The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

4'4 il• ItT (IF ENINION PLEAS.
at \iii Pinot in Middlesex. - Mature Mr. Justice
Willer and a Common Jury.)
Pit LT (AN INFANT) e. ecar..
1.: lad 13 yean; .1.1, claimed amuses in
of having been bitten by a dog belonging to

Is rs..I,T ;411.1 .M Gomfit Appeared fur the plaintiff,
NI:. T. s.flter for the defendant.
_i,t;n.ae Lott the plaintiff was an errand boy in the
.. poulterer, in Edgware-road. and ou the lltri
•...d month he was sent with a fowl to a customer in
.:..i.Arcet. lie was directed to make haste, and
14,i1,11,-t• to this injunction, he was passing hastily a
—lp it, the Edgware-road, kept by the defendant.
. de.. .1 1.00 •and bit hint RVVerely at the back of
4 a f., inches above the ankle. The plaintiff was
is 111,4 el.'s in cart,aittlaterwards was sent home.
tie nd„l by a medical man, who for safety can-
•l-...1 the a
or,
and the plaintiff remained under his
•.. fot noir or nee weeks ; and indeed down to the pre-
- tim.- 'A, felt pAin in the leg when walking. The case
!!... pl.intirt a.s that the dog was a ferocious animal,
• he • .1A eon-tautly fighting other dogs, and had bitten
„., floe,. pe.nde. There was also sums evidence to
th.it the defendant knew that this was the character

,• •log.
, hi the other hand the defendant's case was that thedog
tempt till, that the defendant hail never heard
-.t had bitten anybody, and that the cause of the
: .aril( ;s•ite_• bitten was that he had inadvertently
..id,e upon the dog's tail. It was also said that
t • vra: a vory old one, and had lost nearly all its
• :h. Sine.• the accident the animal had disappeared, no
:,.• knew where.
the pay found for the plaintiff—damages 101.

CoURT OF EXCHEQUER.
:ink, BAnco. -(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Larons Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.
.LADE SLADE.

Mr. ederidge remined hui argument this morning on
i. it ilf .1 the defendant, and against the validity of the
kt.tilertMustyn marriage at Milan in 1825. He promised
. tacuny about half the day, and he will be followed by
Selicitor-4:eneral in reply. The arguments are likely
r., ,ctuelude I. the riming of the court. and there can be
httthaibt that the judgment of the court will be post-

BAIL COURT.
sittings at Nisi Prim; at Westminster.—(Before Mr. Justice
Mellor and a Common Jury.)
V. ILIDIBRAY.
This was an action to recover compensation for injuries
from the bite of a dog.
Mr. Pearce and Mr. Bosannnet were counsel for the
pluntiff ; the defendant was unrepresented.
The plaintiff is a bookbinder, and the defendant is •
widow, having four houses in Garden-lane, Westminster,
which she lets out to lodgers. The plaintiff and
his wife were tenants occupying a portion of No. 2, and on
the day in question the wife went to the defendant to pay
her rent, and whilst there the dog flew at her, and bit her
in the leg. She went to the hospital and had the wounds
etuterimed. She was an in-patient for ten weeks, and was
now as out-patient.
Through some mistake, the attorney who bad been en-
gaged by the defendant had failed to instruct counsel, or
the latter bail failed to he in attendance, and in conse-
quence of the extreme deafness of the defendant, who was
present, the learned judge said it would be unpoesible to
make her understand the case if the evidence was commu-
nicated to her, and therefore be kindly undertook to raise
a point which he reserved, to enable her to move, should
she be so advised, to enter a non-suit if the jury found
against her, as to whether she knew this was a ferocious
dog.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for 101. damages, subject to the point reserved.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)

IN RZ WILSON AND SON.
The bankrupts, Mary Anne and Robert Wilson, were
shipowners, of I:Atte:sea and Liverpool. Debts, ROL ;
a.,ets of trifling amount. This was the sitting for exarni-
tion and discharge. There was no opposition. The bank-
rupts attributed their failure to losses in connexion with
the schooner Lizzie Gowan.

His Honour granted the order.
IN RR H. W. RANDALL.

This was an adjourned sitting for examination and dis-
charge. The bankrupt was a boot and shoe-maker, of
Deal. Against debts returned at 677/., he states he has
given up assets valued at =it
Mr. R. Griffiths supported the bankrupt. Mr. Lawrence
opposed for the assignees. He said the bankrupt had '
supplied goods, cash, and deficiency accounts. as ordered ;
but although he had debited himself with the goods he
brut received, he did not state how they bad been disposed
of, nor did he explain what bad become of the cash which
had passed through his bands. The accounts were also
defective in other particulars.
After hearing Mr. Griffith. for the bankrupt, who
stated that the trade creditors desired no further delay,
but were anxious that the money in court should be
divided, . . .

