The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-31 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 31, 1860.

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.

-
OXFORD, NAV 30.
It. a congregation holder. thin morning, being
the 6ret (lay of Act Term, the following degrees were
emsfemd :
Doctor in Divinity.—Robinson Thornton, St. John's
College
Bachelor of Civil law.—laaac P. Fleming, St. Mary
hall. . _

Masters of Arta—Rev. Thomas L. 0. Davie., Exeter
CoII•ge ; Rer. William Rutter Bayley, Friel College ;Res.
Rirh.iril James Webb, Lincoln College ; Rev. Richard
Wstain Dixon sad Samuel Goldesy, Pembroke College ;
Rev. Chutes Henry Tomlinson (scholar), Worcester
College
Bachelors of Arta.—Thomas John Cooper Benjamin
Were lieuttet Dawson, and William Sellaathe, uniyer.
thy College ; Charlie Theodore W. • Pembroke
College ; Charles George Hutchins, D Hall •
William Critheld Grins and Walter Hill, dt. &Imam'
Hall.
Th..t next de in,. day is Thursday, June 7.

tab) imtlltanta.
EQUITY COURTS.—May 30.
(Before Vioe-Ohaeretior Sir W. P. Wood.)

MAPPED, f. guns

Mr. Bolt (Mr. Pooka wee with IMO mend to restrain the
definite* Joke Morriss Mamie and George Webb, from
ling that the beim earried es by them at their
aed It, 78 and 79, Oxfard-street, has any connexion
with the business known es Mappin Brothers', and carried
on in King William-street, City, or from imitating the
trade mark of the same firm in their advertisements. The
plaintiffs had for some years carried on the business of
, cutlers and electroplaters at King William-street, City, and
let the Queen's Cutlery Works, Sheffield, and upon the de-
fendant, John N. Mappin, who was their brother, attaining
11, he was taken into Mrtnersheisimby them. In the year
118119 the was diesel, and by a died dated
October loth is that year, the p 'miffs became the pur-
chums of all tie good will of the Sheffield house, together
wki tie rift ho use the style or firm of "Mamie,
Brothers.* BMos then the retiring partner, J. N. Mappin,
had Joined the defendant Webb in business, and they had
5e shop in Oxford-street, under the firm of
and Ocen_pany. The learned counsel stated that the
marke red by the defendants and the style of their
advertisements were maculated to teed the public to believe
that they were the same concern as the old firm of Mappin
Brothers It appeared, however, that the recent advertise.
meta of Maputo and Co. distinctly stated that they were
not connected with any other hones in London.
The Vice-Chancellor (without hewing the defendants)
raid that this cue differed from the generality of trade
mark cams which had come under his sake. There were
no doubt some circumstance* of conduct at a past time on
the part of the defendants requiring some explanation, and
which might perhaps be satisfactorily cleared up at the
bearing of the cause. Am matters stood at this moment,
however, the defendants had taken step to prevent misap-
prehonsion, and the motion could not therefore be granted.
The costa, however, must be costs in the cause.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—MAy 30.
Sittings in 13anoo.—(Betas the Lord Chief Justice, Mr.
Jostles Wightman, Mr. Justice Crompton, and Mr.
Justice Meacham)

TIM QUINN V. MINI AND ANOTNIN.

