The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-15 00:00:00

Tire State of rho weather at
Nino o'clock yesterday
arraalpi ia order of latatat

_
lama of ram

R
Ivenewrie...,.....

/wanes
lowassine• •
Pmts.'s=
Tom... -.
ammension
Serums

CAMEOS' .............
ILveIN

If morns

Oaueve et
Wiwi.

N.I.
N.C.
LW.
ILL
LL
ILL
SJL
X.S.
Li

Gee,. dm,
Weals anon
Strode Mesa
rMoog liner
nse .w...
01.11 item
Use* bd..
Ossibilrese
Am. arum
Urals Omer
Osseo New
Wails Illnat.
Men Orem
eselle
Osulle Orme

THIS

Osows O. Whld. etc
Lai Omit* !Wenn
Tint Mune from the following places di,
office in time for publication yeatertlar
indicate the date of the wmther on Teo
Mae o'clock.

(Duaus

1 -
-U-

SAL
▪ W.
N
Ni.
N.
N.P.Y.
N 6

Oeuthp Itesesr
Oratle Breen
Ma.

u.n...-

Ownsle Boom
Owl@ Ilieset
SOON Itrerse
Um. emu' 1
eau, _ i

Tina ...

Cieweim
uweriali
Omer'
Pontally Mut,
Pallidly Cindy
0.1111•1•1

11.4 r
Wsmouviss

Guide....
Ouwais One=
tWit
_

oesisk Senn I

iirifaliy Coady
Ifterlrnot
Pardo Mosey
Portion Cloudy
Paalolly Cloudy
vino. Or
floudion
Pat Ually Cloudy
Medium
Closdloos

DAT, Noon.
is of the Wiwi,.
Clem
I not reach thi§
; they therefore
'day Osorniag It

PVafl arody
,ftprir _

i'ainT; Cloudy
tlay Cloudy
PPararibay umay
Pardoily Maar
Partially °arty
=1"1"/

GOVF.RNEVOIte BENEVOLENT INSTITETION.—TaaI
evening the anniversary festivity of this excellent institution
took place at the London Tavern. and was numerously
attended. In the absence of the Duke of Cambridge, from
whoa a letter was read, apulogising for his necessary ab-
cues, in consequence of having to attend on her Majesty
the Queen at Ilucknigliam Palace, the chair 1•44 tilled by
the liburaula or Westminster. The reserved seats were tiledby the a 1 putronceses, ne well as recipients of the bounty
of the institution. The Chairman, alter proposing the
usual loyal and customary toasts. proceeded to give the
toast of the evening. The toast, be oberreed, had peculiar
claims upon them, inasmuch as the object it sought to carry
out it had never relaxed from. The institution had gone
on fur a aeries of years, affording a refuge and a mainte-
nance to many most excellent and highly educated
hair, who, without the shelter and protection afforded by
such an asylum, would have a difficulty in procuring
that occupation suited to their relined tastes and accom-
plished acquirements. In the course of the last year the
amount diebursed in temporary mistimes was upwards of
max. whilst the number of C0M.100.011111 effected was not
fewer than 1,400. Such wee a plensing state of affairs. and
ealesdated to stimulate the friends of the institution to
rimmed exertion; and therefore be doubted not they
woad receive the toast of " Prosperity to the 00TOMINIKNI.
iesariest hearties " with Arias retreads. The
least baring bass eathserstieelly required, and the salute-
quest MAY toasts responded to becomingly, subscriptions 1
to the arsert et 2,3171., incloding the mutual dictation of
her Neies."/ si Ma, were easesseed by the secretary, and
the shethsty thsieeted.
(Aehiditinhiht.)--A DDIZAIIE OF 'ii CHEM AND
Esurandintalillieralodainsnorr Aso Pnaa.-114. Sumo lit.
litaw dill In Illn linianninn. petgelewee or der Oseassmnowlie
Indidansist IMAM ale. bra nab be aellissi ter
ens reap be parr re test relled star. yr
serry sr mild Ms say sell( nil ars see ereneres
as a• we immeihrte • emohnue aihmishvi et SW hew.
ti mama le solert tatty ail may's °Wang ash Ptll► lid
ere asserdirl aelleber he re nee el rash% is and
ee bar. drier lifterd a perms era rear ve ism arse mew
Ma in•L—llie by an maudlin* minim; mad at !goer Hobo-
meregeffilishmer, 344. mak leak&

