The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-23 00:00:00

lab) Entelltactut.

NOTICES.
11106 COURT or GnAtectir.-Bittingo after Trinig Term, 1848, at
Line-aisle-inn, at 10 each day.-(Before the Lord aneellor.)-Firot
seal. June 24: second seal, July 6 ; third real, July 18 ; fourth
July 29. Appeal motions and appeals each day. Appeal., June 26,
27, 28, 29, July I, 3,4, 5,8, 10, 11, 12. 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25,
26, 27. Petition days, unopposed petitions and appeals: June so,
July 6, 11, 21, 28. Ceeneral petition day : July 31. (Such days as his
lordship sits in the flow o 1 Lords excepted.)
Vics-Caseasiaano'.-(Before the Vice-Runeellor of England.)-
Seal days. Motions: June 24, July 6, 18, 29. Piet, demurrers, I
exeepticea, causes, and further direction: June 23, 27, 20, 29, July I,
3,4, 5,8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13 17, 19, 20, 22, 21, 25, 26, 27. Petition
days Petitions (unopposed first) abort causes, and causes, June 30,
July 7, It, 21, 28. General petition day : July 31. honour will
take unopposed petitions at the bead of the paper everyday during the
sittings-(Before Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce.)-Seal days. Mo-
tions: June 24, July 6, 18, 29. Bankrupt petitions: June 26, July 3,
10, 17, 24, August 5, 9. Bankrupt petitions and equity causes, &c. :
Jane 28, July 5, 12, 19, 26. Plea% demurrers, exeeptione, causes,
and further directions : June 27, 29, July 1, 11, 13. 20, 2.5, 27. Peti-
tion days. Petitions and &C.; June 30, July 7, ti, 21, 28.
Short causes and causes : July 1,8, 15, 22. General petition day.
Petitions and bankrupt petitions July 31.-(Before Vice-Chancellor
Wigram.)-seal days. Motions and causes : June 24, July 6, 18, 29.
Plea., demurrers, exceptions, causes, and further directions : June
26, 27, 26, 29, 30, July 3,4, 5,7, 10, 11, 12, 13,14. 17, 19, 20, 21,14,
25, 26, 27. Short eaten, petitions (unopposed first), and causes :
July 1,8, 15, 22, 26. General petition day. Petitions : July 31.
The sittings will close on the 10th of August.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
In Committee of Privileges.
THE CIIANYPI:DD AND LINDSAY PEEHADES.—The claim
of the Earl of lialcerres to the Scotch dignities of the earl-
dom of Crawfurd and barony of Lindsay has been before the
committee tor privileges frequently in 1845, 1846, and 1847,
and lastly on the 16th of May is the present year, when
Sir F. Kelly, of counsel for the claimant, stated that the evi-
dence on his part was then closed ; and the Lord Advocate,
on behalf of the crown, said that he should be prepared,
when the documents and other evidence taken on that day
were printed, to state his view of them.—On the meeting of
the committee now for that purpose, the Lord Advocate
said (as we understood him) that the evidence of the origin
of both the dignities and the descent of them appeared to
him to be satisfactory, and if their lordships were satisfied
that the claim to the earldom of Crawfurd was made Elut—
es he was -probably they would also think the claim
to the other dignity was proved. He, however, on perusal
of the new evidence taken on the 16th cf May last,
thought it disclosed the existecce of further proofs of the ex-
tinction of the line of David Lindsay of Edzell, and 'Perhaps
their lordships would be of opinion that it ought to be sup-
plied.—Sir F. K,lly and Mr. Wortl, y, for the claimant, said
they had no notice of this objection, and it came by surprise
on them. They then directed the attention of the com-
mittee to the evidence already given as to the extinction of
the Edzell branch, and they had the fullest confidence in its
sufficiency and conclusiveness in support of the claim.—
Several I:rds of the committee expressed opinions to the
effect that all the evidence that could be obtained ought to be
laid before them, because, if, upon the evidence as it now
stood, they were to report in favour of the claim, and after-
wards a descendant of the branch of Edzell—a nearer branch
than this claimant—were to appear and present a claim,
there would be an injury without remedy, for the claimant's
title, once admitted in pursuance of the report of the house,
could not be revoked.—Sir F. Kelly said that, in considera-
tion that the utmost deference was due to any suggestion of
their lordships, and, from respect to the opinion of the Lord
Advocate, the claimant's agents would search for
such further evidence as way suggested, so as to
be able to produce it, er prove that it was not
in existence. He was quite sure that any further evidence,
if it could be produced, would have the effect not of weaken-
ing but of strengthening his case. He asked for a fortnight
for the purpose ; but the Lord Chancellor said it would be
better not to name say day now, but when the claimant
was ready a day would be appointed.
