The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-21 00:00:00

Mr. Commissioner Phillips was of opinion that as the
ease now stood there was nothing against the insolvent
under the act.

Mr. Sargood thought his lordship should be asked to
attend.

Mr. Commissioner Phillips asked the insolvent whether
he wished the bishop to attend ?
The insolvent said he had no objection, and wished it if
it was necessary.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips told the insolvent that one of
the questions he should ask the bishop was whether he had
any knowledge that he had taken the seventh copy.
fhe insolvent said there was no doubt on that subject.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips said,thcn the bishop had been
deceived on the point.
Ills Honour was of opinion that the Bishop of London
should attnd the court. The insolvent had vouched his
acquaintinee with his lordship.
The insolvent said he was only known to his lordship as
a Ifri case was adjourned to Monday fur the attendance of
the Bishop of London.
IN ILE JOSISCII KEIIBT.—GOTERNEENT CLEIKS—REGU-
LATION AT THE rust-OFFICE.

This insolvent, a clerk in the Psst-otHce, applied under
the Protection Act. _ _

Mr. Cooke appeared for several creditors.
The insolvent had a salary of 130/. a year, out of which
he proposed to set aside 201. a year for his creditors. That
sum was considered as iniutlicient, and he agreed to increase
it to 301 ' and not to 401., as the creditors required. It wa:
stated that at the Post-ottiee there was a regulation that no
°Nicer in the establishment should petition without the con-
sent of the authorities, and that when a sum was set aside
the receipt of its payment should he regularly exhibited.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips was glad to hear of such an
arrangement. lie hoped the laq-in:sits would he regularly
made, as they would not be discontinued Nitliout notice to
the creditors.
1 The protection was granted.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD CIRCUIT.—WORCEsTEIt, JULY 19.

The commission for this county and city wm opened this
crenitnr by Mr. Justice Erie. The business of the assize
will commence on Monday morning. The prisoners'
eaten ler contains neariy sixty prisoners for county and
city, but does nut present features of any marked or peculiar
character.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.-WINCIIESTER, JULY 19.

illiFOklt JUnTICIt

TIIE GOLD Dl':-;T-fio-It-DE-lii-O;i-TIIE--...4-01:111 WESTEIIN

RAILWAY.

Plampin, a journeym an tailor, was charged
with having stolen, on the 9th of May last, a box of gold
dust, weighing 291 b., and a wooden box, the property of
the London and South Westeni Railway Company. A second
count charged him with having received the same, well
knowing it to have been stolen.
Joseph Frederick Parker and John Yeoman proved the
lauding from the Great Western steam-ship of certain boxes
of gold dust ut Southampton.
It. F. Jennings, clerk to the Southampton Dock Com-
pany, proved that there were 206 packages, 46 of which
were deposited in waggon No. 31:5, and the rest in other
waggons.
Samuel Winshup, patter to the Packet Company, said
Mr. Beer got into the waggon No. 315, and remained
there till he get into the train. Mr. Beer counted the
packages, and said there were 16. Ile was then locked in
and a tarpaulin was fastened over the waggon, which haa
no roof to it. Witness went with the train into the railway
premises, and then left the waggons in charge of Mick and
a broker. Witness was away from the train an hour and a
half before it started. 'There were no passengers but those
in charge of the treasure. There was sufficient space at the
end of the carriage for any person to get in without un-
loosening the tarpaulin.
The rest of the evidence Ins been fully reported.
Mr. Butt, Q.C., then addressed the jury for the prisoner,
and said that ho thought they would agree with him in
thinking that this was one of the slighest cases that had
ever been brought before a court of justice. After all the
care that had been taken by the railway company to get
up this case, they could not say where or by whom the
property had basil stolen ; yet they called upon the jury to
take a leap in tit: dark, and say that the prisoner stole the
b met,. although they were unable to assign any place where
the offence was committed.