. LIABILITY or RAILWAY CARItIEILS.
This was an appeal from an order made by the judge of
the County Court of Grantham. It appeared that the plain-
tiff delivered certain plans and models at the railway station
at Grantham, directed to Cardiff, where they were to be ex-
hibited to compete with others for a prize of IDOL which had
been offered for the best model of a machine for lifting coals
in Swansea harbour out of barges. The parcel was delayed
it transitu, and was out delivered until a day after the prises
had been awarded. The plaintiff then brought an action
against the defendants, as carriers, to recover compensation
in damage* for the injury he had sustained; and called two
competent witnesses to prove that his model was very
superior to that which had gained the prize. Thejudge of the
County Court decided in favour of the plaintiff, and gave
him 201. damages. The defendants had appealed to this
court against that decision.
Mr. Denison, fur the appellants, contended that the de-
fendants did not contract to carry the parcel to Cardiff, hut
only to the extent of their line, which terminated at Not-
tingham ; and if the court should be ,if a contrary opinion,
the darmig..s ought to have been nominal, the judge having
no means before him of assessing them.
Mr. Lush having been heard on behalf of the re-
spondent,
The Court wen. of opinion that the judgment of the court
below must be affirmed. It had already been decided that
where a parcel was delivered to the agent of a railway com-
pany directed to a place beyond the limit of their line, un-
less such agent said at the time that their liability must be
limited to the extent of their railway, it must be taken for
granted that they contracted to convey such parcel to its
destination, and they were answerable for all the interme-
diate lines by which it might be carried. The receipt of
the parcel was primii facie evidence that they bad made
sonic arrangements with the intermediate tamers to carry
it to its ultimate destination. This ease clearly came within
that which had been decided in 8 Meeson and Welsby. The
judge of the County Court had also acted upon a correct
principle in assessing the damages, and there was sufficient
evidence before him to warrant the conclusion to which he
had arrived. .

Judgment for the respondent.
sTssos AT NM Pans.—Baroax Loan Omegas.

JtiT.

AVID A

CUTTING v. LE BLANc.LiiizAciv or Paola's' or

...-.

Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Ball appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. LIAM, for the defendant.

