The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-27 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.—YrsrraDAT.

imps% ALTA.;:PiuI7... Bono az Xi. Jun= Ems MID
COMMON !VIM.

HOWARD V. H0D54.1.117:4A1-
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was for-
mer a manufacturer in 1 orkshire, against the defendant,
the deputy-governor of the Queen's Prison, to recover com-
pensation in damages for alleged false imprisonment.
Mr. Parry and Mr. Holt were for the plaintiff, Mr. Wat-
son and Mr. Milbank for the defendant.
The plaintiff, who was a prisoner in York Castle, early
in 18.51 petitioned the Insolvent Debtors' Court fir relief.
Is June in that year he appeared before Mr. fierjeant Dow-
ling, the judge of the county court, and was reminded, on
the ground of fraud, for twelve months from the date of his
vesting order, which was dated the 12th of April, 18.51. Ile
was then transferred to the Queen's Prison by a writ of
habeas corpus, which the plaintiff himself calmed to be
issued, and was ennfined in what is called the "remand
ward." On the 12'h of April, 18.52, which was on a Mon-
day, he was informed by the defendant that he could not
bo discharged without a judge's order; but he had some
time previously spoken to defendant on the subject and ap-
plied to a judge, when Mr. Baron Martin said that such an
order was not necessary. The Insolvent Court at York bad
concurred in that opinion. The defendant was informed of
these facts, but nevertheless refused to let the plaintiff go ;
and he was detained until the following Thursday, when he
was discharged without such order.
It was enntended for the defendant that as the plaintiff
was in his custody under two writs which had been issued
against him at York, and a habeas corpus as well as a war-
rant of commitment, he did not know the true cause of the
plaintiff's commitment; and the course generally adopted
in such eases was to obtain • judge's order. He was,
therefore, justified in detaining the plaintiff as he had
done.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
20f.
Mr. Justice Erie said he would enter the verdict for
the defendant, on the ground that he bad no legal war-
rant in his hands, with liberty to the plaintiff to move.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YErreaDAY.
eirrawsa u Barea.—Raman Caine Jr., ici JERVIS, Ma. Jvaszca
Kivu, Ma. Jaime Casaswsu. IJID Mx. Jamas WILLJAII/.
FENN V. FORBES.—MOTION TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD.
In this case an application was made to set aside an
award, or to send it back t 3 the arbitrator for amendment,
upon the ground that he had not heard a material and ne-
cessary witness. The action was to recover 16.51. 14s. 2d.,
the price of certain machinery sold to the defendant, and
the case was referred to arbitration. The first meeting was
held on the 6th of December, but on the application of the
defendant it was adjourned peremptorily to the 9th, to
enable him to produce his witness. It was afterwards
postponed until the 13th, but the witness was not then pre-
sent, and the award was made. Affidavits were produced
to show that the evidence of the witness was necessary and
material, and also the exertions which had been made to
produce him.
Mr. Serje►nt Byles showed cause against the rule, and
Mr. Creuy supported It.
The Court made the rale absolute, upon the terms that
the money should be paid into court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YEaTuDAT.
tkvrolos BITOIII Twg Lou. Caw RUMP. Ma. BASIS
18111, Ms- BAsto l ALPILS&W.A.7OO Wa. Beaus Maim.