Mr. Kennedy appeared jest before the rising of the court.
on Tuesday to apply for • certiorari to bring up an inquisi-
tion of the coroner of Birmingham, with •• view to its being
quashed. The defendants in whose behalf he moved were
in custody on • charge of having administered certain drop
to a female named Emma Stafford, with • view of causing
abortion, and whereby her death was caused. Mr. White
was • chemist and druggist, carrying on bonnets near Bir-
mingham, and the other prisoner was • Mrs. Fisher, who
kept a lodging-house where the deceased lodged for seven or
ast weeks prior to her death. Whitt there the dammed
took certain medicines administered to her by White, who
also performed some operations upon her. Sub-
sequently she was visited by • surgeon, and
then removed to an hospital, where she died.
It was alleged that shortly after an inquest was held on the
body by the coroner of Birmingham, when • verdict of
death from natural causes was returned by the jury. How-
ever, upon the 25th of May another inquisition was held,
when • verdict of wilful murder was returned against the
and it was that inquisition which it was desired to
ruisal.ersit appeared that the evidence principally relied
upon for the finding of the jury wlll that of • female
named Anne Taylor, who deposedto • certain declaration
made by the deceased when in articulo mortis, and which
the coroner refused to reject. At the first inquisition both
the prisoners gave evidence on oath, after having been can-
tMned in the usual way ; but Anne Taylor, who was pre-
sent, was not called, nor did she mention at the time what
she afterwards stated to the police officer, relative to the
dying declaration of the deceased. There was no evidence
against them except that of Anne Taylor, the medical men
, deposing that the deceased might have died from premature
pregnancy. It was plain, therefore, the coroner had acted
=in taking the endemic, of Anne Taylor on the
occasion after the witness, although present, bad
not been examined on the first inquisition.
The Lord Chief Justice asked the learned counsel whether
he had any authorities directly in point. Before deciding so
important • question it would be well if the court were
possessed of any precedents that might exist on the
subject.
Mr. Kennedy mid his instructions had only just been
delivered to lum, and therefore he had not had any time to
examine the authorities, but if the court would allow him
to renew his application on the following day he would
have an opportunity of searching for preoedents.
This the court assented to. Amorthnglv, to-day
Mr. Kennedy renewed his application, admitting that it
was not quite certain whether two inquisitions bad been
held, though in his affidavit it was stated that the deponent
believed there had been. If, however, • second inqui-
sition was held, it was clearly illegal, unless the previous
one had been first quashed. In support of that view the
learned counsel cited "Halm' Pleas of the Crown," p. 59;
" Umfreville on the Office of Coroner," and "R. v.
Saunders," (Strange's Reports, p. 167.) He also asked for •
rule to show cause why the prisoners should not be dis-
charged on ball.
The court held that the rule must be retuned on the
Kelof the improper reception of evidence by the coroner.
yndcould not interfere with the exercise of his judicial
discretion. Upon the other point however, namely, that •
previous inquisition ought to be quashed before • new one
was held, the learned counsel was entitled to • rule to bring
up one or both inquisitions, and likewise he mt t take a
.ule to show caxue why the prisoners should not be
en bail.
Rule nisi accordingly.

" •
the was deed. (A WOO II "-441 7,llol9lthoimat
which the Hampstead curer always expecte& and be had
paid it though he had no authority from Dr. Operteeay to
ao eo. One item in his bill was, "To ss*
yid for tie
coachmen, eight bearers, two mutes, two omit pages, and
feather:man, 71. lfs Bd." Fifteen men were eharged for,
but thirteen only were employed. Another item was,
"To cash for two black scarves, poles, and black ilk
covers for the same, N. Is." He had these scarves
back, so that be charged X. 3s. for the nee of the things.
The men were, however, at liberty to keep or to return
them. Another item wan—" To cash paid for 15 block
silk hatbands and 15 pairs of gloves for mutes, bearers,
pages, coachmen, and feetherman, 6/. is. 6d." He had the
hatbands back; but the men who were there expected •
compensation of 4s. each for giving them up. He bed
charged for feathers and velvet fur the hearse and harass,
4/. 41. The usual price wag not 21. There was smother
guinea for feathers and velvet for the mourning-coach.
Another item wee—"To cash fur silk scarf, two black silk
hatbands for self and assistant, and two pairs of gloves,
3/. 195." The assistant always found his own hatband.
(Laughter.) He had charged for his assistant attending,
11. He wee one of the 13, but then he was • gentleman.
The Jedge--Then you have charged for him twice over.
Fmantiastios =sinned—Another item was, " To fitting
the Bar. H. W. Daddy, rector of Hatherley, with rich
three-querter silk scarf, hatband, and black kid gloves,
3/. 35." He did not have this scarf back. It was • " com-
pliment" to the rev, gentleman for not charging his inter-
ment fees. This was witness's usual charge, but be did not
know what the usual charge in the trade was.
To the Judge—Sometimes clergymen preferred money to
silk.