Mr. Humphrey. in stating the ease to the jury, said that
this was a most hearths, ease. The plaintiff was a young
woman the daughter of a farmer, who in the year 18,19 was
residing at Tooting; at that time the plaintiff was seven-
teen years of age, and the defendant, who is a solicitor in
large practice, then became acquainted with her, and in-
duced her to come and live with him as his housekeeper,
saying that at that time for family reasons he
could not marry her, but that he would do
so ultimately. She lived with him until the year
1547, when he succeeded in seducing her, and in 1818
she was delivered of a child. At this time the plaintiff had
many letters, in which the defendant• had promised to
marry her; hut the defendant had succeeded in obtaining
possession of them, and destroyed them, but they had been
seen by other persons, and he should be able to give evi-
dence of the contents of some of them, but the defendant
having obtained possession of these letters seemed to think
that be had destroyed the evidence of his promise, and in
liCso turned the plaintiff and her child out of doors with-
out a penny in the world iu the most heartless manner.
lie trusted the jury would give such damages as would
compensate the plaintiff, whose ease was a most particularly
hard one, for having been raised above her station and edu-
cated by the defendant, she was now thrust down to a level
with lbw, for whose companionship she was made unfit.
Mrs. Flower examined, said, I am the widow of an
atturney. In August, 1847, I was living at Clap-
ham. The plaintiff on that day called on me about
lodgings. In consequence of that I went to the de-
fendant's residence at Bayswater. She did not then
take lodgings. In Match, 101$. the defendant called
about lodgings foe Miss Cutting. I told him she was leav-
ing my house. Ile then wished me to look out fur lodgings.
Ile cad that Elisa Cutting was in trouble, and as 10011
her trouble was over he wu going to marry her. I said I
was rnarrled. 1 afterwards called and told him
=WS Xn. Long's. Ile procured a fly
and I aesommnaWlMo to Mn. Lung's. She seemed very
soltappy, and he requested me to call end see her as often
as I could. She stayed three weeks at Mrs. Long's and
then removed to Mrs. Goodwin's. I used to visit her there
and saw the defendant there three or four times after the
child was horn. She showed me a whole packet of letters,
which she said were the defendant's. When the baby was
sir weeks old she moved back again to the defendant's house
at Bayswater, the baby remained with me. Shc
used to come and see it most slays. I remember
her asking me to give her beck the letters which
she had before given me to keep for ker. 1 dills°, and she
took them up stairs into the room where the baby slept. I
had then removed to the neighbourhood of Bayswater to
he near the plaintiff. The next day she complained that
the letters were gone. I saw the defendant the next day,
and told him the letters were gone• and that the plaintiff
said he had taken them. He said he hail taken them, and
had burned them; that they could nut be of any use to the
plaintiff, as she could never have made use of them against
him. I said they would have been of use, of course. The
plaintiff was nut present when we talked about the letters.
Ile afterwards brought a written paper, and read it to
It was an offer to give the plaintiff 1001., and 201. to pay
for little bills which she owed, and he said if she did not
take that, he should turn her out of doors altogether. I
said he would not do anything so cruel as that. Ile said,
Oh, but he would." She was afterward, turned out, and
came to me; she bail her child with her then. I never saw
die defendant afterwards.

Cruss-einunineil by Mr. Lush—l never read any of the
letters. I heard the plaintiff read them. When the de-
fendant brought the paper he said her wages were 201. per
annum. I was aware that at that time the had summoned
defendant to the County Court fur wages. I think it was
for between Ilf. and 12/. The defendant never told me be
would pay the 100/. upon the plaintiff's marriage. lie did
not say that she hail taken a gold watch and pawned it.
She told me she had dune so by his direction. She said
that she hail told him she had no money, and he said he had
none fur her, hut that she must pawn the watch. The de-
fendant lived in • ten-roomed house. She did not act as
servant. There were two other servants. I know Panter,
plaintiff's brother-in-law. She never told me she had broken
into the house, but she did tell me she had been taken be-
fore the magistrate for breaking a window. The defendant
never told me that he was annoyed by other men coming
to the house after her. Ido not believe any ever did come
after her.

ke-extunined.—He wee always very kind to her till he
seemed to turn against her all of • sudden. That was a
short time before the letters were taken. She told me she
was taken before Mr. Painter, and that ho said the defen-
dant ought to give her 2001. at least.
Mrs. ranter examined by Mr. Humphrey.—l am the
sister of the plaintiff. My father was a farmer at Tooting.
I remetnlwr in 1839 the defendant coning after my sister
She used to receive letters from him, and we used to joke
her about having a beau. She soon afterwards went to live
at • Mr. Lee's, and after that at the defendant's. I used to
visit her when she was there. In the year 1812 I
saw the defendant, and asked him what his intentions
were with respect to my sister ; he said he intended to
marry her, hut was not in circumstances to do so then.
They were then living in Stanhope-terraee. I afterwards
told my sister what he had said. lle always treated her
with respect and kindness. I heard about her letters being
taken, and about a fortnight afterwards I saw the de-
fendant. Ile admitted having destroyed them, and said he
was willing to make my sister any recompense in his power.
He said my sister had threatened him. I went with my
husband to his house at Bayswater the next day, to try and
come to some arrangement. He said he had offered 1001.
I said it was not suftleient. He then said he would pay her
100/. then, and promise to pay another 1001. at the end of
twelve months, upon my sister giving up all his letters and
all claims upon him.

