The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENC%

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAg.
Sittings in Banoo.—(Before Lord Chief Junks
Justioes Wilies, Bytes, and Keating.)
The court sat this morning to &spate of the
appeals from decisions of revising barristers.
VALLE, APPELLANT r. COPE, IESPONNINT.
This case was heard on Saturday. The appeal"
one of the trustees of lady Hewley's Charity, soak „An
gentlemen there were vested considerable ea*,
West Riding and North Riding of Yorkshire, vet 7_ll
among other things, to pay themselves 54 •os,
The appellant alarmed to vote for the North 8ic..,41.‘
that although, if the 5/. were to be spread ear d
estates proportionally, there would not be agemia.t
Oa the fioith Biding seats to give the vote, ea'.
power to elect to take 40a. a year out of the Kai
estate, and thus sogaire a right to vote, no too,""111
held that the doctrine of apportionment mot
he refused to allow the vote. Mot
The Lord Chief Justice now said that he vra g
that the revising barrister - - right I. ;...",7%
that the appellant had •
sufficient to give him
estate, and that the ,
proportionally over all the
enough to decide the case,
many other points raised
disposed of by him with so
precision, that if the court
not do better than nse the
Decision affirmed.
SLIGHT, APPELLANT
This was an appeal f
barrister for the borough
of voters for the borough,.
others perish lists of occupy
the yreernas's list, and he o
being, on it, and signed
,c,
&embed himself as of
voters for St. Peter's, Make.-
that the notice was insufficient
did not describe himself
The barrister held that
rejected the vote.
ogtingt.
r. Wills, for the appellant
this court is " Tutball v. t
5 Man. and G., was concha&
Mr. Cooke, Q.
on the
in that ems was • mere p,
that it was time that it r
The court, however,
the Town Clerk of
present appeal.
Derision reversed.
TILACNIVAT, AMLLANT,
The reepoadent object,
list of voters for Hersh
address on the notice ,
known as "Barionsham,
built on, and contained
The barrister being sat
Bertanham" would
that notice sufficient
not appear he rejected
decision was come t 4
present appeal was to
Mr. Cooke, QC.,
H. James for the reepondet
The Court thought
to • finding as • mat'
sufficient, and the fin(
of fact was amehuive.
law raised upon the appeal to the court
Decision affirmed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

N.N.W.
N. N. W.
N.R.

Bitting' at Nisi Prins.—(Before Mr. Banal*
Common Juries.)
The eourt only sat a short time this monk It ns
quence of the parties in several of the our sedum
pared to go to trial.
The learned judge complained of the res4asied
the solicitors, that they were liable I. NNE
for negligence in that respect.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVOICL
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
lIRIMMER V. BILEMNER AND BIM.
This was an application by a respondent is eels
upon her attorney to pay over to her certain sobs
had been received by lsim as alimony, and cesiiih
alleged that he had a lies for his costa.
Sir J. Wilde considered that the claims of leleg
were well founded. The order for the payment slim
always contained a direction that it should kapiiti
wife 'herself ; and if she chose to let it come instill
of her attorney it must follow the ordinary rilsnigs;
to monies in the possession of a lqal adviser. !mph
cation must, therefore, be dismissed with own

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COM,
(THIS DAY.)

(Before the Recorder.)
TRZ CliAllll3 OF PERJURY AGAINST TNT ITIA
Matthew Hayes, a respectable-looking men, I:
police-constable of the S division of
surrendered to take his trial for=unN
_ '

