The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-30 00:00:00

LOD lintelltgence.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY
COUNCIL -YrATERDA T.

The =inhere ;Fti;;;;litterpriTenito•day were tin
Right Hon. Sir J. Knight liruce, the Right Hen. Sir
J. Turner, t►e Right Hun. Sir J. Dedion, and the Right
lion. Sir Eawani Ryan.
WILXINSON AND OTHERS r. WILSON AND OTREILS—TEE

BOXAPARTZ-BOTTONHY -JUDO3SENT.

Dr. Addams and Mr. Will,. appeared for the appellants;
Dr. Jenner and Dr. Twin repri seated the respondents.
This is a second appeal from the liigh Court of Admiralty
in a cause of battomry, in which the salinity of the bond
was disputed, as far as regarded the cargo, which, as well
as the ship, was hypothecated in or by bond. On the first
appeal the committee intimated that the bond could only
be maintained in that part of it sought to be impeached, by
proof of a " sufficient communication" having been made
prior to its execution to the owners of the cargo, and that
the cause should be remitted to the Court of Admiralty in
order that it might be ascertained whether there had or had
cot been such "sufficient communication" to the own. rs

of the cargo prior to the execution of the bond.
The cause was accordingly remitted to the court below
for that purpose. After the cause was so remitted, affi-
davits were filed on each side in the court below, and the
case was argued before the judge of that court on the re-
served point only on such further affidavits, and :he present
appeal was made from, the sentence of Dr. Lushingtun, the
judge of the Admiralty Court, in favour of the bondholders.
The facts of the case are sh ally these :—The appellants are
Messrs. Wilkinson, Whitaker, and Company, merchants,
Hull; the respondents are Messrs. Wilson and Compose,
merchants, Hull. On the 10th of April, 1849, the respon-
dents brought a., action against the appellants, to recover
the value of a bond granted on the ship, freight, and cargo
of the ship Bonaparte, amounting, with maritime interest
at 15 per cent., to 4511. los. 4d. 'the appellants wire the
owners of the principal part of the cargo, which consisted
of iron, of the ship Bonaparte, which sailed from Gotten-
, burgh on the 13th of November, 1918, bound to Hull.
During the prosecution of her voyage, she co-
-1 countered bad weather, and became leaky, and it
became necessary that she should bear away to a place of
safety. She eventually came to anchor in South Koster
, Bay, and the master went to the owners, about 60 miles
distant, to obtain the necessary funds to pay for the repair
of the vessel ; but they informed him that they were with-
out cash, and that he must get the repairs effected at
Stromstad, sad there obtain the money which he did on
the bond now in dispute. The learned judge in the court
below pronounced for the validity of the bond. The case
then pane to the Judicial Committee, bat the case was re-
mitted to the court below, in order that further evidence
might be obtained as to what communication had been
made to the owners of the cargo prior to the hypothecation
of the vessel. .

It was contended on the part of the appellants that the
bond was invalid as against the cargo, in the absence of
proof that a sufficient communication had been made to
the owners of the cargo prior to the execution of the
bond ; and that upon the further affidavits limited to that
point, filed in the court below, there was no proof that
sufficient communication was made to the owners of the
cargo prior to the execution of the bond.
1 he committee did not call upon the counsel who appeared
on behalf of the respondents to argue the cue; but
The Right lion. Sir J. Knight Bruce proceeded to
deliver judgment, and said that the council were of opinion
th►t the letter dated from Stromstad on :he 23rd of Dec,,
1848, which apprised the appellants of the condition of the
Bonaparte, was a " sufficient communication."
The judgment of the court below wu accordingly affirmed,
with costa.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YF.STERDAY.
&MAAS AT Rua Piws IN LOWDON.:-811,0712 LOAD Ca *PIS= AND

a COUox 7var.

COPELAND O. CHILD.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF

MARRIAGE.
Tb.ls was an action to recover damages for breach of pro-
mise. The defendant pleaded that he made the promise
pendente minoritate, upon which issue was joined.
Mr. M. Chambers said that this action was brought by
the plaintiff, an infant, against the defendant, who was of
full age. The parties, though not in a high, were in a re-
spectable position. Miss Copeland was the daughter of a mar-
ket gardener, and the defendant was the son of agrocer. The
defendant, after courting for some time, came one Sunday
and took her out as usual. In ten days after this the family
heard that he had married another woman, and was about
to take her to Australia. This ultimately turned out to be
true; and, in fact, at that moment the defendant and his
wife were in New South Wales. The first question would
be whether, after the 17th December, 18.52, at which time
the defendant came of age, he promised the plaintiff he
would marry her. This bring settled the jury would only
have to determine the question of damages.
Mrs. Copeland, the mother of the plaintiff, was examined
—My daughter will be 21 next August. I know the de-
fendant. His father is a grocer. Before September 1852,
he paid attention to my daughter. On the 19th September
he had tea and supper with us. lie then spoke to me
and asked permission to pay his addresses to my daughter.
I told him that if he came in a respectable way we should
have no objection. From that date he constantly visited
my daughter up to the 12th February. He was at our house
twice a day. He always called me mother. He took my
daughter to her uncle's. He was constantly talking about
marrying her. She went to a Christenicg with his sister
and him, on Suaday, the 13th of February. He re-
turned with my daughter. When he left he kissed
her, and said, "good night, my dear, shall sea you
to-morrow." lie did not come on the morrow. He came
on the 21st March. We heard, in the meantime, that he
intouded to go abroad. Whsat he was at our house on the
21st March, my daughter came in, and said, "I hear,
James, you are going to be married." He answered, " How
can anybody tell you such lies ; lam not going to be
married." He said he was going abroad. When he left,
he said he would call again and say good-bye. He never
came again. He married Maria Fowls on the 29th of
March. (Certificate was put in.) He told us, on the 17th
December, that he was 21.

