The Express.
London, England, 1858-04-19 00:00:00

HE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 19, 11‘58.

tab ihnelltgate.

No. S. Pratt.stmet, Csindawtown; and John Stomp/41,
against the refusal of the Holborn divlidon to license a house
celled the North Seer, New Finchley-road.
The limas of Jamas Nswpwt, the Southampton Arras,
Whlnlehw-strest, St. Passers', and Sarah Ford, the Black
Harm, bome-plsea, the renewal of which had been ra
hod at the petty masses, win sow renewed without oppo-
sition:.

imiorour AN 001IIITT °OUST/4.
now. du. ...tat.d for Wm prowsl rorS
ipppros risos—ararlsp. Aril U. and rowSwift dew
log
/14011111 MT. Pyrtlastroad.—Welsaidsr, April U. sod two fellow-
itollPToll. Whike•Vl rirove—liceder, April it.
@sourer/4, OW roast rowl.—Tbarsilm Alwil 21
Sow. Istrilsid.rawd—Twerdsp. Aril XL
W 111110711•IPIL. Orbarivarses—isswilrp. April 10, sod two following
1. VCTII Owssalrest. Borough —Tieerlay. April 10, sod two tel
0.4 41rA
Lassos. Ososberwsll Serresd—Toesder. April O.
Ossestrics —I/woodsy, Aril 11.
Wootwics.—Tbarsdar, Apr' U.
Wsporroars.—Tbandsr. April It
dse,
Car or Lama, Osilasiltorldlass—llosdar.l April 10 ; Sydow
U. Pada. SS.

In the ease of Robert Rest, of the Rising Sun, Charles-
street, Oroevenor-equaree.thi renewal of whose license
had been refused, Ur. said he ecired on behalf
of the magistrates below' w bad refused to resew this
license, on the ground that the appellant bed allowed
principally gentlemen's servants, to congregate at hie house
kir the avowed pupas of bettiag on horse-races, which, with
roped to the keeper of s Homed house, the bench must re-
gard es a serious offence. The records of the criminal proceed-
fags of the court would furnish many examples of the ruin and
which had befallen gentlemen's servants who had in-
(cli=in the. vice of betting, their masters' property, in most
instances, being the means by which they had carried it on.
Not only was this true with respect to the appellant having
so conducted his house, but he had been lied up before a ma-
gleraste, and fined the sum of 361.; and the justices thought
k their duty to refuse to continue his leans, and to appear
through him (Mr. Cooper) to sunset Oak deekion before the
Lateral quarter mishap, by whkk dew their decision could
Mr. Bodkin admitted that the appellant, for whom he
appeared, had been guilty of a grave offence, but hoped the
court would not consign him to utter ruin, which was merit-
able if the refuel of his licence was confirmed. If the court
would grant the licence, the appellant would immediately
transfer it is some perks to be approved of by the justices.
Kr. Tobin, chairman of the Kensington division, said, if
this court did not support the magistrates below in their
decisions:in thereon.; he could not tell how they waste act.
A man was guilty of an canoe against the law which, ia the
opinion of the dim:aided him to •
license; they so l=
magi
were not supported in
their views by the higher court, It would be perfectly timeless
for them to endeavour to enforce the law for the proper con-
duct of pepressoonoss in Bussed houses.
Mr. Poweall, chairmen of the county bench, said it was
due to the petty sessional justices, and also to the great body
of the licensed victuallers, who conducted their houses
without complaint, that except in extreme cases the decision
of the court below should be supported. He took that
opportunity of coetradieting, in the most emphatic manner,
an assertion made elsewhere by an hon. magistrate then pre-
sent, that magisterial &cakes respecting licenses were more
or less Influenced by brewers and &Wiwi. Such • statement
wee utterly without foundation.
Kr. Donald Nicoll, 111. P., said the allusion of the hon.
chairman was directed spinet him in respect of a statement
he had made in another capacity, and he could explain what
that statement really was, and what be intended to imply.
The Amdstant-Judge said the bon magistrate had not been
personally slludad to, and held that an explanation, under the
circumstances, would be out of place.
The question was then put, and the appellant's license was
refused with costs.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-
APPEALS.

