boon.—l am, sir,
When this letter appeared, an application was made is
the defendant to give up the name of the author, but he
declined. The jury would observe what was the real story
of the libel. It was quite competent for any one to puff
his own business ; and it was only the other day that he
(the learned counsel) had seen an advertisement which
I stated that " the only fact acknowledged by all the philo-
sophers in the world was that the only real spint in the
world was Betts's patent brassily." (Load laughter.) Bat
that advertisement did not go on to say that all other
brandy merchants were a set of knavm. He could not tell
what medical men had to do with the mail delivery office,
fur he should have thonght that the female delivery office
would hove been more in their way—(roars of laughter)—
but the insinuation was that it was some swindling com-
pany, and the plaintin was stated to be its getter up and
factotum. This, then, WAS the real sting of the litiel, and
he had no doubt that the jury would award his client sub-
stantial damages for the injury which had been done him
by its publication.
The admission that Mr. Churchill was the publisher of
the Medics! Times, having been put in, Mr. Ilumfrey
called
Theophilus Simmons, who said—l knew the plaintiff
when he was in the otßee of Mr. Urearey, the manager of
the Medical Protection Society. I have read the libel and
have no doubt that it refers to him.
Crese-ezamined by Mr. Chambers—l am a clerk at the
Medical l'iotection Society, Ci, Lincoln's Inn-fields. Mr
O'Reilly is now in no way connected with it. It is
governed by a president and a committee. Mr. l'ropert, of
New Cavendish-street, Cavendisk-square, is the president.
Mr. Bre:trey has nothing to do with it now. Mr. O'Reilly
ens connected with it in May 1819, when I joined the
ease. We both continued to belong to it until September
WOO, when it was broken up. Mr. O'Reilly was assis-
tant secretary, but was cot a collector; that is
bo slid nut go out collecting, but when debtors brought
mow to the office he received it. The business of the
oilloo was the cokes:tine of debts and the disposing of me-
dial practices. It had been established about six months,
when I became clerk. Medical men subscribed u guinea a
year each so the office, and also paid • commission on the
seam:its reetivemil for them. There were about 1,200 sub-

warm Mr. 0' Miley used to ~h. unbseriptieMs. Me.
alliany is now living at Blackheath. Ds Is in court; but
ba did not cone with me. I have seen Mr. O'Reilly tnis
wanting. 1 met him and Mr. Brearey together. Mr.
imam has now an other in John-street, Adelphi. It is
ea
aim floe the discovery of lost addresses. CA laugh.)
Mr. Chambers—Why, *hat is that? Is it an office for
the discovery of lovers addressee ? (Renewed laughter.)
Witness—Allow me to explain. In a metropolis like
this there is an immense number of tradesmen who are hieing
money every day, because their debtors go away, and they
cannot find them. Mr. Brearey has established an office
for the purpose of discovering their addresses, and when he
has found them out he has persons to apply to them for
the amount of their debts. Ile has been engaged in this
b as fur about six mouths. I believe that he is an as.
tunny ; but he slid not practise as such when he was awl
ringer of the Medical Protection office. Mr. William Vaal)
Eyre did the legal business- When the office was bream
ap there was a very large deficiency, but Idu not bars
wiMt it was. The society lasted about a coup.e of yaws.
The eleficieney artier from not paying over the money veer
waved from debtors. When the society broke up it was
amigucil to a committee, and its business is still carried on
la Liiicolii's.inn.fields, where the books of the old office
still remain. Mr. Henry Farmer is now the superintendent.
I have the management of the County Court depart-
ment. I heard that some of the books were lea
They were thrown into the Thames. I cannot tell by
whom. There was a- lad in the other whose business it
was to put them by at night when the other clerks left at
five o'clock. One night be had seen them all sate, and the
next morning they were in the Thames. (A laugh.) They
were found loon afterwards, I believe, by a waterman. I
have seen them since, and they look to be in a very whole-
some condition. I do not know whether when the meet-
ing of the subscribers at the break-up of the society was
held the books were safely in the Thames. The society
kept a 'ranking account at Dixon's in Chancery-lane. Per-
seus used to complain that they could not get their cheques
paid there. That was of constantly increasing occurrence.
