The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
After Term Nisi Prins sidlop at Gailihan.—(Before the
Lord Chid Judie* and Spada' Juke.)
WiLValt V. MILN7.2.
The further hearing of this cave was resumed this morn-
ing.
Mr. Rigby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. J. Brown, Q.C. Mr.
Pearce, and Mr. Butler Rigby were counsel for the plaintif ;
Mr. James, Q.C., Mr. Webster, Q. 0., and Mr. T. Jones
wen counsel foe the defendant.
Mr. Hopley deposed—l was foreman and salesman to the
defendant in 1818, at the establishment in Moorgate-street.
When the plaintiff came to me to purchase a safe he had
printed list of our safes given to hint. The list comprises
four descriptions of boxes and safes. There is a fifth des-
cription called a double banker's safe. When the plaintiff
came with his sos to the shop they asked to look at
some safes, and I gave them a list of prices. They
looked at it, and I believe he was going to
'elect _ • if, from list No. 2. He said he

wasted it for eraVaies sad je;elleri, and i thea ream-
mended him ooe on UM 3. He sighed me if I could re-
-

cOr;Mqrndii,iiilr;plied-17d;;;d7dly,iapieferenoe to
list 2." That wu all that reseed at the first interview.
They came again and Mr. Walker then said that he would
take a sate from list 3 if I Gould reoommeod it.
Ultimately that safe was purchased. Safe 3 was
described as thief resisting, and up to that time I had not
heard of them failing either with regard to fire or thieves.
I don't know that Mr. Walker was shown a safe in list 4.
That wu • moth better safe, and considerably dearer.
Something was said about having holes in the shutters and
gas burning at night, but I cannot recollect what it was.
By the Lord Chief Justios—l did not understand from
Mr. Walker that the premises would be loft at night with-
out anyone sleeping there.
Witmer's continued—Mr. Walker said the safe was to be
pissed in • reeves, and that that was why he selected • long
narrow one, and it was fixed there. Mr. Walker selected
the particular sized safe. When I heard of the burglary I
went to the plaiotiff's shop and saw one of Mr. Walker's
sou. I examined the safe, and found that it must have
been opened with great force. I saw at least
thirty marks on it made by • crow-bar or •
chisel. The bolts were not quite shot back.
I asked for the key, and I was asked what I wanted it for.
I said it appeared to me as if the bolts were not back, and
Mr. Walker's nos said the key was of no good. Afterwards
he let me have the key, and I used it without difficulty. I
was under the impression that the safe bad not been looked
over night.
By the Lord Chief Justice—Then, why did you think so
force had been used to open it!
Witnsee—Well, that was my impression at the time.
The marble mantel piece was chipped, and it was thought
by one of Mr. Walker's son's that it must have been used to
assist the leverage. I don't remember Mr. Walker
asking me if the safe was thief proof, and if he
bad I should have told him that we never gave
• warranty. I did not say that I could warrant it.
Be might have asked me if it would be safe in him
to leave his valuable property in the safe. I did sot war-
rant the safe. I have no authority from the defendant to
warrant the safes, in fact I am striotly prohibited in
writing from giving warraote. (A letter dated May 14, 1856,
was put in prohibiting him from giving s warrant.) I never
warranted a safe to anyone.
Cross-examined by Mr. Seymour—The prospectuses axe
sent to me from Liverpool ; they are often reprinted with
additional letters from purchasers approving of the safes.
I cannot say it we bad a different prospectus from those
produced when the plaintiff purchased the safe. I told Mr.
Walker that his property would be perfectly safe in this
safe. I did not uuture it. I never held it out to the
public.
Kr. Seymour—ln the list you call the attention of wateli-
maker sod others that by the use of sole No. 3, perfect
gaiety from fire and thieves is insured.
The Lord Chief Justice—That doss not mean the same as
words in a policy of ignorant* or • warranty of that kind.
Mr. James—And this prospectus was issued subsequent
to the burglary.
Mr. D. Seymour---The prospectus contains s letter dated
January, 18M, a mouth before the burglary.
Mr. jones—lt is in all probability • misprint, for the
letters before and after it ere dated 1864.

Witness—l cou'Ltezif this particular prospectus was
issued before the
Mr. D. Seymour—ln prcepectas the words used are,
"by the use of which perfect security from fire and thieves '
Jammed,' sad in a subsequent prospectus after the burglary
the words are changed to " strongest security."
The Lord Chief Justice--What is the date of that
prospectus
Witness—Mareb,lB6s.
The Lord Chief Justice--The safe having been broken
open, it was wesssary to modify the language or it would
have been a fraudulent representation. It was thoraces
aseecoary to cheep the phrase.
Witness—Mr. Walker said he wanted a good sae and I
recommended him one of No. 3. I believe he said his pro-
perty was of great value. Mr. Walker did not tell me that
the ale would be left from Saturday to Monday. I
cannot swear that I superintended the fixing of the
safe. I think sot I do not recollect if •
policeman said to me in Mr. Walker's shop after
the burglary that it was absurd to talk about
the bolts of the lock, seeing the force that had been
used to open the safe. I supplied Mr. Berdoe. outfitter in
Cornball, about the time Mr. Walker purchased his. It was
• safe of the same clan as Mr. Walker's. I don't recollect
Mr. Berdoe'e saying be wanted one that would secure his
property from the Saturday to the Monday. I did not
warrant that sale. I did sot tell him it was fire and thief, -
proof, and that no thief could break it epee.
Mr. James was then heard on the improbability of such
a warranty bead being given, and Mr. D. Seymour on the
other aide ; after which the Lord Chief Justice proceeded
to sum up, and his lordship bad not concluded when our
report

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
for Hr. Hommioaoaor Haroyd.)
IN 11.1 MIRY lIIPTIZ.

The bankrupt wasde7cribedWOl Nignehester-bnildings,
and of Sydney, New South Wales, trading in partnership
with Joseph Spy,: as merchants and boot manufacturers.
This was a sitting for examination and discharge. The
'mount' exhibit some large Spree on each side. There is
due to unsecured coeditors, 32,0471. ; to those bolding
security, 14,4421. ; property at Sydney, 8.0471. ; ditto
given up, 4,328/. ; ditto, held as security, 16.8271.
Mr. &mood, for the assignees, offered no opposition to
the bankrupt passing and receiving his order.
Mr. Lowrance was instructed by the bankrupt to state
that upwards of 4,0C31. had been realised in this country
and 6,0001. in Sidney. The Brm bad beetibirought down by
• aeries of adverse circumstances in the colony, including
the alteration of the tariffs and other changes.
His Honour inquired if any other creditor opposed, and
being answered in the negative, at cone granted the order.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Giedbaro.)
WI NA W. ?ACMES.

The bankrupt was a solicitor, of Fenelturch-street aed of
Mark-lane. This was an adjourned sitting for examination
and discharge. The accounts disclose liabilities of 20,8541.,
against which security is held returned at 8,850/., consist-
ing of the bankrupt's interest in the Medway Soap Works,
Chatham, the lease of a colliery, and some property at
Celney Hatch. The adjudication was mule on the petition
of the Consolidated Bank, who are secured creditors for
5,0004
Mr. Sargood, representing the assignees, stated that the
bankrupt had not complied with the order made at the last
sitting directing him to ale additional amounts.
Mr. Lawrence, for the bankrupt, asked for further time.
His Honour, in directing an adjournment for two
months, remarked on the importance of solicitors keeping
correct books. In the caw before him no books had been
given op to the official assignee.