The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-06 00:00:00

show eau•.• why Le should not ho dismissed from Ms
once. upon which Le wrote to know what charges
had been male against him. and received an
answer to the effect that no instruction* Lad been
given to the City Solicitor to inform hint. Ma.
isgood apts•arel before the council, and at a subse.
quoit meeting he was represented by counsel The learned
counsel requested to know the charges that had been made
agunst Mr. Osgood, when some of the members of the
court wished to ask the Recorder and the Common Ser.
jeant if they could legally act without hearing evidence. A
member then moved that the question should not be An-
sa erect, which was carried by a majority of two or three. The
court was then cleared. A similar motion was again
neat,• and carried, and the result was that strangers were
readmitted, and the Court of Common Council proceeded
to 41 rge both Mr. Osgood and Mr. Hakeman. The
learned counsel (Mr. Chambers) contended that the dis-
charge was illegal on the ground that the corpora-
tion had not jurisdiction. They had the power of
appointment and discharge under the old act of
pirliament, but by that act, which gives limited
equitable jurisdiction, the court, although it
had reserved the power of appointment in the corporation,
gave the power of discharge to the Lord Chancellor only
in the same manner as is the case of all county court
officers. _ _

Mr. Justice Blackburn said the corporation of London
was about as bad a body to appoint and discharge these
officers as the legislature could devise, but he was of
opinion there was nothing in the last act that took away
the power of discharge from them.
The Lord Chief Justioe said they would not trouble
the learned counsel further. The Court of Common
Council had, in his opinion, the right to discharge, but
accenting to the learned counsel's statement they
had exercised their jurisdiction under a most re-
markable state of circumstances. They had removed Mr. Os-
good from his office on the ground of misbehaviour upon the
report of the committee and not upon evidence taken before
themselves, and that he thought was a fatal blot in the
exercise of their jurisdiction. They were to see with their
own eyes and not with other persons', to hear with their
own ears, and judge by their own judgment instead of that
of others. Their conduct in that respect he thought fatal.
or at all events it was quite sufficient on which to grant
the rule to show cause. They must have before them some-
thing more positive than was contained in the section
referred to by the learned counsel as taking away the
power of dismissal from the corporation before they arrived
at that decision. He agreed with his learned brother (Mr.
Justice Blackburn) that them could not he a more lawn-
s enient jurisdiction for the appointment and discharge of
these officers than the corporation, but if they had the
poser the court must uphold it.
The other learned concurred.
Rule granted.

EX PARTE nscinss.
Mr. Hannen, in this case, obtained a similar rule against
the Lonl Mayor and corporation.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sitting in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Juatiee Bovill,
and Justices Willa, Kyles, and Keating.)

PALMER, APPELLANT, r. TUCKER, RESPONDENT.

The appellant in this case had been onvicted of having
taken a salmon other than by rod and line between noon
on Saturday and 6 o'clock on Monday morning, contrary to
the 21st section of the Salmon Fisheries Act. The facts
were these :—The appellant, a warehouseman in the City,
went down to Seaton, in Devonshire, for the benefit of
his health, and about 9 on the evening of Saturday
he stood on the beach watching the fishermen draw in
mackerel nets. Among the mackerel was a salmon, and a
policeman then ordered the fishermen to throw it into the
sea. After some delay this was done, but the appellant
stepped into the water up to his knees, and took the sal.
mon out again, and kept it out.
Mr. Pinder, for the appellant, now contended that the
conviction was bad. Only one of the witnesses had sworn
that the salmon was alive when the respondent took it out
of the water ; but it sweated that it had been out of the
water five or ten minutes, and it had also received a blow,
so that the probability was that it was dead. To take a
dead fish out of the water was surely no offence ; and he
submitted that the conviction could not stand, because
the magistrates seemed to have convicted irrespective of
the question whether the fish was dead or alive.
The court, however, held that the true construction of
the case sent up was that the magistrates had convicted
the appellant of taking a live salmon, and they were of
opinion that the evidence was sufficient to support the
conviction.
Decision affirmed.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde.)
SUGDIPM V. LULU.
Mr. Manisty Q.C., and Mr. Inderwiek appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Dr. Q.C., and Mr. Hannen for the
defendant.
This cans, which is a dispute between a brother and
twister respecting the will of their late father, Mr. Sugden
• airing boiler, of Wortley, near Leeds, was resumed this
morning for the third day.
Dr. Spinki, .C. summed up the evidence on be-
half of the defendant, Mrs. Bailey, pointing out
the great affection which existed between the testator
and his daughter, and having bad a quarrel with
his son, the plaintiff, there need be no surprise that he
had made • will bequeathing all his property to the
favourite daughter and disinheriting the disobedient son.
Hie lordship said that he was not satisfied that it
had been made out by the evidence that the testator knew
what he was about when he bequeathed the whole of his
property to his daughter alone, and therefore he pro-
nounced against the will which she had propounded,
though he did not think that it was a case in which either
party ought to be called upon to pay the other's costa.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY,
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE WILLIAM HAIGH.
_