Crumoia. mined—Ms. Child used to drive out his father's
cart fee eiders. I never hoard that the farther objected to
the courtship. When be visited my daughter he some-
times bad his cart with him. One evening, in the middle
of January, the plaintiff and defendant got out the prayer-
book, and said that they would learn the marriage cere-
mony, " in order that they might not look fools before the
parson." (Laughter.)
A sister-in-law of the plaintiff stated that the defendant
had said, before going away on the 21st March, that his
going abroad would not make any difference, as he would
correspond with the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins addressed the jury for the defence.
He did not doubt that the defendant, a mere boy, bed
fancied ho fell in love with the plaintiff and that, on his
rounds with the grocery, he had addressed to her a great
deal of talk, much more "sugary" than sensible. But,
while admitting the breach of contract, he must call the
attention of the jury to the fact that it was, after all, a
mere contract, and that, in assessing damages, they snit
net fill into the error that they were to give damages be
punish the defendant, but to recollect that their duty was
only to satisfy the plaintiff for the value of what she had
lost. The status in society of the parties being
equal, nothing in social position was lost by the de=
conduct, end he therefore trusted that the jury would give
very moderate damages.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, said that the prang lady
and her friends appeared to have acted in a moat proper
manner, and that nothing remained but for the jary to settle
the amount of damages.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 751.
BUSINZIO OP Tlil cOMIT.NON-ATTINDANCE Or

JURYMEN.

This was the first day of the sittings in London. There
are 124 cues in the list, of which 20 are rensanets, and 46 to
be tried by special juries.
There being an insufficient attendance of common jury-
men, the summoning officer was called and sworn, and,
upon all the jurymen who were proved to ban been sum-
moned, a fine of 61. was imposed by the court.

THE POLICE COURTS.
BONY-STREET.

Mr. Hughes and Mr. Few,the churchwardens of St. Panl'o,
Covent-garden, together with several other respectable in-
habitants of the parish, waited upon Mr. Henry to prefer a
complaint against the police officers of the F division, for
alleged neglect of duty.
The applicants stated that for a considerable time put a
number of brothel-keepers had been permitted to carry on
their nefarious business in the meet undisguised and offen-
, live manner, in some of the largest thoroughfares of the
district, hut more especially in Brydges-street,Covent-garden.
Here at any hour of the day or night, gaudily dressed wo-
men were allowed to stand at the doors of sham cigar shops,
beckoning to by-pueers, and often seizing them by the
arm; and when the police were urged to interfere, with the
view of checking ce altogether preventing this disgusting
traffic, Superintendent Pearce informed them that he bad no
power to do so, as the "soliciting" did not occur in the public
streets. Now his worship was aware that there was a
clause in the Police Act which directed the police to take
all prostitutes into custody who were found soliciting is
" any street or public place of resort." Surely ample au-
thority was given under this clause to justify the appre-
hension of the women alluded to, whenever caught in the
act of pestering the by-passers at their doors ; and it was
the object of the present application to have that duty en-
forced upon them.
Mr. Henry, while fully conscious of the extent of this
nuisance, sod deploring it as much as any man, was bound
to admit that Superintendent Pearce had taken a proper
view of the law upon the subject. The effect of the clause
in question was to restrict the interference of the police to
offences of the kind occurring in the public streets. The
act gave them no power to enter people's houses to take up
prostitutes.
Mr. Hughes and Mr. Few (who are both solicitors) con-
tended that the obvious intention of the legislature was to
prevent such occurrences anywhere within public observa-
tion. There was no distinction, in point of decency,
between a solicitation just within the threshold of a door
and one an inch beyond it. Public feeling was juste much
outraged by the one as the other.
Mr. Henry said, although there may be no difference in
a moral sense, the distinction in point of law was unques-
tionable, and to satisfy the applicants that they were mis-
taken with regard to the intention of the legislature, his
worship reminded them of the decision relative to the inter-
pretation of the Vagrant Act. It was held by the superior
oou is that the clause which prohibited the exhibition of
obscene prints in any street or public place of retort did not
of the exposure of inch r&O is. a shop window, and