I cannot tell whether Dixon gave up the account. I never
had any convenatiou on the subject with either
O'Reilly or Brearey. About six months before the
break up cheques were drawn down stairs on Mr.
Brearey Li? stairs. Those cheques were signed byMr.o' Reilly,
Mr. Green (the secretary), and myself. Those cheques were
wet always paid. Sometimes they were crossed and paid
to the bankers. I don't know that Brearey bad a banker's
license, O'Reilly used generally to see the parties who
came about their money. I never heard him called the
bully of the office. The parties who could not get their money
often used to make a great clamour. O'Reilly used to tell
them that he would rend them a cheque. I believe that
they were not always satisfied with that promise, but these
things did not make any impression on me. (Laughter.)
We used to have our own salaries regularly up to the last
lay. (A laugh.)
Mr. Chambers—May I ask what was your salary ?
Witness—Certainly not ; I think it is an impertinent
vacation. (Laughter.)
Mr. Chambers—Don't say that lam impertinent. It is
slander to say that a lawyer is impertinent. (Laughter.)
Witness—l was not recommended to my present situa-
tion by Mr. Brearey. I was recommended by a gentleman
whose character stands high above all suspi2ions. equally
with Mr. Chambers.
Mr. Chambers—You must not say equally with mine,
because perhaps it does nit.
Witness—l never said it did. (Laud laughter,)
Mr. Chambers—Well, if your friend's stands equally high
with mine you know the result. (Laughter.)
Witness—Not a sous was paid for my situation. Mr.
O'Reilly is now in practice as a surgeon. lie showed me
'the libel on time dtb of November, 1850. The Medical
Tine, publishes' a retractation of the assertion that Mr.
O'Reilly was maimed with the mail delivery office.

Besides se there were in the office Mr. Green, the
secretary ; Messrs. Castles, Packer, Pratt, Rolleiton,
Ilerlwrt and Evans. Mr. Wintour via., a collector. I am
friendly with O'Reilly now. He mentioned to me that
Mr. Eyre had said that he cO'lteilly) Mid proposed to him
to keep the commission on old., which hail been recovered
for Mr. Gorlay, a subscriber, and not to tell Mr. Dreamy ;
but O'Reilly denied that foe charge was true. lie aleo
told me that Packer had charged him with receiving 41. fur
procuring a subscriber named Part, but he said it was an
untruth. Likewise that ho had received money of John
Keaggs, which he also denied. Ale., that he had been ac-
cused of receiving money of William Knowles to procure
him a situation; and also with receiving money from Mr.
Adams, both of which he also denied. O'Reilly first
started an °See in Foley-place, which he called the Phar-
maceutical office ; but iu about two months lie changed its
name to the Medical General Agency Office. It was finally
shut up in consequence of this libel.
Re-examined—O'Reilly had no more to do with the con-
cern, of the old office than the other clerks. When it was
broken up he endeavoured to establish another on the same
principle. O'Reilly's office, as far as I knew, was conducted
respectably and with every prospect of good success As
far as I know, O'Reilly hail nothing to do with the loss of
the books or with the deficiency. O'Reilly came to me to
consult rue upon the pleas which had been pleaded on the
other side, and then he told me of the charges to which re-
ferenee hu hien made.
This was the plaintiff's case.
On the part of the defence the following retraetation,
which appeared in the Medical limes, three weeks after the
libel, was read:
" A statement in a letter signed 'Philo,' and recently
published in our journal, to the effect that Mr. O'Reilly
was the getter-up and factotum of the celebrated Mail
Delivery-office haviog given pain to that gentleman, we
take this opportunity oldie-associating MeO'lleilly's name
from the alleged connexion with that office, as we have
been assured that he never was in any way a party either
to the formation or the management of such public com-
pany.—(Ed. Medical Tiates.)"