Cross-examined -No one was present when I naked him
his intentimlN. I am (deer than my sister.
James ranter examined—l am a general postman, and
husband to the last witness. I used to go and see my sister
in Stanhope-terrace. The defendant always treated her
kindly. He used to call her Pussy. She used to sit in the
dr wring-room. I have seen defendant write often enough
to know his handwriting. I saw a packet of letters Rom
him to my sister. There was one which began—" My dear
Lucy, why vex yourself unnecessarily, you are already my
wife in the Right of Heaven, and when my circumstances
remit I will give you the more honourable title of wife."
Chat letter was date.: in 1839. Most of the letters were to
the same effect. He said in one that he did not wish to
offend his uncle Charlie, as he expected a legacy from him.
I remember the plaintiff coming to my house on Sunday,
9tth Febru try. I twilit back with her to the defendants,
and when we got there ha was patting a pectins's on the
gate, and he said that neither Elisa nor the child
asould ever come in again. I took the child in my
arsa and she got over the gate. She begged the defendant
to let her in, as it was very cold and the child would catch
its death. She asked me to go away, saying that perhaps
when I was gone he would let her in. I went away. I
came heck in about fire asioates. There were then two
policemen there, and hi bawd then to take her into cus-
tody, or else to take has limas hotel, and he would pay
' all the expenses. I toid Ike psitseseen the true story, and
they then advised him to Mrs his La, as they could not'
take her is chap an asai the MB aced asked the set-

This was an action brought by a former valet of Mr.
Eisenberg, a chiropodist, against Mr. Eisenberg and his
wife, to recover compensation in damages for certain
slanderous words spoken of the plaintiff by Mrs.
Eisenberg.
The only witness called was Maty Anne Miles, and
from her evidence the whole facts of the case will
appear. She stated that she had formerly been lady's
maid to Mrs. Eisenberg, and she had been in the
service seven years. The plaintiff was valet to Mr.
Eisenberg for t t months. On the 4th of Nov., l&50, Mrs.
Eisenberg sent for witness. Witness accordingly went and
saw Mr. Eisenberg, Mrs. Eisenberg, and a Mr. Diamond,
an assistant to Mr. Eisenberg. Mrs. Eisenberg said she had
something to tell witness which would astonish her. She then
said that the plaintiff was a thief ; that he was connected
with all the swell of London ; and that be was a dangerous
person to have in a house. She further said that he would
hang a person; that he would set fire to a house; and that
be was a wretch and ► bad character. The plaintiff at this
time had left the defendant's service, and Mrs. Eisenberg
wished witness to break off the engagement which she had
made with him to marry him. Mrs. Eisenberg also
said that Mr. Eisenberg had lost some white pocket
handkerchiefs and other articles from his wardrobe, and
the plaintiff had taken them. She wished Mr. Diamond to
take a constable and search the plaintiffs lodgings. Wit-
ness on two occasions saw Mr. Eisenberg search the plain-
tiff's apartment. In consequence of what Mrs. Eisenberg
told her, witness declined to marry• the plaintiff.
On cross-examination, this witness admitted that she had
kept up her acquaintance with the plaintiff until within a
short time ago. lie had been discharged once before by
Mr. Eisenberg, but she begged him back. The defendants
were opposed to her marrying the plaintiff.
Mr. Scrjeant Wilkins, fur the defence, contended that his
clients were entitled to the verdict of the jury, inasmuch as
the communication which was made to the witness Miles
was a bona fide and a privileged communication.
Mr. Justice Cresswell, in summing up, said he should
leave it to the jury to determine whether Mrs. Eisenberg
meant to impute an indictable offence to the plaintiff, and
also whether the communication was a bona fide one, in-
tended for the benefit of the young woman Miles, in order to
prevent her from marrying an improper person. If the
communication was so made, it would be a privileged coin.
munication, and the defendants would be entitled to a ver-
dict.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
His lordship Raid that the action was one of the most
impudent attempts to obtain money that he had heard of
for some time.