ANDERSON V. THORNTON.—JUDOMIINT.
This was an action to recover 11,6001., the amount of
insurance on the cargo of the ship Samuel Hicks on her voy-
age from Baltimore to the port of London, laden with provi-
sions, which was tried at the sittings at Guildhall after last
term, when a verdict was found for the defendant. Early
in the present term Sir F. Kelly moved for • rule for a new
trial on various grounds, when the court reserved its judg-
ment. The case was fully reported in the Daily News on
both occasions.
The court now gave judgment. With respect to the ver-
dict being against the evidence, the court were of opinion
that it was entirely a question for the jury ea to whether
they gave credit to Powell, the broker, and the witness (pr
the plaintiff, or to Mr. Thornton himself and his nephew ;
and, that being so, the court saw no reason to disturb the
verdict on the ground of its being against the evidence.
Mr. Baron Parke said the only reason why he wished for time
to consider the ease was, in consequence of some observation
by the Lord Chief Baron, in answer to a creation from the
jury. Sir Fitzroy Kelly in his argument, in moving for the
owl*, insisted that the amount of the premium was one cri-
Orion by which the jury might judge whether iowell or
Theraton told the Guth. It was said to have been a large
geemdmn paid for a missing ship, and that Mr. Thornton
Meld net have been likely to have asked suck • premium
UM bad been told that the vessel sailed from Baltimore on
the 12th and net hem the Capes. Now, if he bad thought
that the Jury bad aka • question as to the amount of the
riiTtto enable them to judge whether Mr. Powell or
ah
ornton told the troth, and that the Chief Baron had
told the jury that they bad nothing to do with that ques-
tion, there would have been Rood ground for the motion
for • new trial. He had; however, looked through
all the documents with which the court had
been tarnished, and from the beginning to the end of
Sir F. Kelly's reply there was not one word of such an ar-
gument ; and the mode in which the shorthand writer bad
described the interruption of the juryman who had put a
question to his lordship was extremely obscure. The an-
swer which the Lord Chief Baron returned had nothing to
do with the premium. It appeared, therefore, that this
point had not been made at the trial to enable the jury to
determine the question. With regard to the other points
urged by Sir F. Kelly, none of them appeared to be well
founded. There was a plea which set forth that the plain-
tiff had been guilty of fraudulent representation ; and Sir
F. Kelly had contended that it was a great hardship on the
plaintiff to be obliged to go into evidence to disprove the
alleged fraud, whereas it turned out on the trial that there
was no fraud on the part of the plaintiff. Upon looking at
the terms of the plea, it was perfectly clear that it was un-
necessary, in order to support that plea, to prove fraud—it
would be good on the ground of concealment or misrepre-
sentation, without actual fraud. As to the costs which the
plaintiff had been put to, in order to repel this charge of
fraud, and of which complaint had been made, that would
be • question for the Master. Then it was urged that
his lordship had not left the question of mate-
riality to the jury ; it was, however, unnecessary
for him to do so, because the fact spoke for
itself. The court were of opinion that the plaintiff was en-
titled to recover back the amount of the premium which he
had paid.
Mr. Watson said he was prepared, on the part of the
defendant, to consent to the count for money had and ms
calved being struck out ; and that the sum paid as premium
should be returned to the plaintiff.
Rule refused.
MATNI tr. WILD.--Jurioxisr.
This was an action against Mr. Wyld, tree geographer,
for dilapidation,. The jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiff, damages one farthing. A motion was subsequently
made for a new trial, and the court took time to esnaider
itsjudgraent. The Chief Ba-on now mid that tbe tenet
had looked over Mr. Baran Platt's notes, and bad aoalmed
with him on the subject of the verdict. That learned judge
was perfectly satisfied with the verdict, and the court were
of opinion that the rule for • new trial should be refused.
Rule refused.
HVIIHERSTY 0. WARD.—JUDOMENT.—BILLS 01 LADINO.
The Lord Chief Bares said that, in this ease, there had
been a rule nisi for a new trial, which had been argued this
term. The court were of opinion that the rule ought to be
discharged. It appeared to him that when a captain had
signed • bill of lading for the cargo actually on board the
vessel, he had no right, by signing other bills of lading for
goods that were not on board, to charge the owner. On
the present oecsaion it appeared that the action was brought
in respect of bills of lading having • priority of claim ; and
the court, therefore, thought that the verdict was right,
and that the rule for a new trial must be discharged.
Rule discharged.

iLIIINIAS OF THI COURT.

The Lord Cbleilf;;;;; said that a day would be named
for giving judgment in all cases in which judgment had not
been given, and that it would be • very few days after
term. On that day, all cues which remained to be
argued would be beard. The court hoped. b 7 adopting
this course, that not a single cue would be left m arrear.
TIIZATTOIMET GIEVIRAL V. Tao Soma Wsatsatt RAIL-

WAY C . .-FAZING EXCURSION TRAIN..

