The Express.
London, England, 1848-04-28 00:00:00

..4—....—•-.--.—.—'...."----
SWEEPSTARES of 100 SOTS each, h. It., for Colts, 3-it. olde,
Mt 7 lbeeeb. D.M. (It subs.)
Mr. Lowther'. Glutton ........ .........—............ ........ (Rogers 1
Mr.°mollies Rosalyn .... ...................... (Nat 2
Lord Clifdes Mastiff (.ifeiliinsoci 3
5De ltcsialyn, and 3to 4 spaCilutton, wbesande all the canning,
andwoo easily by two lengths. Run in I MIN. 44 mos.
SWEIPSTALEIS of 10 sow. each ; foe 2-yr old colts, Bat 61b ;
and Skies, eat 31b. T.T.C. (5 sub.)
Mr. Hargreaves'. Rodney.. ................. .. .... . (Pettit) I
Lord to
'n Goodwood (*W. 'Boyce) 1
Mr. Pedley't Perepty
Lord Exeter's cby Pisa* oat of Jet (Harthoiorsew 4
Mr. W. H. Roberw's Bebe Rodd 5
6 to 4 spit 1,
as sad Ito I apt Goodwood ey =dealt
the mania,. and won wily by a length. Run in I min. 16 secs.
QUEENS PLATE of 100 guineas; for 4-yr olds, 911 Bib ;
5 yrs, 10st Ilb ; 6 yr. and egad, 10st 121 b. R.C.
Lord Orford's rometool (Nat) I
Lord Lonadide's Jericho (Bogen) 2
Mr. Barnes's Tuithunter (F. Butler) 3
2 to I on Jericho. They walked for about IDD yard., and can-
' ered for nearly half a mile; Footstool then took up the naming,
and carried it. on to the B. M. 11111, where be was Joined by Jericho.
Tufthunter riet.e immediately alter, and they struggled home toge-
grther, Footstool winuing by a head, and only a had between the
other two. Run in 1 min. 50 wee.
LATEST BETI'LKO.
CHESTER Cur.—The only change of any moment is in
Pere o' Day Boy, who has joined John Day's stable, and le now at
II to I.
DEISRY.-8 to I spied Springy Jack, 9 to 1 apt' Glen-
dower, lo to 1 apt Surplice, 14 W 1 apt Losdatone (t), and 40 to I
.get Fern. No others mentioned.
The weather up to 11 o'clock war as lino as the most
fasti,lious could awe desire!: a heavy storm of bail, rain, and snow
then come on, and up to midday the prospect was cheerio.. in the ex-
treme. The
waderremai of sheds), with the mention of two or three
Sight shovers, favourable, and a very large company' were
enabled to enjoy some cf the finest riming ever witnessed, including a
drag heat with three, a very severe coolest for the great event (to
which we must MI look for the winner of the Oaks), and a bead ad
head struggle with three for her Majesty's Guineas.

tab) intelligenct.
EQUITY COURTS.
Before the VionChaneellor of England.
The Vier Chancellor, upon taking his seat this morning,
said he had receiv the following anonymous letter, and as
it affected both themert and the counsel he thought it right
they should hear the contents :
May it please your honour to have pity on your pcor neglected
suitors, and now that the holidays are over to burry on the many
muses which yet remain for your declaim Let not the lazy oounsel
impale on your patarnm, and that pray Mr. Bethel] exhauu the Mae
of the public. Let the iuture atone for the past—our very humble
servant, A arrrOs.
11100INSON e. SHAND.—BILL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN
I LIVERPOOL BANK AND A FIRM OP DIERCUANTS AT Li.