TO Mr. James—He did not pay the clergyman his fee,
and he did not know that this gentleman afterwards wrote
for it to Dr. Courtenay, who paid him I/. Is. It was the
practice to charge more for silk for the clergyman than for
anyone else. (Lan,ghter.) This was not because it was
more difficult to fit" a clergyman than anybody else.
lie had paid Mr. Foxwell, &honer, and draper at Gloucester,
21. 2s. for making "preparatory arrangements," that wee
for ordering the funeral ; and that n had demanded as
much as V. se. He had c as was usual, 5 per
cent. commission on the various payments which he had
made. Another item was, "To fitting the clerk, the sex-
ton, and the hricklayer—(alaugh)—with silk hatbands and
gloves, 21. be" He did not get these hatbands back. He
could not swear that the bricklayer had the silk hatband
and gloves charged for. (Laughter.) Witness left them
for him in the church. (After some hesitation)—He could
not swear he left them. He could not swear he left any
for the sexton he was hurried so to get away. He would
swear the clerk had a hatband and gloves.
The Judge—ls it usual to make these charges without
knowing whether the things are supplied or not ?
Witness—He left instructions, but he could not say
whether the parties got the things. It was usual for him
to charge for • hatband and gloves for the bricklayer, but
he Dodd not say whether it was usual in the trade. He
had seen • bricklayer wear the things.
Mr. James—Have you seen • bricklayer wearing black
gloves to open the vault ? (Laughter.)
Wilessee—The vault was opened early in the morning,
and afterwards the bricklayer attended in " full drone
1 laugh.) A working man opened the vault, but the
and gloves were for master. Another item
was "To men's and own expenses and use of room at the
Bell Hotel, Gloucester, 31. 5e." The hotel bill now handed
to him amounted to 19e. 6d. only, but then there was 3s.
more for the waiter and ostler. The bill included three
breakfasts, two dinners, sherry, brandy, kc.
Mr. James—As somebody said the other day, such men
were more " liquids" than " matte." (Loud laughter.)
Witness—This bill referred only to two men, but the
others expected their expellees, and he had every reason to
believe that he paid them. He would not swear as to
paying those other men.
Re-examined—lt was very wet on the day of the funeral,
and the scarves were very much spoiled.
Mr. Carroll, who was in the employ of Mr. Butler, of
Yarringdon-street, was called to speak as to the fairness of
some of the plaintiff's charges.
(loss-examined—Two men were charged for as going from
London, but he wee the only one who went down. He sup-
posed he was the "assistant" and the "featherman " too.
(Laughter.) A surf which had been got back for es., might
perhaps be used win, and it was possible • scarf might go
through 20 or 30 funerals. (A laugh.)
Mr. Hawkins, • cashier at Messrs. Bantings', also spoke-as
to the ressoaablenees of some of the charges.
Cross-examined—The firm he came from would charge for
"fitting" • clergyman in first-rate style, 21. 19s. They ,
would certainly not get the things back again. They might
charge for "fitting" • bricklayer in a first-class funeral.
and when the bricklayer was • "friend of the family."
(Load laughter.)
Mr. James, in addressing the jury, characterised this case
as an example of the extortionate charges of those whose
business was—

" Letting out their bodies by the hour
To mimic sorrow, when the heart's not sad ;"
and be added that he should be able to prove that the
amount paid into court was more than sufficient to cover
any claim which the plaintiff could properly make.
The defendant in his evidence said that he told the plain-
tiff at first that the funeral was to take place near Glou-
cester, and the plaintiff said that his charge would be about
30/., and: the country expenses would be about 30/. more.
Several undertakers were called to give their opinion as
to what would have been • reasonable amount to charge,
and they all agreed that the sum paid into court was con-
siderably more than sufficient to discharge the plaintiff's

The Jude said the question to be determined was whether
the 75i. pail into court was sufficient to cover the plaintirs
claim.

The Or, were about giving their verdict, when one of
their body said he had not agreed upon the matter ; but it
was explained that his only reason for saying this was that
be thought the 751. paid into court was too much.
The Judge mid the 751. was already in the plaintiff's
pocket, and there was no process known to the law by which
it could be got back again ; so that the only question was
whether that sum was sufficient.
Verdict for the defendant. •