Mr. Justice Coleridge summed up the evidence at great
length, pointing out the distinction between stealing and
luting possession of goods or property knowing the same
to have been stolen.

and to give to the plaintiffs only 4,4`22L The precise
question, therefore, for the jury at pr...sent was. whether
the second contract did not entirely set aside the power
given to Mr. Murray, in the first contract, to make a final
award ; and ho (the learned counsel) contended that the
plaintiffs never did mean to refer to the final sdecision Of
Mr. Murray, that they never did so refer, and that, inde-
pendent of the technical objections s% hich he had raised,
the jury's verdict upon the main question of fact must be in
favour of the plaintiffs; and then this case would be
reduced to a mere inquiry as to the amount the plaintiffs
were entitled to recover for the work u hich they had done.
After some discussion, it was agreed that in case the
plaintiffs should he found to be entitled to a verdict upon
the question above-stated, this action, a cross action, to re-
cover their demand of the company for damage, and all
other matters in dispute, should be referred on the usual
terms.
The plaintiff.' counsel then proceeded to adduce such cid.
deuce as they deemed eecessary to prove that part of the caso
which was to be put to the jury, after waich, Mr. Watson
having addressed the jury for the defrlitlanti, some 11,11-
mentary evidence was put in, and the engineer, Mr.
Murray, having been examined,
Mr. Knowles replied, and his lordship then summed up,
leaving to be decided by the jury these two questioni—lst,
Was the renrence to Mr. Murray by both parties such that
his award should he final? 21ly, Was anything beside the
claim of the plaintiffs referred ?
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an
absence of a f, w minutes they returned into court, when
lib lordship said—Gentlemen, did the parties, both of
them, authorise Mr. Murray to make an ward ?
The juu—No.
Iris lewlship —Were there any matters in dispute, except-
ing the claim made by the plaintiffs?
The jury—No.
Ills lordship then said it was fit he should state that it
struck I.im the second contract did nut give the power to
the arbitrator to decide upon the several matters contained
either in the fourth or titth plea. Ile thought that In
point of law, upon neither of those pleas would the &fen.
slants be entitled to bland. The verdict, therefore, must be
for the plaintiff., subject to a reference as to the amount to
be p dd to the plaintiffs.
JOILNSTON V. liOtt.iitEY.-13APACIL 01' rILOMI,E OP
14.1.1011 M M.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after
about an hour's absence returned into court with a ver-
dict of Guilty of receiving, knowing the same to have been
stolen._

)Ir. Justice Coleridge concurred with the verdict of the
jury, and said he believed that no person iu court had the
slightest doubt of his guilt, and that he hod been assisted by
other parties. lie could not look upon this robbery as an
ordinary case, and should therefore sentence the prisoner to
be transported for ten years.
The prisoner, who heard the sentence without emotion,
was then removed from the bur, and a trial which occupied
nine hours terminated.

NORTHERN cuteurr.—Ymex, JULY 19.
Nut Pawn COURr.—BWORR Ma. BARON PIACI,
CILANEN AND OTIIEIeS C. THE SUNDEILLAND DOCK
COMPANY.
The plaintiffs in this case were John, Jonathan, Nowell,
Benjamin, and Hiram Craven, and the Sunderland Docks
Company were the defendants. The action wns brought to
recover .yO,OOO/., for works done by the plaintiff's, in respect
of the construction of the Sunderland Docks, the claim
being founded upon two agreements, dated respectively
July 17, 1817, and September 27, 1549. The defendants
had put several pleas upon the record, but those mainly in
issue at present were the ibiath and fifth, which raised the
questions whether the matter in dispute had not been con-
cluded by the award of the arbitrator, and whether that
laward was or was not final.

Mr. Knowles said—The plaintiffs are the Messrs. Craven, I,
the !Feat and well-known contractors for the execution of
public works, to whose lot it has fallen, from time to time,
to be employed in works of very great magnitude—for in
stance, the gigantic stone walls which surround the Castle
at York, and these gentlemen brought the present action
to recover a very large sum of money (more than 30,0001.).
which they claimed as a balance due to them in respect of
the execution of works at the Sunderland Docks, under
certain contracts and provisions. Until the last year or
two, the town of Sunderland, notwithstanding its great
commercial importance, has not enjoyed the advantage of
any docks, the want of which bad long been felt before
any remedy could be hit upon; and it was not until
the year 18 t 6 that a body of persons chiefly belonging to
the town of Sunderland, associated together, and re-
solved to du that together, which was much too
great an undertaking for any individual enterprise
to cope with. Accordingly, in Mg nn act of par-
liament was obtained for the construction of the Sunder•

Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. '''''''' appeared for tl.e
plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant 'Wilkins and Mr. Thompson for
the defendant.
This was an action for breach of promise of marriage,
brought by the plaintiff, Sarah Ann Johnston (by Henry
Thomas Johnston, her friend), against Anclutel Fenton
Fletcher Houghcy, a captain in her Majesty's Slot regiment
of foot. The declaration laid the damages at 2,0001., and
stated that the defendant had promised to marry the plain-
tiff, and had broken his promise. To Oils the defendant
pleaded that the plaintiff had released Lim from his promise ;
upon which issue was joined.
Mr. Knowles, iu opening the case on behalf of the plain-
tiff, said that the plunitiff was the daughter of Mr. Henry
Johnston, the proprietor of the Itovad Hotel, at Huff.
He had three children, the plaintiff a son, and another
daughter. The plaiutiff was the eldest child, and was
now about twenty years of age. Therefore when the inti-
macy between the plaintiff and the defendant commenced
she was eighteru or nineteen. She was a young lady of very
good personal appearance, had been well brought up, care-
fuliy educated, had always been a person of most exemplary
conduct, and enjoyed a character above the slightest suspi-
cion of reproach. The defendant (aged about 32) was agen-
dum= who occupies in the world and in society a more
elevated po.ition than the plaintiff being a captain in her
Majesty', 81st Regiment, and connected with a highly re-
timetable and very ancient Inanity, being the brother of Sir
Thomas lioughey. The defendant WiLl a man also of some-
what distinauished appearance, and reinar:,able for that
elegance, of manners which a communication with the best
society often affords. Of his private means the plaintiff' had
no means of forming an estimate, but she believed him to
be a mau of substantial fortuae. In the month of Decem-
ber, ISt% the Slot Regiment was ordered to Hull, and
when they arrived, the garrison not tring ready fur them,
the officers all went for two or three days to reside at tho
Royal Hotel. At that time the defendaut was frequently in
the habit of calling at Mr. Johnston's house, end in time ho
formed an acquaintance with her. It was, however, twelve
months before his attentions became oft ait :narked charac-
ter which necessarily attracted the attention of the plaintiffs
parents. On the discovery that an attachment was growing
up between the parties, Mr. and Mrs. Johnston thought
it prudent to send their daughter front home, for the
purpose of breaking off the intimacy, intending her to re-
main from house until the defendaut should leave Hull, an
event which was expected soon, as the regiment had been
ordered to Berwick. Accordingly the plaintiff was sent away
to visit some relatives or friends, at a place called Chase, in
Lincolnshire, and the matter was so arrangedthat the plain-
tiff was kept in ignorance of the purpose for which site Will
sent away. The defendant, however, was not content to
leave waiters M that pu,ition. He exhaee,<d great &isms-
probation at her absence, and importuned her mother on the
subject. Ile at length discovered the place of her address,
and then said that unh s, he had the opportunity of seeing
her at home he would pay visits to her at Chase. The de-
feudanCa warmth in the matter leaving nu doubt of the sin-
cerity of his intentions, and of the honour of his object, the
plaintiffs father and mother thought it better that their
daughter should return home, to receive an honourable de-
claration front the defendant, with a view of her beco:aMg
his wife. The plaintiff returned to Hull on the tits of
April, 1840, and on the Oth the defendant Wily explained
to the plaintiff and her family the nature and object of his
attentions. I a short he proposed to make her his wife, and
the plaintiff accepted that otter. The matter was committed,
of MIMI`, to the plaintiff's connections, and she received
their congratuf dims, upon what seemed to be the promise
of an honourable :old advantageous marriage; and the
defendant himself made no secret of the affair, for ho
frequently talked to Mrs. Johnston ttliell the subct,
and always spoke of the plaintiff as a person who was about
to become his wife. On the 17th of April the regiment was
to leave Hull, and iu the interim prior to their departure
various discuasious and considerations arose respecting
the future destination of the parties—where they were to