Thetia;;gt:a were laid at 20W.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—YESTERDAY.
NIPI Pascs.—Bnoas tka P. 'awns. QUIZ Bun, AND • MID.

N.YII CONK. 41 Jest.
The cause list contains 37 causes, besides 10 special jury
eases, which will not be tried till nest term.
WILEUN ♦YD OTHIIOI O. MARGARET Ttesom.—Pitoxts-

MOLLY NOT..
This was an action on a promissory note fur 300/. made
by William Tyson, the deceased husband of the defendant,
in July, 1821, to Mary Colebank. To this the defendant
pleaded payment, the statute of limitations, and a denial of
the note. It appeared that Mrs. Colebauk vas sister of
William Tyson, who kept an Inn in Lancashire, their family
being pour and illiterate, and Mrs. Colebiuik herself, though
married to u wealthy clergyman was unable to write. She
lent her brother 3001., and authorised him, and his widow
after his death, to pay the interest accruing from time to time
amongst several of her poor relations. F..r the plaintiff, OC-
VeT.ll of those recipients of the lady's charity were called to
prove that such payments were made at her request. The
existence of the note fur 3001. was proved to bave been dis-
tinctly admitted by William Tyson. Oa the death of Mrs.
Colebank last year, in Leicestershire, her executors de-
manded a settlement, and ultimately brought the present
action.

A verdict was consented to for the principal sum without
interest. Verdict fur the plaintiff for 3001.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. J. Browne wero coun-
sel for the plaintiff. Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr. G. At-
kinson fur the defendant.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.-YESTERDAY.
Barn. Ms. Bowl; PALI' AND to JrWO ur =a OMIT Or
COMMON PLUS AND Borers or Mc., or co. oa E2J10•• MOM
no Quoales Boom.

THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY O. TRU
QUEEN.-MANDAIII:E.-Tuz RAILWAY CLAUSES CONGO.
LIDATION ACT.

This was a writ of error on a judgment of the Court of
Queen's Bench in a mandamus commanding the company
to make a certain bridge of er their railway. The company
were authorised by the act 9 & 10 Vict. to construct a line
of railway from the London and Greenwich Railway to
Woolwich and Gravesend. The mandamus set forth that
the railway crosses a highway not on a level, in the parish
of Plurnstead, and county of Kent, by means of a certain
cutting, 20 feet deep and 35 feet wide, through which the
line was carried, and by means of which the public high-
way was rut and destroyed, and rendered impassable for
carriages, &c. The mandamus then set forth that, although
reasonable notice had been given to the company to comply
with the provisions of the statute 8 & 9 Viet., c. 20, entitled
the Railway Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, yet the
company refused to carry the highway over the railway by
• bridge in terms of the act. The command was that the
said highway should be carried over the railway ; that it
should have a good and sufficient fence, be of the breadth
of 25 feet between the fences, and have an ascent of one
foot in twenty. The Court of Queen's Bench gave judg-
ment for a peremptory mandamus.
Mr. Peacock, on behalf of the plaintiffs in error, said the
main question in the present case was whether the Court of
Queen's Bench could command the company to carry the
highway over the railway. The court could not command
them to do more than they were required to do by statute.
The act 8 and 9 Vict. cap. 20, sect. 46, gave the option to
carry over or under. The mandamus ought to have com-
mended to carry the road either over or under the railway,
and the company he submitted were not bound till they had
made an election. There were some minor points that the
mandamus did not set forth that it was a highway for ear-
-1 sieges, or that it was a highway at the time the act was
Mr. Needham, on the other side, contended that there
was no such option. The act contemplated two events, and
provided remedy accordingly. When • railway crossed not
on a level, it must necessarily either be above or below the
level. The two remedies were distinctly provided. The
first was applicable to the base where it wsaabovr, the other
where below the level. The statute gave no option, but
provided in imperative terms that either the railway should
be carried over the road, or the road over the railway. The
statute never used the word " under."
In the course of the reply by Mr. Peacock,
The Court asked why the plaintiffs in error had not de-
murred to the mandamus.