Tile TRACY PEERAGE.—The renewed claim of Mr. James
Tracy to the dignities of Viscount Tracy and Baron Tracy,
of Rathcoole, in Ireland, was brought before the committee
of privileges on the 23rd of March, 4th of May, and 15th of
June, 1647, and the history of the dignities and of the claims,
together with the principal features of the evidence given on
those days, was stated in the report in this journal. It mu)
be remembered that it was then stated that the only link
wanting in the claimant's pedigree in the investigation and
report of the house to the crown in 1843, was the want
of satisfactory proof that the claimant's grandfather
was third son of the English Judge Tracy. To
trapply that link the claimant produced on his renewed claim

last year, besides other evidence, the fragments of a tomb e
.tone stated to have formerly stood in the churchyard of
Castlebrack, in the King's County, and on the stone, put
together on the floor of the hotupe, was an inscription to the
effect that the person buried underneath (the claimant's
grandfather) was third son of the English judge TraKtcy. The
committee met now for the purpose of hearing Sir IV. Ily
su u the whole of the evidence taken on the days above
I mentioned.—The Attorney-Oeneral, on behalf of the crown,
said that witnesses, who were expected from Ireland to
prove (as we understood him to say) that the stone and in-
scription were ot recent manufacture, had not yet arrived,
and he ask,cl for a postponement, which their lordships
granted. No day was named.
A great number of ladies and gentlemen, who tilled all
the spates below the bar, seemed much disappointed at the
postponement.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Minim at Nail Prtua--Before Lord Denman and a Cmamon Jury.
WITTE AND ANOTHER T. SMITIL—LIADILITY OT A
PARTY WHO ALLOWS A LADY TO IitEPHESTNY HERSELF
AS HIS Wipe.—Mr. Knowles, Q.C., with whom was Mr.
Taylor, conducted the case for the plaintiffs; and Mr. E.
James appeared for the defendant.—From the opening
address of the learned counsel it appeared that the
plaintiffs were upholsterers and furniture dealers, carrying on
business at the bevel, litheretrcet, and the defendant was'
a Capt. Aaron S.uith, residing in one of the Camden Cot-
tages, Camden Town. The action was brought to recover'
the sum of 141. for articles of furniture sold in the month of
May, 1847, to a lady representing It, rself to be the wife of
the defendant. The goods in question had been ordered by
• lady who, in the month of September in the previous
year, had fur the first time called at the bursar, and ordered
furniture to the amount of between 501. and 601., which the
directed to be sent to Devonshire-place, Kentish Town. On
that occasion the lady, who came in a carriage, gave a card
with the name of " Mrs. Captain Smith" upon
it, and by her conduct led the plaintiffs to sup-
that she really was the wife of the defendant.
The furniture then bought was sent home to Devonshire-
place. and had been subsequently paid far by cheques which
bore the signature of the defendant. It was only on the
plaintiff's applying for the payment.of the 141. due fur the
goods bought in May, 1817, that they were informed that
the defendant was not married to the lady, whom he had au-
thorised to use his name. The learned counsel cmcluded by
saying, that the lady in question had lived with the defend-
ant for eleven years; that she had gone about with his
daughters ; and he should be able, if necessary, to prove
beyond all doubt that he had always recognised the contracts
which she hail entered into as his agent. Several witnesses
were called, who proved the purchue and delivery of the
articles ; after which Mr. E. James, without addre,sing the
jury, submitted that the plaintiffs had failed to make out
any case against the defendant. His lordship, however, ex-
pressed a different opinion, and the jury found • verdict for
the plaintiffs Inc the sum claimed, 141.
