The Express.
London, England, 1866-06-05 00:00:00

iLittu intelligence.

COURT OF COMMON, PLEAS. —Jima 4.
Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesax.—(Befors Mr. Justice
Ryles and a Common Jury.)
GRANVILLE W. ARRAY. -

---
This was an action of trover to recover the value of
pair of earrings and a gold necklet, and the defendant
paid 5/. into court.
Mr. Harris, the plaintiff's counsel, said that the circum-
stances of the case were somewhat pecuhar. Mrs. Gran-
ville, a young woman, had met the defendant, • commer-
cial traveller, living at Mildmay-park, Islington, and after
some conversation, he had in the most fascinating manner
removed the articles of jewellery from the plaintiff's per-
son, and she had not been able to regain possession of them
since.
Mrs. Annie Granville, the plaintiff, said—l live at
9, Bolton-place, Brampton. The last week in August last
I was at Mellon's concert at Covent-garden theatre, and
the defendant came to me. I did not know his name at
the time. He asked me to go out upon the landing and
give him my address. He wrote it down in his pocket-book.
He said, " What pretty ear-rings you have got," and he
took them both out of my ears. He also took the chain off
my neck and disappeared in the crowd. The chain was •
small gold chain used as a necklace. The earrings were of
coral, with a spark of diamond in them. I did not think
he was going away with them. He said I must give him
one earring to make a pin of. He had often asked me for
a small coral hand, which I wore to make • pin of. I did
not give him an earring. Three weeks afterwards I saw
him again at Mellon's concert, and he was wearing one of
my earrings made into a breast pin. I said I would give him
into charge, and he said, perhaps he would give me into
charge if spoke to jam about it. He had written
to me several times. He wrote to me under the sig-
nature of W. H. Bay, appointing to meet me
and a friend to purchase other caning. and • necklace.
On the day of Lord Pahnerston's funeral I met him with
his sister in Burlington-arcade. I asked why be had not
sent me my things, and he said that be had sent them. I
said I had not received them, and he said I was a liar. I
had previously received a packet with one earring, but not
one of mine. His sister said that if I would meet her at
one the next day in the arcade she would return the things
if I would return his letters. His sister did not keep the
appointment. I thereupon took a cab and went up to his
house, and saw him. He ordered me to leave the house
at once. I saw his mother and sister there. I did not
leave, and he said he would go for • policeman. He was
away for three hours, and then came back without one. I
would not have taken 19f. for the earrings alone. They

and the chain were worth 101. or 12/.
Cross-examined by the defendant in person—l did not
go up to you at Mellon's concert and say that I had seen
you there 12 months before. I did not say that I was
Lady Granville—that I was living under the protection of
Lord Granville. (A laugh.) Yon wrote down, "Lady
Granville." (Laughter.) You called me "Lady Granville,"
but I said I was Mrs. Granville. I did not wish you to go
home with me. I did not say I had broken one of my ear-
rings in coming down in a cab, and ask you to get it re-
paired. I did not say I was "spoony" on you.
Defendant—l said it is the same as all you women, you
tell the men so for what you can get out of them.
Witness—Certainly not. I never was " spoony "on you,
and I never said so. (Laughter.)
Defendant—Did I say 'what will you give me as a proof
of that " spoonyism ?"
Witness—Certainly not. You asked me for the coral
hand to make a pin of, but I did not give it to you.
Defendant—Did you say, " No, I value that little hand
too much?"
Witness—To give it to you, certainly. (Laughter.)
Defendant—Did you say, " But I will give you one of

my earrings"
Witness—Certainly not. Yon took both of them, but
not with my consent, as you might have had two pins
made. You also wore my chain round your neck after
wards.
Defendant—Did you not take the chain from your neck
and put it round mine, and say " Wear it for; my sake?"
(Laughter.)
Witness—lt is very improbable I should do so before all
the people. I did not. At Burlington-arcade I certainly
did say that I would make use of your letters if you did
not give me up those things.
Mr. Justice Byles said if the defendant gave evidence he
would be liable to be cross-examined by the learned
counsel, who would address the jury upon the whole
case. The defendant had better consider whether he
would go into the witness-box or leave the case where it
was. . .

The defendant, after some hesitation, said he would
give no evidence.
Mr. Justice Byles told the jury that it was for them to
consider whether the earrings and necklet were worth
more than the U. paid into court, for if not, the defendant
would be entitled to the verdict. It might be remarked
that the plaintiff would not say what she gave for the
trinkets, but that was probably because she did not buy
them, but had them given to her, and the defendant did
not produce them probably because he had not now got
them. _ _ _ _

The jury found for the defendant, upon the ground
that the things were not worth more than tb,e st. paid
into court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—JuNz 4.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Conlburn.)
IN RE D. BERNRTETN. _ _

The bankrupt was a dealer in fancy goods, of Sidney-
square, Mile-end. The debts are between 4,0001. and
5,0001. He was opposed on the ground of not having
accounted for goods which he bad purchased, to a large
extent, on the ere of his failure.
His Honour, in giving judgment, said that if he were to
pass the bankrupt on such an account as he bad rendered, '
he could never refuge to pass anyone, for the so-called
accounts were pure guess-work and invention. Being
called on to state the amount of his ready money sales, he
had pat down a series of round sums. as 1201., 2001.,
250/., and 5001.. and though he professed not to have kept
any books, he had rendered very detailed accounts of his
travelling expenses, which be alleged to have amounted
to 1,2101. ; there were in addition domestic expenses of
4501. He had not surrendered at the proper time, and in
excuse of his default had produced • medical certificate
which merely stated that itwould be useful for the bankrupt
toga to Kemal for four or six weeks, for the benefit of his
health. This was hardly sufficient to justify the bankrupt
in not surrendering, and thus committing a very grave
offence. There was a small fund in hand, about 1201., but
this would barely pay for the repeated adjournments, and
there would probably be no dividend. However, the
court could not pass this account as sufficient. The
examination must be adjourned sine die, with liberty to
the bankrupt to apply for • day, he paying the Goats ;
protection being given for three months.

IN 61 FAOI)IN.
The bankrupt was • solicitor, of Fenchurch-street,
formerly of Mark-lane. Debts, 20,8701. ; of which 13,6401.
L due to unsecured creditors ; assets and property held as
security about 13,000.
Mr. Bagley, for the airignme, stated that the accounts
had been very fully investigated, and they were willing
that the bankrupt should pass his examination, the con-
sideration of the order of discharge being adjourned.
Mr. Lucas, for creditors, and Mr. Lawrence for the
bankrupt, concurred, and the order was made accordingly.