Mr. Peacock could not say, as he had not drawn the
pleadings. It was important to have the law on the point
clearly laid down.
Baron Martin remarked that no doubt it was, but be
could not refrain from the observation, that this was an at-
tempt to get rid of the costs of the mandamus. It was a
grant abuse, which he hoped soon to see obviated, that this
court should be obliged to sit on • writ of error, when it
was quite clear there was no error.
Baron Parke said the court would take tins, to consider
the point.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—YEsnwAy.
Bayou risa Quer Commaxema.
Ix Az RICH•RD PEN:MFATIIIKFL.
This insolvent, who had been a lieutenant In the 22nd
and 89th regiments of infantry, was opposed by Mr. Cooke,
for a creditor named Keane. He had been two years and
three months in prison. lie had served in India under Sir
Charles Napier. He was wounded in India, and received
his portion of the prize money from Scinde. He sold his
commission in August, 1845, fur 700/., and in October, 1848,
received the prize money of 8321. His debts were 4,8001.,
some of which were gaming transactions, and the reason he
had not petitioned before was his expectations that his
father would have made a charge in his favour to 2,0001. on
some property in Tipperary, but it turned out that a charge
bad been previously made in favour of his married sister.
His elder brother was deaf and dumb, and he believed that
he would share after his death in the property in settlement
on his father's marriage.
The Chief Commissioner said the insolvent bad answered
very fairly, and after his long imprisonment would have
I been discharged. It was, however, necessary to obtain
some information from Dublin respecting the property in
settlement.
Adjourned to Monday.

WESTMINSTER couNTy COURT.—YESTERDAY.
Haman F. Sarum, Do. hose.
60NALDIDON r. FIAkOrS OVONNoII, M.P.—Tnn LAND
SCHEME AND ITS EVILO.
The wet en action brought by the plaintiff, a work-
ing nisit, against Feargus O'Connor, Esq., M.P., to
reCOver the nun of 51. 46., for certain there+ in the
National Land Company, under the following eizeum-
OteMOIS.

The Court having consented,
The Plaintiff stated that he was a shareholder in Mr.
O'Connor's land scheme established in 1846, having pur-
chased four shares, and according to the rules of the society
no person could purchase more than that number. Paid
the money to Mr. O'Connor at the company offices, 144,
High Ilolborn, but now suing for shares taken at a subse-
quent period.
The Judge—How came you to take more than four shares ?
Plaintiff—Through Mr. O'Connor's misrepresentations ;
and I received a letter from Mr. O'Connor, in which he
excused himself fur not having paid me upon the supposi-
tion that I was an enemy to his cause. The letter was
written by his secretary, and signed by himself. The
second four shares were sold contrary to the rules, and soon
afterwards the defendant stated in his paper (the Northern
Star) that it was illegal. I bought those second shares
under the impression that it was a legal transaction, having
inquired at the time, and subsequently I was informed that
it was not. I applied at a public meeting of the company
for these shares, and they decided that I should be repaid
by Mr O'Connor. I have lost a considerable sum through
the company, and I consider the defendant responsible tor
the acts of the persons whom he employs in his office.
The Judge—But you say yourself that you were told that
you ought not to have any mare than four shares, and still
you purchased four more ?
Plaintiff—Yes, your Honour ; but it was through the
deception of t e defendant, by representing to me that
persons could hold more thou four shares.
The Judge—Have you any proof of that ?
Plaintiff—l am 110 miles from the place, and, therefore,
I cannot bring the parties forward to prove it.
The Judge—Then I can't act unless you prove that.
Mr. O'Connor here stated that the plaintiff had bought
the eight shares knowing that he could legally hold but
four, fur the purpose of being put twice on the ballot list.
Plivintitfeald he had followed dt fend:int.% advice for the
last twelve years, and supported him in all his undertakings
at great personal loss.
The court decided that he must be nonsuited.