Their lenieldps sat this morning spsolelly to give judg-
ment in certain writs of error which had been postponed for
•forther esneklerstion. The lords prolong were Lord Cron-
worth, Lod Wensleydale, and the Bishop of Ripon. Lord
Cranworth eat speaker.

OOP O. SLADR-PATIIINT ON TRAVELLING zxpgrins

TO TOTWIS AT ILICTIOXS.

This we. • writ of error from the Court of Exchequer
Chamber reversing &judgment oldie Court of Quesn'sßeetch.
This was ex action for penalties ether the "Corrupt Practices
at Elections Prevention Act, 1864," brought by the plidatiff
against Frederick William Slade, Q.C., for having paid the
travelling expenses of a voter of the borough of Cam-
bridge in order to induce him to vote for the
defendant at the said election. It appeared that oct
the 16th day of August,' 1864, the said Frederick William
Slade, in °Utilisee to and is the manner required by the
Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1864, appointed one
Samuel Peed to be hie agent for election expenses ; and the
said Samuel Peed, after his said appointment, made and
signed the declaration required by the said act. It was
farther proved on the part of the plaintiff below, that at the
time of the issulog of the said writ and of the said election,
one Richard Carter was a voter for the said borough of Cam-
bridge, and had a right to vote at the election of members to
serve in parliament for the said borough ; and that before the
day of the said election the said Richard Carter was not at
Cambridge, but at Huntingdon, end that whilst at Hunting-
don he received from the committee for conducting the
election of the mid Viscount Maidstens and Fredrleh
William Slade, of which one Charles Balls acted
sa chairman, a later la the words and figura following
" Mr. R.;Carter.—Carabridge Borough Election, Committee-
room, Lion Hotel, August 12, 1864.-81r,—The mayor
having appointed lifedneeday next for the nomination, and
Thursday for the polling, you are earnestly requested to
rotten to Camb idge and record your vote in favour of Lord
Maidstone and P. W. Slade, Req., Q.C.—Yours truly,
Curiaten Baize, Chairman. Your railway expenses will
be paid." The whole of the said letter, except the words
"Kr. R. Carter," and the words " Your railway expenses
will be paid," being a printed circular; and that in conge-
Cal the said letter the said Richard Carter went from
airingdon to Cambelige, In order to vote and voted at the
said election for the said Visooant Maidstone and Frederick
Waste Wade, they being the Lord Maki/tone and F. W.
Mu* Eq., Q.C., mentioned in the raid letter above set out.
A sum of Bs. was allowed by the election auditor for the
travelling expenses of the said Richard Carter. It appeared
in evidence that Mr. Slade had expressed as opinion m his
committee-room, before the letter in question was sent, that
"such expenses were legal, and that beyond legal expenses
were to be paid." The judge at the trial directed the jury
that if the defendant, or any person authorised on his behalf,
gave money to the voter on account of his vote, that is to
say, that the moving cause of his giving such money was the
voter's having voted for the defendant, they should find on
two counts of the decimation for the plaintiff, although the
sum of money so given was no more than the fair end rea-
sonable espouse of the voter travelling from Huntingdon to
Cambridge on the day of election and back again, and
although the defendant honestly believed that he was com-
mitting ne came thereby. The jury accordingly found on
these two counts for the plaintiff, for 1001. on each count.
Oa a writ of error the Court of Exchequer Chamber reversed
the ruling of the judge below, and ordered • venire
de neve. The present writ of error was then brought.
The ewe was argued last swim, their lordships
having the assistance of eight of the common-law judges.
The following questions were then submitted to the judges :
1. Whether, assuming the letter of the 12th of August, 1864,
to have been written and sent to Carter by the direction and
authority of the defendant in error, there was any evidence
for the jury that the defendant was guilty of bribery within
the true intent and meaning of the second section of 17 end
18 Viet., c. 102 ? 2. Whether there was say evidence for
the jury that the letter in question was written and meat by
the direction or authority of the defendant in error? 3.
Whether there was evidence that the defendant corruptly
paid money to Carter on account of his having voted at the
election P The iudge• delivered their opinions en 16th of
February last. Free of the learned judges answered all the
questions in the affirmative; one of them answered them all
in the negative; and two of them answered the first in the
affirmative and the two others in the aegative.
Lord Cranworth now delivered hie opinion, and, after
stating the case, said that the first question to be considered
was whether payment of the travelling expenses of a voter
coming to vote at an election, If paid by the authority
of the candidate, wee or wee not bri ary within the set of
parliament; and if that was so, then came the question,
whether in this case it was done by the authority of the can-
didata. With regard to the first point, he must say he
was never able to entertain • doubt that the giving of
money to a particular elector, with the view to his
coming to vote for • particular candidate, came
within the meaning of the words of the statute,
as being a giving of money to • rota. to induce him to vote,
ad thereby made the candidate guilty of bribery. If • candi-
date said to a voter, "If you come and vote for me I will give
you money," that was an inducement to him to vote, by in-
demnifying him for something which but for that he would
have had to pay out of his own pocket. It might be proper
for the legislature to alter the law, end say that money which
was only an equivalent for expenses incurred by • voter
when coming to the poll was not w., aptly given ; but decid-
lag the question judicially, it could only be said, as the law
stood, that this was money given to induce the voter to vote,
and that the person giving it was guilty of bribery. Then
came the question, was there evidence that the money was
given by the authority of the candidate P On the evidence
as it appeared, he thought it was impossible to come to any
other conclusion than that it was given by his authority.
His opinion an both points was clear. He thought, how-
ever, that there was only one actof bribery, and that there was
not evidence to support both counts of the declaration. The'
next question, then, was, what was to be done ? He thought
at one time that there might be • venire de novo : but
there were objections to that course, and as he understood
that the plaintiff would enter • nolle prcrequi as to one
of the counts., judgment might be entered for the plaintiff on
one count only.
Lord Wensleydale concurred.
Judgment for the plaintiff on one count, and judgment of
the oourt below reverted.