''''
The bankrupt, described as a commission agent, of (hold-
hall-chambers, Rasinghall-street, came up for examination
and discharge. Debts, 6301.; no assets.
Mr. Chandler appeared for the assignees ; and Mr. Reed
for the bankrupt.
The bankrupt examined, and stated that he had acted as
agent for various manufacturing firms. During the last
two years he had incurred 40,0001. worth of bad debts in
his capacity of agent. If the goods had been paid for he
would have received his commission, but many of the firms
with whom he dealt bad stopped payment owing to the
bad state of trade.

The Commissioner—l am sorry for the manufacturers
whose goods you sold. (A laugh.)
In answer to Mr. Reed, the bankrupt stated he had been
in business 16 years without failure.
RIB Honour granted the order.
(Before Mr. Registrar Pepys.)
IN HZ GEORGE OSBORNY.

The bankrupt was the well.known provision dealer and
cheesemonger, of Ludgate-hill. The adjudication took place
upon the petition of one of his creditors, and to-day was
appointed for the choice of assignees. From the statement
prepared by Messrs. Hart Brothers, it appears the indebt-
edness amounts to 25,7311., with wets about 13,7001.
Proofs to the amount of over 15,000 f. were now admitted,
and the following gentlemen were chosen assignees :
Mr. W. Matterson, Winity-chambers, Borough, provision
merchant ; Mr. Kleinwort, Trinity-square, Tower-hill,
Provision merchant; and Mr. E. Hayes, of Hibernia-
wharf, London-bridge, provision agent. Mr. 'l'. P. Cope-
man, of St. Swithin's-lane, was appointed manager to the
estate, and Masers. Linklater and Co. having carried the
choice were appointed solicitors under the proceedings.

TUX POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)

GUILDHALL.
VIOLENT biILMANAN.

Hrnry Young. • private in the City of London
was placed at the bar. before Alderman Begley, charged
with violendy assaulting the complainant.
Richard Canning maid he lived at 39, Great
Castle-street, and was a oellarman out of employ.
About 7 o'clock last night he was at the Holborn
end of Farringdon-street, and saw the prisoner
and two other militiamen trying to pull a conductor
off the monkey board of his omnibus. He told the pri•
soner he ought to he ashamed of himself. They followed
him up Holborn-hill until he came to Ely•place, abusing
him the whole way. When they came there the prisoner
struck him a tremendous blow in the stemach, and
made bin, almost fall to the ground, and another
in the eye, at the same time telling him to put up
his bands and tight. He told him he did not
wish to tight, and the prisoner then said be was
worse than a schoolboy. A policeman came up and took
him into custody. In reply to the prisoner he denied that
be bad addressed any improper names to him or his
mates.

Alfred Vickery. 17, Holborn-hill, said be saw the pri-
soner at the corner of Ely-place trying to provoke the
complainant to strike him but be refused to do so.
The prisoner, when be found Canning would not
fight, turned to his comrades and said " Shall I let
him have it?" and they said " Yes, turn him over."
The prisoner upon that struck him a violent blow in the
stomach, another in the face, and several others on the
bead, and then, coward-like, wanted to sneak away, but
witness collared him.
William Crouch, 269, corroborated the complainant's
evidence a. to the prisoner's conduct towards the omnibus
conductor. He afterwards took him in charge for assault-
ing the complainant. He was not the worse for liquor.
The prisoner whined and begged hard for mercy on ac-
count ,f his wife, who was in the hospital. Ho tried
desperately to get up a cry. but failed.
A corporal in the City of London Militia said the pri-
soner had not been long in the regiment, but since be had
been there he bore a good character for steadiness, clean-
liness, and sobriety.
Alderman Healey fined him Is., or seven days' imprison.
rennt.

The fine was paid.
MARLBOROUGH STREET.
WHOLE-4.41.E 11088/LET AND 1111:CLIVING.

Alfred Harris, in the employ of Messrs. Buelcmaster,
tailors, No. 3, New Burlington-street, was charged before