The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-01 00:00:00

appointed at the first meeting after the pasting of the act
should remain in offi,e a whole twelvemonth from the
period of their appointment. If the plaintiff: bill were sae
wined it would come to this—that four of the directors
appointed at the meeting in October ought to have resigned
at the list meeting, which was in Is.lbruary, so that the 7
would have served for four months only; and this was
en-
dently contrary to the intention of the legialatare, as es-
pressed by the four sections ref:weed to.
The Vice•Chaneellor said the act appeared to him to admit
of this construction—thst, u there seemed to be an incon-
sistency between the lath section of the special act and the
88th section of the general act ; if the word " then " in the
13th section were construed to apply to the period of
election, the provisions of the 88th section might be referred
to for the manner of appointing the directors.
The arguments in support of the demurrer to the bill were
not concluded at the rising of the court.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, MAacit 31.
Crvn. Sum—Before Lord Chief Swaim Denman.
BLACIDEN V. BOOTH.—Fottoeux.—This was an action
upon a bill of exchange for 601., drawn by a person named
Edmund Barbet, and purporting to be accepted by the de.
fondant, and which was afterwards endorsed through a per-
son named Phillips to the present plantiff. A number of
pleas were put upon the record by the defendant, but the
material Tuition involved was, whether or not the accept-
ance was a forger/. Upon the part of the plaintiff the bill
in question was produced, and two witnesses, who had had
transactions with the defendant, and were acquainted with
his handwriting, expressed their belief that the acceptance
was his, and one of them also stated that upon his applying
to the defendant upon the subject of the bill, he said that
was Garbet's business, and that he had written to him,
and left him to settle it, and not defend the action. Serjeant
Shee, on the part of the defendant, said that the case
he was instructed to lay before the jury was, that the accept-
ance to the bill upon which the present action was brought
was not the wnting of the defendant, but that it was in
point of fact • forgery, and he therefore was not liable upon
it. —A son of the defendant was then examined, and he ex.
pressed a positive opinion that the acceptance to the bill was
not the handwriting of his father.—Mr. Edmund Ilarbet was
the next witnen called, and his evidence was of the moot ex-
traordinary character. He deposed that he had formerly
carried on the profession of a solicitor at Wellington, in
Salop, and latterly was engaged in the same profession in
King William-street, in London. He said that he was the
drawer of the bill which firmed the subject of the action,
but the acceptance was not written by the defendant, nor
by his authority. Cross-examined by Mr. Chambers :
He handed the bill to Mr. Phillips in his dreasiag-
room, and at this time the acceptance had been written
across the blank stamp, but not by the defendant.
—Mr. Chamber* asked the witness whether he was aware
what he was attempting to prove, and whether they were to
understankthat he admitted he had negotiated an instru-
ment he knew to be • forgery ?—The witness replied
that the aceeptence to the bill was not in the handwriting of
Mr. Booth.—Mr. Chambers asked who did write it then-I
The witness said he should decline answering the question.—
In answer to other questions, the witness said that when the
acceptance was written, another person was present besides
himself, but he declined to state who that person was.—Mr.
Chambers applied to the court to insist upon the witness
answering the question.—The Lord Chief Justice asked the
witness whether it was to be understood that either he or
the other person wrote the acceptance to the bill ?
The witness replied that it was so. On farther cross-exami-
nation, the witness said that he was allowed the use of part
of an Ake in King William-street, where he at present
preened as a solicitor, and the bill was drawn up either
there or in Old Broad-street. He also said that he saw the
acceptance written, but he did not think it was copied from
a genuine signature of the defendant. —The Lord Chief Jus-
tice said he should insist upon the witness giving the name
of the person who wrote the acceptance.—He, however, still
hesitated, and atlength said that he had not represented,
although another person was present, that this other person
wrote the acceptance.—The Chief Justice : Are we to take
it that you yourself wrote the acceptance?—The witness
gave no answer.—He was then qtestioned with regard to
other transactions, and he admitted that the defendant had
applied to hint, in consequence of reports that were abroad,
to know whether he had put his name to any bills; and upon
his telling him that he had, he was very angry with him.—
At the close of the examination, his lordship directed the
witness to remain in courts—Sew ral other witnesses were
then examined, all of whom stated positively that the
acceptance was not the handwriting of the defendant.—
Mr. Chambers, in his reply upon the evidence for the de-
fence, said he felt compelled to admit that he should not be
entitled to a verdict upon the proof of the acceptance being
actually written by the defendant; but he called upon the
jury, recollecting the extraordinary evidence given by the
witness, Garbet, to come to the conclusion, although he had
chosen that day to admit that he was guilty of for-
gery, that in point of fact he had the authority
of the defendant for putting his name to the bill
and if the jury should be of that opinion, the plaintiff would
still be entitled to a verdict. Lord Denman, in summing up,
said that the cause was certainly one of a very extraordinary
nature. It appeared to be admitted that the acceptance was
not written by the defendant, and the only way, therefore,
in which he could be made liable was for the jury to be
satisfied that Oarhet had put the name upon the bill with
his authority. The jury returned a verdict for the defend-
ant. The Lord Chief Justice then ordered the witness,
Garbet, to stand committed, and he was accordingly
placed in the custody of Mr. Keene, the governor of the
county gaol.