William Cotton appealed against the refusal of the jastioss
of the Strand division, to renew a license in his name to the
Bear mad Staff, Castle-street, Leicester.square.
Mr. Metcalfe, for the justices, said the defendant had been
fined for Sunday trading. He had been in custody on a
charge of conspiring to defraud, which he was allowed by
the magistrate to arrange, by paying 41., the sum which was
the subject of the charge, axed his home was known to the
police as a resort for belting men, skittle sharpers, thieves,
and all sorts of bad characters,

Mr. Bodkin appeared for the appellant, and asked if his
client bad not already been sufficiently punished. He bad
not been convicted oldie fraud alleged against him, for the
eery good resins that there was no ground for the accusa-
tion. It was true he bed been fined for a slight infraction of
this law, but would that be sufficient for the court to ruin
him t It woe sold that betting men end bad characters
frequented his home. What of that, there was no oonvki-
tics against his for anything of the kind, and unless in
this country we were to live under a law of suspect", this
man surely would not be deprived of his license on that
ground. de to the fraud, a person staked 41, and then
made up a chirp of fraud to get the money back, and
the appellant gave it up, with the magistrate's sanction sad
approval.
The court dismissed the appeal and refused the 'incense.
The license of Charles Lovelock, for the Yorkshire Grey,
Cheyne-walk, Chelsea, the renewal of which had been re-
by the divisional justices, on the ground that the house
had been improperly conducted, was now refused by the
court.

iltoines Hackle appealed against the refusal of the Strand
diriskinal justices to renew his license for the Luke's Head,
26, Ilercer-street. The appellant had been fined for card
playing, and there had been a charge against him of allow-
la betting, but it was not substantiated, and the magistrate
d
The court allowed the appeal and renewed the license.
The Assistant-Judge hoped this would be a warning to the
appellant.
John Sheraton appealed against the refusal of the justices
of the Holborn Division to grant a license to the premises at
the Holborn end of Chancery•lane, 311 and 312, High Hol-
born, formerly a branch of the Bridah Bank, and opened
subsequently to the break-up of that concern as luncheon
andtre. refreshment rooms, by Mr. E. T. Smith, of Drury-lane
thea

