The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-15 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 15, 1853.

wished ; it is the property of the trustees of Lady Olengall.
There is property bought by Lady (Bengali out of her pri-
vate income. The trustees have bought a good deal of fur-
niture. Lady Olengall has bought a sofa or something of
that kind, but I really don't take notice of those kind of
things. I can't sly anything of the value. I know no
more of what goes into the house than of what gees into
the next door.
Mr. Bramwell said be appeared for the sheriffs ; he did
not appear for Lord (Bengali, who was not in any way
concerned in the defence to this action. The property of Irish
proprietors had been in such a state as to render it not at all
unlikely that Lnrd Olengall shou'.l and himself in the
situation be had stated. The defence to this action was
this—that, before this writ of execution was placed in the
hands of the sheriff, several other writs of execution against
Lord Olengall, amounting to a sum of 2,3001., had been
deposited with him, and had not been satisfied ; the sheriff
could not, therefore, execute the last writ until the others
had been satisfied. He should prove that these different
writs hod been in the bends of the sheriff before he received
the plaintiff's writ, and he should then be entitled to a
verdict.
The different writs having been put io,
Mr. Justice Erle said he took the law to be this—that if
' writs we re lodged with Vie sheriff for execution, and if
there was no fraudulent collusion shown to keep tam un-
executed, those writs were entitled to priority, and the dee
&octant would be entitled to a verdict.
The jury at once returned a veriiet for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—TESTERDAT.
Ilsrmos BANCo.—Bzroas Cult► Justin Ja.kva. Ma. JINTICN
Matax., Ma. J circa Caaastrt.y AND Ma. Jvor.cs WILLIAXS.

VOL►NT v. SOTS` ►ND SYNIONO.—CHAsOII OF ►LTERINO

A RECEIPT.

The plaintiff in this case was formerly in the service of
the defendants, and he brought his action to recover
511. lEs. for work don:. The trial took place before the
Chief Justice at the sittings after last term in Middlerea,
when the jury found • verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Home now moved fur a new trial on the part of
Mr. Symons; the other defendant, M. Boyer, having suf=
feted judgment by default. In the course of the trial Mr.
Michael, an attorney, was called as a witness, and asked
to produce a certain deed, but he objected to do so, and
appealed to the Chief Justice whether he was bound to
produce the title deed of his client, who was no party
to the suits; and his lordship told him that he was
not bound to produce it. The learned counsel now stated
that the deed was not really a title deed, and he submitted
that it was the duty of the judge to look at the deed, to
••• what it was, before telling the witness that he was not
Wand to produce it. Another point was that u receipt
signed by the plaintiff, dated the 6th November, 13.51, for
Si. 7s. for services rendered at Gore-house, was produced,
and on it there appeared the words "to this date." The
plaintiff mauled that these words had been added since
he signed the receipt, and Mr. Symons denied that any
alteration had been made. It was now urged upon the
wart that this charge of altering the receipt, or forgery, as
it was called, had come upon Mr. Symons by surpnoe,
consequently, he had no opportunity of answering it, and
that there should be • new trial to enable him to do so.
Upon this part of the case an affidavit was produced deny-
ing the truth of the charge and corroborating the statement
as to surprise.
The Chief Justice said the court was of opinion that be
was right in allowing the witness to decline to psi-
duce the deed. As to the point of surprise, it was sea
of importance. On the one hand, there was a chat.
made by Mr. Symons, against the plaintiff and his wittier,
of perjury : and on the other hand they charge Mr. Symons
with torgory and perjury. The jury were of opinion that
the words " to this dote " had bnn added to the receipt,
and Mr. lionie asked for a further opportunity to go before
a jury, upon the ground that serious charges were made
against his clients ; but if that was a proper ground, a
similar application would be made in every case where
tho plaintiff and defendant were examined, and gave con-
trary evidence. And if the application were granted, this
would follow, that beeawse Mr. Symons had been charged
with forgery sad perjury, the court afforded him a fresh
opportunity of charging with perjury M. Volant and his
witness, who had been in effect acquitted by the joy.
But the charge against Mr. Symons did not nectars*
amount to forgery, for it might very well be, that le
thought the receipt was in effect a receipt up to the date it
bore ; and to put the matter beyond doubt he bad added
the words. This, of coarse, was highly improper, but it
did not amount tea charge f forgery.
Mr. Justice Mauls—As to the point of surprise, theinght
a great deal more had been made of the matter than need
be. The real fact was that the receipt was put in by the
defendant, and he said it was signed II the plaintiff. The,
plaintiff said, " No ; it was not signed by me in the con-
dition in which it is at present." The jury had to decide
whether they were satisfied that it was signed in its then
condition, and they said they were not. They might say
that they were not satisfied that it was signed in its present
condition, but that was very far from saying that Mr.
Symons was guilty of forgery.
The other judge were of the same opinion, and the rule
was accordingly refused.
Mr. Horne then stated that the receipt had been im-
pounded, and after the opinions of their lordships, he ap-
plied that it might be dis-impounded.
The court granted this application.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-YESTERDAY.
BQoasYi.Oouuuw.n °mums.
IN as LOADRIL. . .

-----
The baultuvi was of Finebury-pavement, upholsterer.
This was the adjourned last examination meeting. The
debts are 13,000[. ; masts, 6,000 f. Five shillings in the
pound has been paid.
Mr. Bagley. for the assignees, opposed ; Mr. Linklater
supported.—The examination was adjourned sine die.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YEsnatray.

Berms win CM'? Connissweea.
Is Tint MATTIS or CHAIM'S ABEALI•11 Pa/LIL
This insolvent, described as a gentleman, who had been
connected with the turf, applied to be discharged under the
act. Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dome appeared to oppose fur
some creditors at Doncaster.
The ease was originally before the court on Friday last,
when an application was made on the part of the opposing
creditors that it might be adjourned for the attendance of •
Mr. Cancanlien, from Lincoln's-inn, to whom the insolvent
had given a bill of sale of ten race horses he possessed. The
bill of sale was given within three months of the petition,
and it wis admitted that the arrest was • friendly pro-
ceeding in order to benefit the estate. The case was ad-
journed to the present occasion, and the party was not in
attendance, the insolvent declaring that he bad no means
to bring him up from the country.
Mr. Dowse objected to the cue being beard without the
party from the country.
The insolvent said he had paid for bis own arrest in order
to defeat the bill of sale, and bad come front France.
Mr. Dowse remarked that the insolvent's wife had an
income of upwards of 3001. a year, and it was proved that
within a few days of the last examination he had re-
ceived 261.
The insolvent said he had paid something to the clerk of
his attorneys.
The Chief Commissioner observed that the creditors
would perhaps not press the cue, if there was nothing
material in it.
Mr. Dowse said the creditors were most anxious to know
what had become of 1,3001. worth of property.
The court ordered as adjournment.