RUDDIDOE v. DATIES.—FALSE IMTRISONMENT.—Mr.
Word-worth was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Home,
with whom was Sir. H. Browne, conducted the case
for the defendant. The plaintiff in this action was • cab-
man, who had formerly been • cab proprietor, and the de-
fendant an attorney of this court. The action was brought
to recover compensation in damages for false imprisonment,
under the following circumstances: It appeared that a little
after midnight on last Lord Mayor's Day the defendant,
who was then in company with another person, called the
plain,iff off his stand in Piccadilly, and ordered him to drive
him to Camberwell. On arriving at Camberwell-gate the
&trade= discovered that he had been robbed, and stated
the fact to the toll collector and some bystanders. The
plaintiff then denied that he had robbed him, but said he
would pay the toll if the defendant on reaching his resi-
dence, which was close by, would pay him his fare. The de-
fendant then re-entered the cab, but on meeting a police-
man gave the plaintiff into custody on • charge of
having robbed him, stating that at the time when he hired
the cab he had 111. in his purse, but it was all gone. The
plaintiff was then locked up for the night, and taken before
the magistrate the next day, who remanded him to the 17th,
at the same time allowing him to enter into his own re-
cognieences to appear on that day to answer the charge. On
the 17th the plaintiff appeared, but the defendant was
absent, and the case was further adjourned until the 23rd, ea
which occasion the defendant again not appearing the plain-
tiff was discharged. To prove the plaintiff's case several
witnesses were called, hut they did not state any new facts in
addition to those we have already mentioned.—Mr. Home,
for the defence, contended that as a purse belonging to his
client was found in the cab, containio 11. 9a. 91, and as he
was intoxicated, and consequently in a position to be robbed,
he had good ground for giving the plaintiff into custody.
Therefore, under all the circumstances, he submitted that a
v.ry small amount of damages would meet the justice of the
case.—Lord Denman having summed up, the jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff ; damages, 401.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Niu Pure.—Before Mr. Justice limns and a special Jury:
The court was occupied all day with the trial of an issue
out of Chancery, " Hargrave r. Hargrave," involving the
question of the legitimacy of John R)lcrt Hargrave, a
minor, and claimant under the will of his alleged grand-
father, Thomu Hargrave, to one half share of the Saracen s
Head, Aldgate. It a likely the case may still take up one
or two more days, as the case for the claimant had not nearly
reached its conclusion at the rising of the court at 4 o'clock.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Pries, at Wistiobraer.—.Betas the Lord Chief Baron

and • Common Jury.
GREW V. HILL. - LIABILITY Or CONTRACTORS MOH
INJURY SUSTAINED THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE Or
THEIR SERVANTS. —Mr. Watson, with whom was Mr.
Thome, appeared for the pl tintiff, and Mr. Petendorff and
Mr. Pollock for the defendant. The plaintiff is a cigar dealer
and tobacconist at Oxford, and the defendant a contractor,
who had been engaged in the repair of a sewer in the Cam-
bridge-road, and the action was brought to recover damages
for serious injuries sustained by the plaintiff through the
negligence of the defendant, in leaving two heavy iron
gratings on the kerb stone of the foot-way at night, without
any light to warn paungers of the danger. It
was proved by the evidence of the policeman on
the beat, that on the night in question he came up to
the plaintiff, who had fallen over two iron gratings, about
two feet in height, left on the kerb stone. The plaintiff had
fallea down and his clothes were wet and dirty. lie wan
perfectly sober at the time. In crow-examination the wit-
ness stated that there are several gaslights on the road. The
one nearest the place of the accident might be from 16 to 20
yards off on the opposite side of the road. Several trades-
men well acquainted with the plaintiff proved that in
addition to the injury swtained by bis clothes being torn
and soaked in muddy water, his limbs were bruised aid dis-
coloured from the fall, and although he was able to attend
to his shop he could not for acme time go out to attend to
his business, which lay chiefly amongst the members
of the university, and also at Cambridge. The
duplicate of a letter from the plaintiff's solicitor, calling on
the defendant to make him some recompense for the injuries
he had sustabred, was put in. This letter was sent on the
12th of October last, and at the expiry of 1.5 days no answer
having been returned the present action was brought. Mr.