VERPOOL.—The Vice-Chancellor delivered judgment in this
case, which had been argued on a previous day. The facts
were u follows:—Mere. Barton, Irlans, and Hipginson,
merchants at Liverpool. were indebted in a considerable sum
of money to the Liverpool Royal Bank, and had given them
two hills for 30,0001. each, payable at six and at nine months,
and by an indenture dated in October, 184.5, the firm
assigned to the plaintiff, who was a brother of one of the
members of the firm, 13 ships, to be held by the plaintiff on
trust to secure payment of the money due to the bank. Be-
fore the bills became due the plaintiff gave • promissory
note to the bank for 60,0001. as a farther security in case the
two bills should not be paid by the firm, and the plaintiff at
the same time wrote a letter lsy way of guarantee to the
bank explaining why he had given them the note for 60,0001.
Subsequently to this another arrangement was entered into
between the firm and the bank, by which the bank, in co
deration of the 70,0001. to be paid by the firm, agreed to ad-
vance whatever sums they might require for the month of
Aught, and a guarantee was also given by the plaintiff as
the
a
further security for such advances. It appeared that
sum of 34,0001. was paid into the bank by the firm,
but the bank refund after this to advance • sum
of 11,0001., required by the firm ; and the bank
then commenced proceedmas against the plaintiff for
the payment of the 60,0001., and also the suns of
53,000 k, which was the balance of the sum advanced to the
Inn during the month of August. Upoa the refusal of the
plaintiff to satisfy these claims the bank proceeded against
the plaintiff under the Bankrupt Act. An injunction was
granted by his Honour ex parte to restrain these proceed-
ings, and the case than came on upon motion to dissolve the
injunction, on the ground that the plaintiff bad rendered
himself liable to the payment of these sums under the gut.
ranted given by him. For the plaintiff it was contended,
as regarded the 60,0001., that the bank ought, if they had in-
tended to have proceeded against him, to have required that
the thirteen ships assigned should have been registered, and
that otherwise the assignment was void, and also that the
letter the plaintiff had written, guaranteeing the payment of
the two bills of 30,0001. each, had been altered by
the officer of the bank, so as to extend to •
renewal of the bills which had been effected by
arrangement between the bank and the firm on the
subject of the 63,0001. It was contended that the bank
had violated their portion of the agreement by refusing
tr• advance the 11,0001., and the plaintiff was therefore dis-
charged from any liability.—His Honour, after going
through the facts of the use, said he was of opinion, under
all the circumstances, that the injunction ought to be con
tinned, but he should reserve the consideration of the costs
until the hearing of the cause.

Bofors YillFebargaOr Knight Heave.
PIDDING V. FRAWIL—Moriox 701% 11,11CNCITON.—This
was a motion on behalf of the plaintiff, for en Injunction to
restrain the defendants from se, except under a certain
license granted by the plaintiff, any coffee by the designation
of " hermetically sealed, or self-cLuifying coffee," which
should consist of pure and unadulterated coffee' or selling,
under the same designation, any article consisting of coffee,
mixed with chicory and violence and burnt angsr.—fdr.
Wigram and Yr. Daniel, in support of the motion, said that
the plaintiff had invented a patent mode of clarifyi
thecoffee
was enclosed, and which was to be dissolved in boiling
water with the coffee in it, and the defendants claimed to
manufacture and sell the article under a license, but were
selling genuine coffee without using the plaintiff's name,
contrary to the license, and were selling under his name, or
by titles the same as, or only colourably differing from,
those employed by the plaintiff, an inferior article. The
affidavits were conflicting as to whether the plaintiff had
sanctioned the sale of the coffee mixed with chicory under
the name of coffee, and the Vice-Chancellor, without calling
on the counsel for the defendants, said that, in the present
state of the evidence, the facts were too doubtful for an
injunction to bane, and that the motion must be refused, the
plaintiff being at liberty to bring such action as he might be
advised.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
ssittings Banco.