Theolaims of this establishment to a spirit license for the
mosenntodstion of the public ware ably set forth by Mr.
Bodkin. Mr. Gifford opposed on behalf of tho proprietors of
numerous licensed houses in the immediate vicinity of the
premises in quedion, and Mr. Poland supported the decision
of the magistrates.
Oa the question being put the license wee granted by 12
votes to 10.
The following counsel were engaged la the various cases :
—Mr. likirjeant Parry, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Met-
osite, Mr. Sleigh, Mr. Ribton, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Poland, Mr.
Myhre, sad Mr. La Breton.

JUDGE'S CHAMBERS.—APRIL 17.
(Mare Mr. Judas Cabala's.)
MEOWS= TO WITNESSES.

Mr. !karma, the barrister, applied for the discharge of a
person in Whitevraeretreet Prison, on the ground that he
was privileged from arrest in returning homeafter attending
a court of law as a witness." The affidavit set forth that
on Friday the applicant was under summons to attend the
Insolvent Debtors Court, and that after the case was over he
was arrested outside, un his return home. The learned
counsel submitted that the party for whom be applied was
from being arrested. A copy of the affidavit had
Wsegerled on the other Bide.

Mr. Harry Jones, in allowing cause, read an affidavit to
the effect that, on receiving a message to attend the Insolvent
Court, uan application was to be made after the party was
arrested, that he did attend, and that pouch application was
made for the discharge.
Mr. Justice Coleridge was of opinion that a person who
had attended a court of law as a witness warn privileged from
arrest returning home, and he should therefore order the
direharge on the payment of 10s. coats to the other side, on
aceocutt of the vit.
The applicant wee scoordingly discharged.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—APRIL 17.
(Beim, Mr. Commis@far Phillips.)
IN MI TEOII/111 NIWIIOII.
This insolvent was a cattle Jobber at Tottenham. Mr.
Dowse and Mr. Denny oppoeed ; Mr. Reed supported.
The insolvent got 51. of Mr. Denny's client to pay for a
horse, end when he afterwards asked kr the money told him
to "go sad be —."
Mr. Commissioner Phillips said it was a fraud, and the in-
solvent had no intention to pay the M.
The cam was adjourned to e Woke, and to settle with the
U. creditor

tuna dealer, carrying on business at 21, Great Dover-
street, Borough. In a drawer in the bedroom of the prisoner,
among wearing apparel, he found the bar of silver produced,
weighing 62 moose.
At this stage of the proceedings Mr. Superintendent
Haunt applied for a remand.
Mr. LevrG contended at maw length that there wu no
evidence against the prisoner to show a guilty knowledge.
Mr. Beadon remarked that Mr. Lewis had offered no ex-
planation on the most material part of the evidence—the
tiling of the crest for total obliteration. lie should remand
the prisoner until neat Tuesday.

wsermixwrza.

Edward Seabreek,• youth fu labourer's attire, wan obarged,
under the Police Act, with using obscene language in the
street.

Police-constable George King, 76 B, said that at 7 o'clock
on Friday evening he was on duty In Cbsyne-walk, Chelsea,
when be heard the defendant, who w standing by the water
side, shouting to some boys at the top of his voice, and utter-
ing the most obscene Wigwags. He immediately took him
into custody, and upon inquiring what induced him to con-
duct himself in this disgraceful way, defindent pleaded as
an excuse that the other boys had offended him. He wee
standing in a public thoroughfare, and many persons were
parsing. The attention of the police had been particularly
called to the nuisance, occasioned by persona making um of
bad leaguers there. The families who occupy the houses in
Cheyne-walk complain that they an obliged to keep their
front windows abut, to avoid hearing the bad language.
Defendant said some boys flung stones at him : he wss
nearly eighteen years of age.
111 r. Arnold-1 trust the amtenoe lam about to pees on
you will be a warning to persons of your clime of life, that
they an not to be allowed to disgust respectable persons by
the filthy language they are in the habit of using. You are
fined 10a., and in default, committed for seven days.