Watson said that was the case for the plaintiff.—Mr. Peters-
dorff submitted that no evidence had been adduced to con-
nect the defendant with the accident —Mr. Watson there-
upon called several witnesses, and put in an agreement to
show that a contract had been entered into between the com-
missioners of sewers and the defendant, for the repair of the
sewer in question. It wu also proved by two servants of the
commissioners, that the two gratings had been taken to the
place where the accident occurred, for the use of the defendant
a. contractor.—Mr. Petersdorff still insisted that the plain.
tiff had failed to prove the liability of the defendant —The
learned Judge said, u he must adjourn the further hearing
of the case, he should look into the contract, and give an
opinion on the point if neccasary.—Thejurther hearing was
then adjourned till this day.
EIGHTEEN JURYMEN FINED.-ABSENCE Or THE SHERIFF.
—During the absence of the jury, who had retired to con-
sider their verdict in • preceding case, the Chief Baron
directed • new jury to 1e sworn, in order to proceed
with the business of the court. The names of eighteen
jurymen were then called over, and none of them
answering the learned judge directed that they
should each be fined 61. The sheriff having been
called for, and not answering the Summons, his lordship di-
rected that be should be fined in the sum of 201. Before
the court rose Mr. Undersheriff Burchell appeared, and hav-
ing explained that his absence was owing to the discharge
of his judicial duties in the Sheriffs' Court, the Chief Baron
accepted of the explanation and ordered the fine to be re-
mitted.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
Sittings in Ferrbefortthe Judge! of the Courts of Queen's Bench

and Common from the Court of Exchequer.
LINDSEY V. CAPPER AND OTHERS.—JUDOSIENT.—This
case was argued en Wednesday, the point at issue, it will be
recollected, being as to the construction of a certain agree-
ment made between the Earl of Lindsey, the plaintiff, and
Mr. Capper and nine other persons, provisional directors of
Railwaythe projected Direct Northern: from London to
York. The writ of error was on a demurrer to a plea which
was overruled by the Court of Exchequer. Yesterday
morning the court gave judgment, reversing that of the
court below.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS. SERJEANTS' INN.
Before Mr. Justice Putteeon.
THE CHARTIST LEADERS.--THE QUEEN v. ERNEST C.
JONES.—Mr. Jmines Macnamara, solicitor, attended with a
Mr. Ford, to become bail for Ernest Charles Jones. Mr.
Macnamara said that the present application had been ad-
journed from Wednesday, by Mr. Justice Coleridge, on
which day the present bail attended. On that occasion he
was opposed by Mr. Haywood, on the part of the crown,
who thought be had not proved that he was competent to be
one of the sureties, when the learned judge (Mr. Justice
Coleridge) adjourned the case, to enable Mr. Ford to show
that he was worth sufficient to become the second surety for ,
Ernest Jones.—Mr. Haywood would request of his
lordship to recollect that the prisoner stood charged
with sedition, and therefore good and sufficient
security ought to be taken. Personally he had nothing to
say against it. Mr. Ford, he had every reason to be-
lieve was an honest and upright man, who was not indebted
a shilling. But still his property was not sufficient; the
amount of bail required for Jones was himself in 5001. and
two sureties in 2501. each. Now, from the inquiries which
Sergeant Rendell, of the detective police, had made, coupled
with the statement of the bail himself to Mr Justice Cole-
ridge, he could only show that he was worth 2541.. and this
of itself was not a sufficient security in a case where the
offence was that of sedition; hi sides which the proposed bail
had only been in possession of this property three months,
which of itself was a sufficient ohjection.—Mr. Islacnamsra
trusted that his lordship would not listen one moment
to the last objection. Whether the proposed bail had been in
possession of the property three years, three mouth'', or