REOINA e. DE FONTAINE MOSEATI.-15 • VERDICT IN
A CIVIL ACTION EVIDENCE ON AN INDICTMENT FOR
pERtOaT ?—This was an indictment charging the defendant
with perjury in an affidavit, made on the 18th Feb., 1846, to
hold the prosecutor (also a foreigner) to bail, in which the
defendant swore that the prosecutor was indebted to him in
the sum of 501. and upwards, which depended oa the right
of defendant to charge the prosecutor with two several sums
of 271.25. Bd. and 12s. Id., in Dome Osnsactions between
them. The affidavit in question was the commencement of
an action which went down to trial at Kingston, where it
was referred to an arbitrator, who made an award that there
was nothing due from the prosecutor to the defendant ; and
the defendant was subsequently found guilty of perjury, the
jury eonaideriog that he knew the statement in the affidavit
upon which the prosecutor was held to bail, namely, that he
owed him 601. and upwards, to be false. A rule to set aide
the verdict AM afterwards vented. Mr. Serjeant She* now
appeared to show cause against the rule, and addrereed him-
self in the first instance to a preliminary objection raised by
Sir F. Thesiger on the part of the defendant, vie., that the
award of the arbitrator wee not admissible in evidence
against his silent. The learned serjeent contended that it
was. The defendant Was interested in establishing the fact
that the sum of 501. was due to him: he had every motive
in endeavouring to prove the debt, and all the moans at his
disposal for doing so ; and if he could not show the existence
of such a debt against the prosecutor in a civil action, it was
pretty clear that the money was not due. In support of the
opinion that the award bad been improperly received vi-
deice against the defendant, a passage in Mr. Sorj as eeant
Starkie's work had been relied on, which said, " It is a
general rule that a verdict shall sot be used as evidence
against a men when the opposite verdict would not be evi-
dence for him ; the benefit to be derived from the verdict
must be mutual." Here, however, it was difficult to say
that the evidence before the arbitrator would not be avail-
able for the defendant on the indictment to show the state of
the accounts between the parties ; and if eo, why not of the
motive and belief under which the defendant made the affi-
davit ? The seasoning of Mr. Serj. Strolls could hardly apply
to the present case, because the parties had submitted
the matter to a private tribunal, selected by themselves, to
ascertain between them whether the money was due; and it
was conclusively found that it was not. Neither ofnd
them
could resist the effect of the award ; both agreed to be bou
by the decision; and it was the same as lithe defendant had
said, " I agree to be bound by my book, which shall be ex-
amined by a third party." The award was, therefore, the
very best evidence that could have been given on the indict-
' meat.---Sir F. Thesiger, on behalf of the defendant, con-
' tended that a verdict in a civil action (and the award must
be taken to have the same effect) could not in any case be
used as evidence in a criminal proceeding; matter which
was " res inter alioe acts," could not be evidence in any case
where it did not apply to the issue befits the court.—The
learned counsel quoted " Hildyard v. Grantham" (4 Vesey) j
" Gibson v. Macarthy " (Lord Hardoricke's Reports); and
other cases in support of his argument. The court defexred
udgment.

BAIL COURT.
Bitting, in Banco—Before Mr. Justice MIME.
V. THE JUSTICE& OF SOISEISIT.--C3ITIOR/RI.
—Mr. Paoliley moved for a certiorari to bring up an order
made by the justices of roomsin Somerset, in • ue
Ann
of
bastardy. It appeared that • woman, called ][arcy
Stevens, had borne twin children, of which the plaintiff was
the father. The children were born on the 29th of Novem-
ber, 1947 ; and on the god of February in the present year,
after bearing the cam, the justices decided that the plaintiff
should pay a certain nun weekly for the support of the two
children. The ground on which the learned counselt
been
made
the present application was that this order had no
made within two months of the birth, which was necessary,
according to the 7 and 8 Viet., cap. 101, sm. 4.—The court
granted a rule nisi.
Comtism' initenterrott.—Se. Pateredorff moved for a
certiorari to bring up an intraiillsa which had been held by
the coroner for the aunty oi KAM, sad which was properly
within the *baths of the gamer 1s the city of .oches-
ter. It appeared thin the haft el the eseemell was found in
the river Medway, and by diatom of 6th of Vim., cap. 12,
sass. 1, the Mamma amid antimiteed that, wader the dream-