Mr. Chambers then proceeded to address the jury at
great length on behalf of the defendant, commenting with
much severity on the defalcations of the )101/C4 Deception
Society, as he said it ought to be called; and arguing that
the defendant had not exceeded his duty in warning the
profession and the public, that one who had taken so active
a share iii its management was starting a similar company
of his own. Desid,s, what Mr. Humphrey had declared to
be the very sting of the libel, had been formally retracted;
and therefore if the jury thought they were compelled to
give damages at all, a turthing would be a deal too much.
The learned judge, in summing up, expressed his opinion
that the letter in the Medical Times was really a libel, but
left the question of damages entirely to the jury, who found,
after a few seconds' deliberation, a verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages, one farthing.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—VESTERDAT.
lissom Ma. 0,10111•PlOYM
IN TUE MATTER OW VIACOUNT Di SERVEVILLE.
This insolvent, Charles flypolitus Mansell, Viscount Dc
Sequeville, applied under the Protection Act fur his final
order.
Mr. Cooke opposed far Captain Bristow, and Mr. Nichols
supported.
ho care had been before the court on some former occa-
sions; the last time in July, when the discharge was
ordered, and the present bearing appointed for the final
order. The point now raised was that a debt of 200 f. had
been incurred with Captain Bristow without reasonable or
probable expectations of payment.
It appeared that the insolvent had been the managing
director of the Duisburg iron Company, which failed through
the political state of Germany a few years back, and the
affairs of the company were now before one of the Masters
in Chancery under the Wiuding•up Act. lie obtained
200/. of Captain Bristow on, it was alleged, some scrip of the
company, but the insolvent alleged that it was a private
debt to assist him in the formation of the same. Besides
the debt Captain Bristow had been put to about 801. Law
expenses by t e insolvent pleading to an action he brought
against him to recover the 2004.
Mr. Cooke thought that the costs so contracted for the
vexatious defence might be considered as a debt incurred
without probable expectation of payment.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips said the legislature had
omitted a vexatious defence from the l'rotection Act. It
was certainly an anomalous state of things, that in the
other act under which a man could not apply without going
to prison, it should be an offence; and under this in-
dulgent act, which was available without imprisonment,
that it should be omitted. it was certainly very strange,
and as it was omitted, ho could not consider that it came
within the section of contracting a debt without reasonable
or probable expectation of payment.
The insolvent, on his arrest in May last, petitioned under
the Protection Act, and applied for his discharge before
hearing. Ile was opposed on the part of Captain Brist4w,
and his application refused on the ground that the debt
had been incurred without reasonable expectation of pay-
ing it. lle remained in prison until the end of July, when
he applied to be heard and was not opposed. On that oc-
casion lie was discharged, and had remained at large till
the present occasion, when he applied fur his final order.
Mr. Cooke thought the court had exceeded its duty, as
the discharge should nut have been granted till the final
order. Capt. Bristow was out of town, and had Lot op-
posed when the application was made.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips was of opinion that as there
sow no opposition when the application ass made, that the
insolvent was entitled to his discharge.
Mr. Cooke still urged upon the court that the 2001. debt
had been contracted without reasonable expectation of pay-
ment, and referred to the insolvent's schedule, and the
debts he owed at the time he obtained the advance.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips, wittiest deciding whether
the money was advanced ou scrip or as a private debt, was
of opinion that looking at the debts the insolvent owed,
that it was incurred without reasonable menus of payment.
Ile could not consider that the expectancies of the insolvent,
• as to certain speculations were to be considered reasonable.
There was no fraud in the case, but he could not grant the
final order.
At the rising of the court the learned Commissioner said
• he had considered the three months' imprisonment the
insolvent had already suffered, and he might come up in a
week.
The insolvent asked for protection.
Mr. Commissioner l'hillips told him ho would willingly
give it, but he had no power; he might .tome up on 'Elmira-
! day next (or his final order.