Pri MurY•
r. Sleigh, MT. Montagu Williams, entilelik
conducted the prosecution ~ Serjemt Mani s
specially retsined, with Mr. Cooper, Mr. G. 2 Gin
and Mr. F. Turner, for the defendant.
The circumstances under which this drip en
ferred will be fresh in the recollection of our sin I
the case was gone into very fully at the liniment
another police-constable named William Bury, kin!
to the same division, was tried and acquitted fersie j
offence. It will be remembered that the clip 10'
out of an accusation that was referrei OW
and Hayes against two young wen nueranl
Dye and Charles Pearce of having anew
commit a burglary at the residence of a geneses*
Dolmer, residing at No. G 2. Gloucester crescest,llo
park, on the night of the :kith of Anglin lau. Bi 0
dance that was given by the defendant and Wu
the effect that on the night in question One!
two young men jump over the ewes g i
Dolman about buff-past 1 o'clock in thi sell
and that they attempted to run way ii
, ter
apprehended on the spot. They were urn
upon two occasions at the blarylebone Foli
ose!
the result was they were both committed
Sessions forting
Middlesex, and after a long inrieell lil
were acquitted, and the present charge of
le I 7 Fee,.
then preferred against the defendants, and
of conspiracy. Barry, one of the defendants, ir,
upon the charge of perjury rat the last Kann ail'
being acquitted an application was made e'
pone the trial of the other defendant te in i
sent session. The cue in support of to
Fill
was that in the first place the defenden ga
tirely innocent of the charge of attempted gtOtt,
in support of this assumption the evidence 014.
was that they, were not near Gloucestervounlio
night in question, and that they were ponied!!!
taken into custody by the two constables ill..
street, which was more than a nude t Li
_ where the burglary was alleged tohies
dee. witted. Both Dye and Pearce swore_
__74
11 to this fact, and their statement was ang.
12. testimony of a girl named Phiebe Glue and t1e...11
- Young men who were with them on the "'Aii.e-g 1-7,
2 It was also alleged in support of the chatgil
1 that instead of the constables having been •
2 considerable time on the night in question in
_..,
1 lads Dye and Pearce, on account of their owe^.
they were about to commit some illegal sit, th
I'ln
public-house in the vicinity, called ti
an:Startionl 0..
, a considerable portion of the esening d fo,bin!gl
5 was moat positively denied by tee efend:li
4 companion Barry—their evidence in this
2 materially confirmed by the landlord of the ~.
2 question and his two barmaids. It transpireerl
3 of the inquiry that upon the last trial' he
2 was defended from his own resources, but it affe,
since his acquittal the Commissioners of Nei:
it ,heir duty to interfere in the matter, and bf 17,
tions Serjeant Ballantine was specially
the defence.
ton.
veeeryvidweenaceeleness ithdi,danondthtehperecaserioubsoccui°,lital of,
couple of days.
inters arei
--- - - - - -- --
-INS,

MIDDLESEX SESSIOI
(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Bodkin, Assistant-thcr
The oourt reassembled this morniog before •
Bodkin, the assistant-judge, Mr. Joseph
assistant-judge. and the following justices at ""'
Mr. H. Harwood and Mr. Loveland.
lo St&
A SAVAGE ASSAMT WITH INTENT -
Charles Fox, 25, a burly-looking fellow. 011—ii
labourer, was indicted for assaultiog James s"--
hithwroa with intent to rob him.
living atuNtOr.'lo6, Carlton-road, Ktaenbletishu"to"..,Bsl
morning of the nth of November bed walla
road at Limehottee. The prisoner ~,010
said, " I know you've got money, end
!;„,h,
then knocked him down. Prosecutor te"
rifriamor " knocked I'll bare your ;•id
e,," and he again knocked hint down•
took him into custody. Ho bad 11 bean;
the miaow", sad had never seen him bweeeige
1 LI
Patrick Fitzgerald, 201 Y, said be illlo
and saw the whole of what took ace.pe a
knock the prosecutor down, and W I
have' our money. He picked the d
`°774
bleeding from the month, up front there.'"
the prisoner into custody.

arrister was right
d no power to elect to
m a. vote upon say
e 51. charge most
the trust estates. %ar
aae, but he would 64.114
eel before the tonight Wilt
such remarkable
curt had to decide thenokr,..."
"`
the words of the banient. ""I
r. DLUIDIII, Imo!
1 from the decision et dm 1,11
gh of Malden. There wen%
rash,. one a fremnaa's Bet gm tic
couplers. The respondeet
he objected to the eggallsein:
pad hie notice of
of
laidoircrdgrzpl:de
insufficient because the
elf as being upon the franion
that the notice was watehei
This decision was so
appellant, said that the Ws it
all v. the Town Clerk el Iwo
onclusive in his favour.
n the other side, said that *la,
are Odell for bona fide dim% ai
it should be removed.
tr, held that the cane of "Wu%
Bristol" was concluin fa tla
ILLANT, e. Menu, linielnit
Masted to the appellees
raford, and the relpanism pa
ice as " Bartooaham." The dldt
ham," has been a farm Miaow
ained 42 terraces, plata, ad*
as satisfied that a lee* Wool
mild find the reams*
eient ; and as the mow
acted the claim to rata 'Bs
to In thirteen other mom alb
to test its validity.
appeared for the appellant; silk
wpondent.
it that what had bees dot
atter of fact that the dun* el
biding of the barrister email
ire. There was in truth sa
. .