This we a special case to obtain the opinion of the court
upon a toestion of considerable interest to railway compa-
nies and the public—usmely, whether the defendants were
liable to pay the passenger duty of 6 per cent. in respect of
excursion trains.
The Attorney-General, Mr. J. Wilde, and Mr. Walton,
appeared fur the crown ; and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Skinner
for the defendants.
The arguments were stopped, in consequence of • sug-
gestion trout the court that the case ought to be amendid.
Serrisos AT Nut Pula—licroas KT. BATON PLAIT OM COMMON
Jeans.
N/1611 0. lITDOEIL—ASSAULT.

This war snoct7anU;;;;;;coii;;;;;aiiOn in damages
for an assault and injury done to some articles of furniture
of the plaiutiff's by the defendant.
Mr. Wortley ant Mr. Choke were for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Hawkins for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff, who had been • watch-
maker,
applied to the defendant, who then lived in Lloyd-
square, fur the loan of sows money on plated articles ; and
the defendant savgaosd him 301. lie subsequently told
defendant that he was entitled to about 17,0001. a year, and
defendant speed, epos having poson,ios of his deeds, to
baud and kap pisiatif sad hoe wife whilst ha was sulfa-
:l7rta &Nis peuessaien of the ipospsety in question, one
wideli be vas se lave bis trouble and o:telaji
Alta some laquiry, tie Wombat bead that then

be groat diflicalty is endeavouring to prove the plaintiff's
supposed cam, and then Omitted upon himself and his wife
leaving his (defendant's) house, in which he had assigned
than apartments, and to which they had Mined their
:serrature. Plaratitt refused to quit, whereupon defendant
closed the shutters of the rooms which he and his wife oc-
cupied, and on several occasions went into them with a
watering pot and wetted the ANN., bedding, rued articles of
furniture with dirty water. Upon owof' those occasions a
smalls took place (the plaintiff being as old man and the
defendant a young one) during which the plaintiff had his
arm broken in two pieces, and was fry a considerable time
under medical treatment. A surgeon was called, who
stated that he did not think the plvintiff would ever again
properly recover the use of his arm and hand.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damage:llooi.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS.—YssnaDAT.
Biro's y. Jcenea•Eua
LVIIILIT V. OTZ.

It will be remembered that an action was brought by Mr.
Lumley of her Majesty's Theatre, sgainq Mr. Oye, of the
Opera-house, Covent-garden, to recover damages in roger:,
to Madlle. Wagner having been prevented front fulfilling
her engagement at Her Majesty's Theatre. Subsequently
applications were made to the Court of Exchequer (in which
court the action was brought) on the part of the defendant,
to plead and demur, under the new act, at the same time.
Since the matter was last before the public, it has been
deemed advisable to discontinue the action in the Exche-
quer, and a new trial has been commenced of a similar
character in the Court of Queen's Bench, and on Tuesday
afternoon an application was made to Mr. Justice Erie, is
reference to the new action.
The summons called upon the plaintiff to show cause why
he should not elect between the last count and the first two
counts of the declaration, or one of them, and why one of
them should not be struck out, on the ground of a violation
of the rule of Hilary Term, 4 William IV., against the
use of several counts for the same subject matter of
complaint.
Mr. Willes appeared in support of the application, in.
strutted by Mr. Tamplin, attorney for the defendant, and
Mr. Templer, instructed by Messrs. Lewis, for the plain-
tiff.
Mr. Justice Erie, after hearing the learned counsel, de-
clined to make an order as prayed, and directed the costs of
the application should be costs in the cause.

