The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-29 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Till QUEEN O. FLOCILTON AND OTHERS. JUDGMENT ON
THE PERSONS OONCERNED IN ERECTINO THE WATERKEN'S
PIS& AT Palm's WHARF. -- The defendants who had
pl' ailed guilty to an indictment far erecting a per at Paul's
Wharf, whereby an obstruction to the navigation of the river
Thames had been created, were called up to receive sentence.
On Monday, the 25th inst., affidavits in aggravation and
mitigation of punishment were read and commented on by
counsel. Subsequently to the plea of guilty, the pier was
removed, and the defendant, Flockton, sold his interest in
that portion of the riverside to which the pier affixed.
Shortly afterwards, however, another pier was erected, and
the prosecutors' affidavits suggested that the disposal of Flock-
ton's interest bad been colourable only; at all events, the
other defendants accepted employment under the persons
engaged in managing the second pier. The defendants, in
their affidavits, complained that the prosecutors, the Lord
Mayor and Aldermen of London, had themselves erected •
pier near Paul's-wharf, which was a far greater obstruction
to the navigation of the river than that to which the indict.
ment referred. The court on that day deferred its judg-
ment. Mr. Justice Patteson, in passing sentence, said that
the court could not allow its opinion of the amount and na-
ture of the punishment to he affected by the fact that other
nuisances, perhaps equally deserving of punishment, had
hen re_vationed by the conduct of the prosecutors. In such
nuisances there was a remedy similar to that in this case.
The court would not assume that the defendant F:ockton
had reserved the power of re.acquiring the property referred
to, but it wished him, those who had purchased his interest,
and e.pecially those who had taken service under persona
who, it had been said, were guilty of a like nuisance, to un-
derstand that all parties to such offences, thine who afforded
their ground for the object, and those who were engaged as
workmen merely, would be visited with punishment if con-
victed. The sentence of the court was, that the defendant
Flockton pay a fine of 2.51. to the Queen, and each of the
other defendants a like fine of ls., and be imprisoned until
the payment of such fines respectively.

BAIL COURT.
Before Mr. JuPtice Erie.

THE QVCIN v. POLHHOOL.—CUSTODT or a CHILD WHIN
rna PARENTS ARE BEPAHATED.—This wu & return to a
habeas corpus to bring up the body of Anthony Pulbrook, a
child of seven years old, and which had ia.ued at the instance
of the father, Anthony Pulhrook, who was separated from
his wile, and wished to obtain the custody of his son. It ap-
peared from the affidavits on bo'h sides that Pulbrook had
been a shoemaker in Blackfriars-road ; and when he
married hi. wife, was supposed to be a man of property, but
got into difficulties and gave up his business, end subse-
quently his wife left him on the ground of ill-treatment and
his being unable to support her, and went to live with her
father, a man of wealth, taking the child with her. Her
father was willing to take charge of the child, and had sent
it to a proper school, while it was alleged that Pulbrook was
• man to d.estitute circumstances as well as of dissolute habits,
and unfit to have the education of • child. Both these
allegations he denied, asserting that he was in good employ-
ment as a surveyor.—Mr. !loggias appeared fur the wife and
Mr. Thomas for the husband.

Mr. Justice Erie said that although he hod no doubt of the
poverty of the father, and that it the child remained with
the mother'. relatives it would be well and comfortably
brought up, yet on the authority of the ease " Greenhill e.
Greenhill," in which the husband was living in open adul
tery, and keeping a separate establishment, the children,
some of them girls, were delivered up to the father. Pul-
brook was entitled to the custody of his son.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco.
T E ATTORNEY-GEN ERAL O. GAM BLE.—THE EXCISE
LAWEi. -- APPEAL. ATTEMPT TO DM LIE ♦ REVENGE
OFFICE It.—The defendant in this case wee summarily COll-
- in a mitigated penalty, by two justices, upon the
fourth count of an information exhibited against him fur
having at empted to bribe a revenue officer ; he was acquitted
upon all the other counts. Having appealed to the Quarter
Sessions for the borough of Leeds, within the jurisdiction of
which the alleged offence was committed, the learned Re-
corder was of opinion that the evidence did not sustain the
conviction upon the fourth count, hut received the evidence
offered in support of the whole information, and was ulti-
mately of opinion that, if it was legally adm;ssilde, it was
sufficient to sustain the second count, although it was defec-
tive with reference to the fourth; under those circum-
stances, the learned Recorder stated the facts in the form of
• special case (under the provisions of the 7th and Bth Cleo.
IV., chap. 63, s. 82) for the opinion and direction of this
court.—Mr. Ingham, oho appeared yesterday, on behalf of
the excise, contended that the whole case was open upon
the appeal, and that it was competent to the prosecutors to
give evidence at the Quarter &talons in support, not only of
the count upon which the conviction before the justice. was
had, but likewise in support of the counts upon which
the defendant was aegnitted.—Mr. P•ahley maintained that
the evidence in support of the coun.a upon which the de-
fendant was acquitted by the magistrates should not be ad-
mitted upon the appeal, which was restricted to that part of
their decision with which the defendant was dissatisfied.
The proper course for the excise to have taken, if they
wished the evidence in support of the other counts to he
considi.red, was, to enter across appeal—The court took
time to consider.