The Express.
London, England, 1862-06-10 00:00:00

Sabo Inttlligncs.
COURT OF QUM'S BENCH.—Juirs 9.

&hint in Banok—Odiso• Lord Odd Justice Cookbook
and Justices Wilddaran, Crompton, and Blankboso.)

1151111N11111 OF TRI COURT.
The Lord Chief lodine pre notice that this court would
at in basso after Una ea the following days :—Wedceaday
and Thursday, the 18th sad 19th of Jane. After three
days their lordships would be sitting in the Court of Error,
and in consequence of that the sittings would be adjourned
until Thursday, 26th June, and the court would continue
slang up to Saturday, July sth. Saturday, July 12th,
would be devoted to giving judgment in all cases then
pending.

QUEEN r. TRAIN AND OTHERS —TRAIN'S TRAMWAY.
Mr. Chambers, Q.C., said in this cese the court bad
thrown out some observations upon bearing, that if the
vestrymen would not offer any obstacle to Mr. Train's taking
up the tramway, that a iselle prosequi should be entered as
to them, and that Mr. Train should then be called up for
judgment. The vestrymen had objected to comply, and
bad thrown obstacles in the way, and it wee for that Tenon
that the prosecutor bad again troubled the court.
Mr. Lush, who appeared for the vestrymen, said that
the reason why they had not complied with the suggestion of
the court was bemuse the prosecutor not only called upon the
vestry not to offer any obstacle to Mr. Train's taking
up the tramway, but he also required them to mist in
taking it up,itod that they refused to do. lie did not for one
moment object to consent to refrain from throwing any
obstacle in Mr. Train's way, and allowing him to take up the
WNW

The Lord Chief Justice mated whether the parties would
agree to &idiot court being drawn up, to the effect that the
vestry would not offer any obstacle to Mr. Train's taking up
the metals, or any one doing so that he should appoint.
Mr. Lush was quite willing to do so, and subsequently the
partite agreed to a rule of court being entered to that effect,
sad that if the vestryment did not Mao, an obstacle in Mr.
Train's way that thee a nolle prosequi should be entered
with reference to them.

Id U

or AUDITONA.

In this case lir. Wellaby movai, on the part of the Town
Clerk and Connell, for • rule, calling upon the magistrates
ofStockton toshowcausewhylhey should not house distress
to sell the goods of • poison named Bennington, for the
payment of • fine Imposed upon him for refusing to soess
the office of auditor. It appeared that • meeting of the
parishioners was held for the appointment of amerces sad
auditors, and at that meeting Mr. Bennington was appointed
an auditor ; but be refused to accept the office. and was
fined by the conned for refusing to do so. Upon his net
paying the fine, an application was made to the magistrates
to lune • ',errant for the sale of his goods, when he was
defended by counsel, who urged that it was not proved that
he was duly qualified, and the magistrate', upon that
ground, refused to issue the warrant.
The court mated • rule

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Joss 9.
Fitt*. w Bapoo.—(listore Lord Chid Justice Erie, sad
Justices Williams, Willes, and Arles.)
MILLI AND ANO7HBB V. /ILLY.- BiIIABD 708 APPii-

This was an action to ramose 101., • reward offered for
the apprehension and conviction of a boy who had Medea a
horse, harness, and van from Artillery-place, Woolwich, en
the 10th October last, and for the recovery of the property.
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiffs apprehended the
boy before the reward was offered, bat neglected to inform
the defendant thereof, and the defendant in igeawae et
each apprehension offered the reward. The plain.
tiffs by their replication replied that they were
policemen at Bedford, where they apprehended
the boy ; and that in accordance with their duty
they Informed the chief superintendent thereof, end he
within a reasonable time communicated with the defendant ;
and further, that it would have been contrary to the plain-
tiffs' duty to have given information to the defendeat ia
any way except through their superintendent. This repli-
cation was demurred to, it being contended that it did not
deny any material feet set out in the plea.
Mr. Joyce supported the demurrer, and Mr. Muammar&
was for the plaintiffs.
The Lord Chief Justice said he understood the plea en
allege that the plaintiffs fraudulently kept beck informa-
tion of the arrest nag after the reward was offered; end
to this the replication was that they had done nothing of
the sort, sod had, in fact. only acted in pursuance el their
duty. The replieatien, therefore, was a good answer to
the mietiondoet alleged is the plea, and must be allowed.
Jud4msot for the plaintiffs.

0017F.T OF EXCHEQIIIIIR.--Jlnrs 9.

Mingo in Baum In Trinity Torm.—lßdere Lord Chid
Boron Pollock, and Baran Marian, Bramwell, and
Choosell.)

YARDZAICILS OH ALDIER), APPALLS/ff. C. ROWIT, ARS/V/IMM.
This was an appeal horn the decision of two magistrates
sitting in petty sessions at Stratford, Eater, who had con-
victed the appellant, Fredericks, of having opened an me-
licensed theatre for the performances of stage plays, sad
fined him 6s. In November last the appellant constructed
• temporary theatre or booth, at Barking. It °omitted of
two caravans placed together and covered over with canvas.
suported by posts put into the ground, and was capable of
accommodating 300 parsons meted. The stage was formed
by two flaps let down from the caravans. About
8 o'clock in the evening the respondent, who is •
superintendent of the Wan polies, mitered the theatre,
to which admission was oNeined by the payment of 3d.„
and found a company of strolling players. &reseed in aka-
rector, giving a dramatic representation. Under the 42nd
section of god aed 3rd Viot., a 47, one of the Metropolitan
Police Acta, the police have power to enter any boom, ,
room, or tenement used for such • purpose, without being
duly lionised, and take into custody the owner or ma-
nager, and all meow amembled there without lawful excuse.
The appellant contended that the theatre or booth was sot
a tenemeet within the meaning of the act ; but the magi,.
testes held that it wee, sad the question for the opinion of
this nowt woe whether they Mira right in that deciaion.
Mr. George Brown (with whom was Mr. Murphy) having
been heard on behalf of the magistrates, in support of the
conviction,
The Court, without calling upon Mr. Poland, who ensnared
on the other side, wee clearly of opinion that the temporary
theatre described in the case, wee not a tenement within
the 42nd section of the statute. A tenement meant some-
thing fixed or permanent, and not what the landlord of
the ground might outrun for rent.
Appeal affirmed.