live, and how they were to live., a.. soon as the marriage took
place. The defendant had a brother in Canada, and pro-
posed to exchanAe into a regiment in Canada, se as to enable
him and the plaintiff to go and live there, where in property
would viable him to keep up a better estobli.lunent titan
he could in this country. On the nth of April the defend-
dant went to Berwick, having passed the preceding evening
at the house of Mr. Johnston, and given the plaintiff every
reason to believe that his mind was fully made up, and that
in a short time she would I,etome his wife. Before he went
away he made the plaintiff a present of a ring, which was to
play a very important part in a subsequent and painful
scene belonging to tlds history. After the defendant had
left Hull he wrote several letters to the plaintiff, the tone
of which, up to 13th May, was kind and affectionate. Tho
subject of marriage was more than once alluded to in them,
and nothing occurred to give any intimation that a change
had taken place, or was likely to take place, in the defend-
ant's intentions towards her. They were very affectionate
in their tone. On the 13th of May, his conduct beemne

laud Docks, which arc now in existence and operation, altered, and on that day ho wrote a letter to the plain-
which have attracted great notice and general admiration, tiff, in which, after thanking her for her last to him,
and which stand out as a splendid monument of the genius and hoping that she would soon be in better health, he
which first thought of the plan, and of the industry and wrote that after fully and carefully weighing his circutn-
skill of those who carried it into execution. In May, 1817, stances and prospects in life, he felt compelled to say that
the company advertised for tenders, and eventually, on the it would be most injurious to them both to enter into the
17th of July, the plaintiffs came to an agreement with the marriage state; that his rank was only that of a captain,
defendants, by which they contracted to excavate the whole which gave him 2001. a year; that his private fortune was
of the wet dock and the half-tide basin, and also to erect the not sufficient to purchase his commissions in the army ; and
walls, and to effect certain other works. This contract that he left it to her superior sense and judgment, whether
amounted to 13.5,0001., added to which was a sum of 1,13.51. it would he advisable to marry under such circumstances;
for a quantity of stone, and there was a clause in the agree- besides which his union with her would sever hint from his
meat which gave the plaintiff., at the completion of the family, which would tend to mar their future happiness.
works, power to claim a further sum of 2,rahli., which, how- The plaintiff sent in answer a letter, saying—
ever, depended upon the approval of Mr. Iludson, the " Poverty you plead as the obstacle to our union ; but
chairman of the company, or of Mr. Stephenson, engineer, you know, dear, that 1 um nut one of those who would like
in case of certain events. Moreover, 11.4 will happen in the to live in grandeur and splendour, even if I had the means.
case of works of such magnitude, there was a good deal of Your society and a neat and comfortable home is all that I
additional work done, which further increased the total of the would or could desire. l'overty does not diminish my loan
whole sum to bo paid by the defendants. Of course in the fur you, but increases it much more. Surely we ought to
agreement there were certain specifications as to the work cling to each other with more constancy and Ervency. But
to be done, and the manner in which it should be done, as I have before assured you, you have only to name a wish
and, in case any dispute or difference should arise, as to and mine will readily coincide with it. I put my whole
the true and proper construction of the contract, it was confidence in you (fur you ate dearer to me than any other
to be submitted to the engineer, Mr. Murray, whose de- person living), lend lUM quite certain that it is not wis-
cision mould be final and binding upon all parties. The placed, so that whatever you do, I am sure it will be for
contractors proceeded, upon this agreement, to make the the best."
embankment, and in the end they removed altogether Not having obtained the answer he sought, on the 15th
1,276,000 cubic yards of rock and marl, including 93,000 he wrote another letter, full of affection, the appearance of
cubic yards which had been excavated by the projectors which he still kept up, desiring her to consider fully the
of the scheme themselves before, the plan being to place this letter he had previously written. In answer to this she
rock and marl in such a position us to cause the sea to force replied that she had again carefully perused his letter, and
it up between certain groins which were to he constructed, that she thought it better to wait before they entered on the
and thus to strengthen the whole fabric. The stipulation marries:a stem After this correspondence, the poor girl's