CONSISTORY COURT.-YESTERDAY.
B. YOU Da. Lyntioaros.

ii;ILWILL V. HANZWILL.
This wu a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights, and
it derived some little interest from the " scenes " which
have taken place between Mr. and Mrs. Hakewill at several
of the common law ani police courts.
The proctor fur Mr. Hakewill, who had been enjoined to
take his wife home, and treat her with kindness, stated
that his party wu perfectly willing to obey the decree of
the court, and an arrangement was, therefore, made with
Mrs. Hakewill's proctor uto the time and place where he
should receive his wife.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.ZSTERDAY.
BOORS Tee CW., COMMIKOMILL
IN THE MATTER OP WILLIAM DARE.
This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Cooke for some credi-
tors, and Mr. Dowse supported.
The insolvent had kept a pie shop in Bowling-green-lane,
Marylebone, and a good deal of amusement was afforded by
the means adopted by the insolvent to increase hie business.
On the opening night, when he took • large sum, he put
some " fourpenoy pieces" into the pies.
The Chief Consmiuioner expressed his surprise that four-
penny pieces should be put into pies.
It was explained that the pieces were to get purchasers
for pies. The manner in which it was practised occasioned
a good deal of laughter in the court.
The 16th of February was appointed for the final order ;
and on the next occasion the insolvent was to consider
whether he could not make a proposal to pay his croditoss.
Booms Ma. Cormtestowiz Law.
IH RE EDWARD LOSS/DALE.
This insolvent appeared far judgment. The CUE was
heard on • former occasion.
Mr. Commissioner Law pronounced a judgment of six
months from the vesting order, under the discretionary
elates.
IN RE WILLIAM BEYOND.
This insolvent, whose case was formerly heard, now ap-
peared for judgment.
His Honour gave a judgment of nine months from the
vesting order, for making away with property.

cease which were in the list, said that the parties repro-
seated by him did not resist the plaintiff's right to take the
lease as lead, but reserved whatever rights they might have
la the 8. fn.'s.
After some discussion of a purely technical nature, the
Under Sheriff went over the evidence, and left it to the
jury to my what in their opinion was the value per year
of the defendant's interest in the lease of her Majesty's
Theatre.
as the
jury retired, but in a few moments returned, and
the net value of the lease at 3,0001. a year.
The same verdict was then given in six other cases, :
Hughes v. Lumley, claim 6,0031.; Same v. Same, 1,4111.;
Storer v. Same, 2,6681.; Lyon and Barnes v. Same,
22,4861.; Ferlotti v. Same, claim MIL ; and Hart v.
Same, 2,1761. The claim in the case tried was 1,1431.,
making together, exclusive of fractions, 36,3381.
It was ststed in the court that Mr. Lumley paid 100,0001.
for the lease.

