The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-19 00:00:00

Lab) inttlttgente.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sitdirge to Banco.
RBOINA. r. Burrox.—ln this case the defendant, who
was foreman of Mr. Charles Lewis, a dyer, was, with other
workmen in the employment of the prosecutor, convicted of
conspiracy to defraud their master by using his dye and ma-
terials for their own purposes in dyeing article', for which
the, were paid, without the knowledge or consent of the
prosecutor. A rule was subsequently obtained for a new
trial on the grounds of surprise and misdirection, the sur-
prise being, that the defendant had no means of judging of
the nature of the evidence to be adduced against him, and
he could not, therefore have been prepared to rebut it, which
be was now in • petition to do. The misdirection complained
of was, that Lord Denman, before whom the defendant was
tried, should have told the jury that the defendant must be
acquitted, because the offence, if proved, was a larceny, in
which the minor offence of misdemeanor had merged. The
rule was also granted to arrest the judgment, on the ground
that the offence charged se a conspiracy was, in the terms of
the indictment, no offence at all.—Lord Denman said the
point as to surprise could not be further considered, as no
particular surprise was specified.—Sir F. Thesiger showed
cause against the rule, and contended that the evidence was
not sufficient to give the defendant a right to say that the
set of which he had been guilty bad merged in the higher
offence. It would have been impossible for the prosecutor
to indict the defendant for feloniously abstracting his dye
and using his materials ; he could not have shown
that any distinct felony was committed. There was
no satisfactory proof of a felony in which the
charge of conspiracy would merge. 'The learned getle-
an m quoted the case of the "Queen v. Neale," in
support of his view. The conspiracy was • separate act, and
might be proved without any overt act being shown ; more-
over, the defendant might subsequently have been indicted
for larceny ; the offences, if both had been committed, were
distinct, and not one of a twofold character. On the point
in arrest of judgment, be observed that the 17th Oeo. 111.,
cap. 66, imposed a penalty upon workmen for using dyeing
materials without the knowledge of their employer, and it
was clearly an offence for parties to conspire together to
break the law where it imposed a penalty.—Mr. %%satins
and Mr. Peacock followed on the same Serjeant
Allen and Mr. Haddleston having been beard in support of
the rule, the court took time to consider its judgment.
Ex PAUSE ConßETT.—lmmediately before the rising of
the court, Mrs. Cobbett, addressing Lord Denman, said, I
hope your lordship will allow use most respectfully to renew
my application for a writ of habeas corpus to bring my hus-
band before your lorshi. I have no an affidavit.—Lord
Denman :We cannodt—pswe cannot do it—wee have decided
the case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
EX. PARTE Tall MARQUIS OP CHANDOS IN Tat MATTER
OP TINDAL.—CUSTODY OP Till COURT ROLLS AND MII-
MMENTII OP A MANOR.—ME Sznythies moved, on DOUR of
the Marquis of Chandos, for a rule, calling on a Mr. Tindal
to show cause why be should not deliver up the court rolls
and muniments of certain manors of which the Marquis of
Chandoe is lord, and which Tindal held in his custody. It
appeared that Tindal was appointed steward of certain
manors by the late Duke of Buckingham, and he also acted
as his legal adviser in relation to others ; and he thus ob-
tained the custody of the court-rolls and muniments. In
May last, all interest in the manors was assigned by the pre-
sent Duke of Buckingham to the Marquis of Chandos, and
the latter nobleman appointed a gentleman of the name of
James, at Aylesbury, his steward, and gave him a
written authority to demand the documents in question from
Tindal. It was stated by affidavits that application
had leen made to Tindal, but he entirely neglected to no-
tice it, and had returhed no answer. Ile bad also made a
statement to the landateward of the marquis that he would
not give them up. Ile did not state that he had any lien on
the documents, or in fact give any reason at all. In one case
he had received them as an attorney, and in the others as
steward. A copy of the new appointment had been sent to
him.—The court, in granting the rule, expressed a doubt
whether the lord had the power to dismiss one steward and
substitute another in the manner stated.—Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings In ,Ban°°'
‘,
ENTWISTLE T. DENT AND THERI3.—.NTESESTING TO
MERCHANTS.—This was an action of special assumpait
brought by the plaintiff, a London merchant, to recover
compensation in damages from the defendants, who are mer-
chants and commission agents in China, for having deviated
from the plaintiff's instructions in the sale of certain goods-
In 1813 the plaintiff consigned to the defendants • cargo of
cotton goods, which were to be sold upon a del credere com
mission. A letter of instructions as to the mode in which
the proceeds were to have been invested, accompanied the
cargo, and the whole question was whether the defendants
had acted in accordance with the directions they had so re-
ceived. It appeared they were directed by the letter to
invest the whole proceeds in teas, if teas could be
had at one shilling per pound; and if they could
not be had at that price, then to invest half in
the purchase of silk at certain stipulated prices, and
the residue in the purchase of teas. The actual proceeds
amounted to 40,000 dollars (about 10.0001.), which was,
under the following circumstances, entirely invested in teas,
and ne silk was purchased. The plaintiff complained that,

alihough the defendants bad received 25,000 dollars as part
of the proceeds of the cargo, wlttn silk could have bemired
at the prices he had directed them to purchase it, they had '
neglected to do so until the market bad risen, and be had
th• rib./ lost very considerably. The tear were, however,
ship for England, and a profit of 1,0001. realised by their
sale ere. The plaintiff contended that his profits is the trans.
action would have been greatly increased If the defendants had
purehmed silk, even to half the amount of the proceed,
actually realised, when there war an abundant supply of
that article in the market at extremely low prices. They
however, welted until it had risen, and consequently pur-
chased none at all. The defendants' cue was, that when
more than half the cargo bad been sold, and the proceeds
had reached them, terns were not to be bad, in the China
market, at ls. • pound, and they felt therefore bound to
defer making any purchase until the whole cargo should
have been sold. They thought by waiting until the cargo
was all sold, and the whole proceeds ascertained, they would
have been enabled to have acted strictly in accordance with
the plaintiff's instruction.. But it so happened that when
the whole cargo was sold, silk could not be had in the market
at the prices limited, and as teas were then to be had at ls. •
pound, they invested the whole proceeds in the purchase of
teas. The Lord Chief Baron, before whom the case was
tried about eighteen months ago at Guildhall, intimated
a strong opinion that the plaintiff wee entitled to damages,
to the lull extent he hail born damnified. The jury accord-
ingly returned a verdict for the plaintiff with 1,9001.
damages. In Easter Term last, Sir F. Kelly, Q.C., obtained
a rule calling on the plaintiff to show cause why there should
not be a new trial, on th: ground of misdirection, and that
the damages were excessive. That rule was subsequently
argued, and the good, having taken time to consider, pro-
notated judgment yesterday. They were of opinion that
the verdict should not be disturbed, but as the damages ap-
peared to them to have bean estimated en an erroneous
principle, they should be reduced from 1,9001. to 1,1001.-
- '—