was, that 636,000 cubic yards only should be removed, health having suffered, Mr. and Mrs. Johnston consulted
which was about one-half, and the plaintiffs had thus together, and the following letter was sent to the defendant:
given to the defendants eleven acres of land more than " Royal lintel, null, May 24,1850.—Sir,—My feelings as
they otherwise would have had, and thus increased the a father compel me to address you on the subject of your
value of the property of the proprietors of the docks. The engagement to my dear child. The altered style of your
works went on for some time, when Mr. Murray wrote to letters to her have so affected her health, that I demand of
the plaintiffs, pointing out that they were not depositing you, as a man of honour, to let me know explicitly what
the material in question at the sea ward point of the your meaning h. Ido not desire to press your engogement
groins, as required, and directing them to do so. How- with her to a speedy fulfilment, but must have your Mime-
ever, the works went on until September, 1849, when the diate answer whether you still hold that engagement invio-
defendants availed themselves of a stipulation in the eon- late on your part or not, as 1 can no longer bear to see her
tract which empowered them to dissolve the contract, in the state she is, or allow her to be made a laughing stock
and on the 21st of that month they formally put an end to for the whole town, who knew, from your own actions, of
it. The works accordingly remained in abeyance until your engagement to her, and also frum your correspondence
the 27th of September, six days only after the company up to the 13th of this month, when, all of a sudden, and
had dissolved the first contract, when a second contract from what cause I know not, you write, not exactly to say
was entered into, which recited the making of the first that you decline to fulfil your engagement, yet your appa-
-1 contract and its dissolution. It then went on to with- rent meaning is to that effect. —I am, sir, yours truly,
draw the notice given to the plaintiffs, and to revive the " Capt. Boughey, 81st Rent." " 11. T. JOHNSTON
first contract, but with this proviso, that in future matters To this letter urn answer was sent by the delendant,
in dispute should not be left to the final decision of Mr. written in a very difffrent style from all the former ones,
Murray, but that, if the plaintiffs were not satisfied with and it appeared very much as if the defendant had some-
his decision, they should be allowed to appeal, first to a body at his elbow when it was being indited, it having, as
gentleman of the name of Ord, and secondly, in case of the jury would receive, such a business-like air about it,
Mr. Ord's death, to another gentleman named Scott. The and was as follows .
works were then resumed, and on the Ist of January, "May 28, 1850, Berwick.—Sir,—Referring to my mote of
18.50, they were all but completed ; and accordingly, on the the 20:11 inst. and in ans'ver to yours of the previous day,
4th of that month, the plaintiffs wrote to the company, iu regard to tire fulfilment of an engagement on my part to
setting forth a claim which they wished to have discharged, your daughter, and requesting to know whether you still
either in whole or at all events in part. They were then hold that engagement inviolate on your part or not ? '
asked for a statement of all their demands against the corn- have to inform you, in a previous letter to Miss Johns.--
psny, and they did send in en account, under the supple- most fully explained to her my joresent circua. -
mental contract. The result was that on the 3rd of April, also other most insuperable objection.
18./0, Mr. Murray gave the plaintiffsnotico of IHS Mum- the fulfilment of any engagement wl
lion to investigate their claim. This investigation did us, and itsking for her true and sine,
take place, and in the course of it a claim was set up 'which I trusted she would experience
on the part of the company. for damage done by the in gto you also. I now have to star
plaintiffs in not fulfilling strictly the terms of the con- 'adoration my present income, and t
tract. This claim was protested against by the plaintiffs, slightest chance of any augmental
who denied also that Mr. Murray had any authority maintaining my position m 11061
to include this deduction in his award. However,
OH descend; and furthermore the gre:
the 17th of April the award was made, and it was found feel at all the ties of friendship and
to include the deduction of 14,7681. claimed by the being inevitably severed. I cannot
company from the plaintiffs for imaginary damage, that, should any engagement be

::::hocc,..en;tr
ectline,
ors:::
ni i
iiii;ch::::is.icilliJitirt,
ch, ...
bet,,t . ,
to
t4O
-••
'---
iss o as on
•esent circtuustances, and
.•
tats that, to iptPaeft " 4,
1 to which t , t
titian, FO fates 11, r .
ckty, I sh•4l • ~,, ti *I to
teat mortificatatt r_.l F ~....,
A society of
iIA .
tt but form t . .
...
carried out ,M -,,, ;0.4, ;31
t .: g:' di
v(7. ) 31