MIDDLESEX SEW; lONS.—YESTERDAY.
Brooms Ma. ramamer Amin, Assinsier Jews.
Henry &think 16, and George Riley, 16, were indicted
for stealing two coppers, the property of Henry King
Church ; and Joseph Humes was indicted for feloniously
receiving the same, well-knowing them to have been stolen.
The two first named prisoners were found taking the
eoppers from • house of the prosecutor, 6, Sutton-place,
Hackney-road, on the 22nd of December; they put them on
a truck belonging to,Humm, who was • marine store dealer,
and it appeared that he bought the Copan* and afterwards
sold them to a person named Lewis. The latter sold them
to • Mr. Springey, in Birdcage-walk, Bethnaligreen, who
disposed of them to Messrs. Pontifax, of Shoe-lane.
The jury acquitted Humus, and found the two boys
Guilty.
They were then tried on another indictment of the same
kind, with the like result—the Assistant-Judge having in•
timated to the jury that he did not c insider the evidenze
made out the charge of receiving against Hamm.
In the course of the cue, Mr. Springey, whose name is
mentioned above, complained to the court of the conduct
of two police officers who were engaged in the case. About
eleven o'clock on the night of the 31st of December thou
individuals, Sergeant Smith and Francis, a constable of the
N division, west to his house dressed, the ono as a " navvy"l
and the other sea countryman, and, without producing an]l
warrant, insisted on his going to the police station with
them, and »rased to allow a friend to go with him to bail
him out. They took him into custody for receiving stolen
goods, but he was bailed by the inspector on duty at the
station, and he was discharged by the magistrate.
In explanation of this the officers said they had been en-
gaged two or three days in tracing out the coppers, and
having ascertained that they were in the possession of Mr.
Springey, they went to his house before they had had time
to resume their uniform. He came down undressed, when
thsy isld him they were police officers, and the nature of
*de saint, visa Springey said he had disposed of the
hawse violent. He then seised a cutlass
awrkgiras Iteg near the door, and was about to draw
it from the baird, when Francis seized it and snapped
it asunder, thinking he was about to use it. They then
took him into custody, and as to the refusal to permit a
friend to go to the station to bail him out, they did nothing
of the kind. What they did was this, the) took bins to the
station in a cab, for which they paid, and objected to
allow any other person than themselves in it. They appre-
hended him for the assault, and he was bailed out at the
station. The next day he was charged with receiving
stolen goods, but was discharged.
The Assi-tent Judge cautioned Humus as to his future
conduct, for he had no doubt he (Humm) was aware he was
dealing with thieves, and another link in the chain of evi-
dence would have sent him out of the country for 14 years.
He hoped the police would keep a sharp look out on the
neighbourhood. He then sentenced each of the boys
(against whom there were two other charges) to one year's
hard labour.
The officers whose conduct was complained of were then
called forward.
The Assistant Judge told the inspector on duty that he
did not wish them to be reported for what Mr. Springey
had complained of, as he had no doubt they were active offi-
cers and meant no wrong in what they had done. If Mr.
Springey had anyeemplaint to make he must lodge it at the
proper quarter; but nevertheless, he would say, they
ought not to go in the way they had, at eleven o'clock at
night, to an Englishman's house, particularly in the dress
described and under such circumstances. With a man who
felt he had done nothing wrong, his blood got up, his feel-
ings were roused, and of course he would resist. No doubt
what the officers had said was true, but he would advise the
police not to act again in such • way, and he hoped that
they would be more cautious in future.
Thomas James Johnson, a well-dressed man, surrendered
to take his trial on an indictment in which he was charged
with having assaulted Anna Maria Arnold.
The prosecutrix, a young woman eighteen years of sge,
the daughter of a painter, deposed that she went to live as
servant of all work at the Black Lion public-house, New
Montague-street, Spitalfields. On New Year's-eve she was
in the bar parlour at work, when the defendant came in,
and bad some gin and water. He asked her if she was not
• new servant, and on being told that she was, he remarked
that she must have a great deal of work to do, and asked
her if it would not be better to get two or three pounds
from a man like him rather than slave there in that way.
Her answer was, that an honest shilling was far better
than the greatest gains ill-gotten. He asked her afterwards
if she had ever seen a comet, and on her answering in the
negative he said if she went into the yard there was
ens to be seen. She did not go, and he drank
his gin and water, and left the bar. Shortly
after she had occasion to go into the yard to fetch a
pit When she was there some man laid hold of her and
forced her into the skittle ground, and shut the door. She
then described a struggle that took place between her and
her assailant, in the cipiree of which she fell on her back,
and screamed out "Murder," " Mercy !" and the man
placed his hand on her mouth, and one of his knees on her
chest. She bit his hand, which made him remove it. She
extricated herself and got away. She was unable to swear
that the defendant was the person. She returned to the
Ms parlour, and shortly after the defendant re-entered and
asked her what she balleo'd so for, and whether she wanted
le stake the governor think the house was on fire, and said
be had made up his mind for her, and would trap her
before the next week. She told the pot-boy of it, the same
night, and he laughed at her. She did not tell her mistress
that night as she had been to the theatre and was very busy
when she came home, but she told her in the morning the
first thing, and went home to her mother.
Mr. Ballantine cross-examined the prosecutrix very
sharply as to her character as a moral young woman, but
she negatived every imputation.
The learned counsel addressed the jury, urging upon
them the extreme improbability of the girl's story, and the
utter absence of everything in the shape of corroboration.
His client was a most respectable man, and through him
most solemnly and most emphatically declared that there
was not a syllable true in the accusation brought against
him.
Several witnesses gave the defendant a most excellent
character as a moral well conducted man.
The Assistant Judge summed up the case in detail, and
with great perspicuity.
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, which
was received with loud applause. This was immediately
checked.
The Assistant Judge said he agreed with the verdict, but
at the same time he thought applause should not be in-
dulged in. He did not think that the girl was not assaulted
at all.