His Honour aid that he could not pass the bankrupt's
examination upon accounts which were quite insufficient,
sad the sitting would be adjourned sine die. Protection
would be given for the month (renewable upon it being
shown that the bankrupt was endeavouring to prepare
proper accounts).

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(THIS DAY.)

(Before the BecerdeT.)
SINGULAR CHARGE OF ROBRIN/T.

John Beard, 19, a well-dressed young man, who was
said to be very respectably connected, was charged with
stealing a valuable security for the sum of 58-7. 18s. 9d.,
the property of the Caledonian Railway Company.
Mr. Poland prosecuted, and the prisoner was defended
by Mr. Sleigh and Mr. Streight.
This was rather an extraordinary charge. The father of
the prisoner carried on business at 18, Pinned-hall, Old
Broad-street, and a Mr. Skeet occupied offices at No. 17.
This gentleman was in the habit of receiving the dividend
warrants of a gentleman named Mawter, who formerly
occupied offices in Pinner'-hall, and it appeared
that on the Rth of April, a dividend warrant
was sent by the Cale&nian Railway Company
from Glasgow for the amount mentioned in the
indictment and the letter containing this warrant was
accidentally put into the letter box belonging to the pri-
soner's father. The prisoner was taken into custody on the
night of the 12th of April, and the letter addressed to
Mr. /dewier, enclosing the dividend warrant, and un-
opened, was found in his ion. When he was asked
how he became of the letter, the explanation
he gave was that the letter had been delivered by mistake
and that he intended to give it back to the poetman.
The Recorder said it appeared to him that upon these
facts the jury were not likely to convict the prisoner of
stealing the letter.
Mr. Sleigh said he could have proved that the father of
the prisoner actually handed him the letter to return to '
the postman.
The Recorder said it was not advisable to enter any
further into the facts, as he was of opinion that the charge
of stealing the dividend warrants could not be supported.
Tb jury then returned a verdict of Not
The prisoner was next charged upon a second indictment
with stealing a power of attorney, the property of Anne
Selina Hartree.

In this case it appeared that on the night of the 12th of
April the prisoner was observed by • City police-constable
named Carroll loitering about in Wood-street, and his con-
duct exciting some suspicion, he watched him and saw him
go into several doorways and put his hand into the pri-
vate letter-boxes of different offices. After watching him
some time he took the prisoner into custody, and upon
searching him was found seven post letters, addressed to
various places in the City and also a power of attorney to
receive dividends, which had been sent by • lady named
Hartree, residing at Gloucester, to Mr. Wetenhall, • stock
broker, carrying on business in Throgmorton-street. The
only explanation he gave of the possession of this docu-
ment was that he had purchased it for half-a-crown of a
stranger, and that his reason for doing so was that he saw
it had a five shilling stamp upon it.
Mr. Sleigh made an eloquent appeal to the jury for the
prisoner, and he endeavoured to show that he had been
made a dupe of by the person who had really stolen the
letter containing the power of attorney. He called a
number of witnesses, who gave the prisoner an excellent
character.

The jury, after deliberating for some time, returned a
verdict of Nut (tutl44, adding that they gave the prisoner
the " benefit of the doubt."

The Recorder said that he did not require any explima.
tinn as to the reasons that induced them to give their
verdict.
_ . .

There was another indictment of a similar character
against the prisoner, which charged him with stealing a
copy of a will.
In this CAN it appeared that Mr. Emmanuel, a solicitor
in Austin-friars, sent a draft oopy of a will to a client at
Southampton, and this draft, with the client's signature
to it, was found in the prisoner's possession. There was,
however, no evidence that the document had been posted
at Southampton, and upon a technical objection raised by
Mr. Sleigh that the prisoner could not be convicted in the
absence of such testimony, he was again acquitted.
e Recorder told the prisoner to be very cautions in his
future conduct, and to be very careful bow he used his
fingers when he was near a letter-box.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

John Bath*, 21, was placed at the bar to plead to an
indictment charging him with stealing a watch and chain,
the property of Charles Codge.
The prisoner is the person who conducted himself in so
extraordinary and violent a manner one day last week at
the Mansion- upon which o.xaaion it required the
exertions of severalhouse,
constables to restrain him and prevent