The Express.
London, England, 1860-12-15 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, -JegatTliDtr

• Sabo ihdtMenue.

COURT OP EXCHIQUIR, —Dee. 14.
tin, at Nisi Prias.—(Bafore the Load Chief Bacon mad
Special Juries.)

DRCCL r.

.-rte

The declaration is this case stated that the defendant had
aerated and falsely imprisoned the plaintiff, and had
falsely and maliciously published • libellousstatement that
the plaintiff in his ••athty of attorney had been guilty of
such improper oosfta that the defendant could strike him
MI the rolls. The second count of the declaration alleged
that the defendant lied charged the plaintiff with commit-
"tift an cases which saistated to a felony.
Me sisiesdast pleaded as to the first count justification,
cinder the Warr at of a ustice of the pros la Load" ow
domed by magiuteals of Orford, the pialiff beeferi tar
tsid • sum of 3101., part et as pew& cd a
noted 5001. Tie other plan Twee to the effect
'saint bed commithed • miatustaseur.
Mr. Edwhi James. Mr. Ilmisant Brastlmes and Mf.
Joseph Browne, wars °same kr the *kW; Hr. SeriessA
Perry and Ur. GiEsrd represents& the dielesimL
Mr. James Irv* dad the one kr the phistiffs as
promd is widens% called
Edward Fantail, a delmliwerEenimm• ebtalersa_ tbd
rag under a warrant, jowl by Aiken= nem me tinv
dewed by an Oxford meat* be Warm to Cadani
to arrest the plaintiff, on the Marge of esabesdeseent. He
found the plaintiff was too ill then to be 111•0111.11, and some
days afterwards be reamed and arrested the plaintiff on
the charge, resselning is the plaintiff's house from the
liatmiley until the Tuesday.
Mr. George Frederick Drum, the plaintiff, wee called and
eseatsed. He said—l am an attorney M Orford, and a
dinar ed the General Lde Ammo, Gespany in Chancery-
ham I posers a landed eats e, ha to me by my
_ , 1011101 shoot 8,0001. I was bet lstrodoesd the
iiffssdest is the being of 1899. He was than
ti the WitneyatRail
way. I was employe
be d.=
the satm 'ad settle Wanestomesels.
I was be up the boobs el rekseews and to serve the
scam ler 116 Bus sad are for the
Hems par
lfark&thessek.
An etimminet no made with the
watery sesa, to peva the ask, but they tit do
ea apse ..the pram soy note for 4001. is floptenther,
1818, rsque ma to take It instead of reedy mosey as
be bed Mfgsi 32,0001. for m America. meanie I
rasehred as ismount to the defendant for 4161. 15a. 9d.
lIIMIMPINI • sots at the defendant's request. Out of this
sole I wee to pay the Messes. Jordan 3001., and to
lamp the mar The defssdant asked me to
Wm • ham of 6,5001. from the unionßankric,
asked ma to mew the note for 5001. dated in February.
I tied enisessil It with all the others, which I had had die.
essntsil. He said. "If you get the loan for me it shall an-
NM your purpose." He said I had been of pest assistance
to Idek sad he would acknowledge it. I did sot ma him for
say Wmowledspent (A letter was that put is, dated 7th
Aprff, MO, to the deedthat it samidee of the Oda-
tiC the delesdant in °pea( as account et the
I Mood of the 17sies Dank, Teimpielar_ el his Ma
6001. daft discomad, sod his andertaking to get
postmory sots use sd, the defendant undertook to pay.
to the plaintiff NOG Onford and Witney shares,
5001. additional to eight maths ; sod, further, that if the
Witsey line alma be carried out, then the defendant was
riscouto of yto the phalli in *dm, shares in two in-
fear t mouths.) I thought that that
was mare thanl wee to, and that he bad better
tidal the miter over. He and we should talk the matter
ow maw dazianirsiromest nor act aped, bat au
spesswat to a and that has am
bass dmiroed. Os tbeibli rprinale.., asked me
to get his bill of KM renewed at the bask, and he gave me
• fresh note far that purpose. I was about three weeks
segotiating the hal at ths beak. The bank refused the
lima. The delesdaat pm me a note for 5001. in anticipa-
tion of the loss, sad he premed me to get it. I said I
would rather he would tell me what he was to pay me for
my eerie= fadapisdently of the loan. I undertook, if the
lean was to pay 5001. to hie account. If it was
sotsrented I wee to account for it.
Mr. Jos. Browne—l believe that on the 19th May the
0111•111011, at busing the Mat sod of the railway took place?
Whose—Yea _ . _

Jim BWerse—And you proposed the health of the
delesdest. sad be returned thsuks
Wilado-1

TM Lad Gird Baron—That is just sis important as if
rat he tell us an the dishes that were on the table on that
cermr. Jon T think this will prove material.
TM lard OW Baron—About as material to this cares as
V the Ei and the defendant had dined on self
hi laughter.)
Mr. Parry —I hope your lordship will impend
your julgessat tin the cross-asaminstion.
continued—The last interview I had with
the defer-bur was at my brother's house, on the 30th July.
On the 6th August, Fennell, the calor, came to me to
serest me. I was then ill in bed ; and, lindieg I was too dl
to he removed, he went awa Mr. Pickering at the time
the of Ey arrest owed me 1,10 W., after giving credit for

ThroM:erarnined—The first time I made my claim was two
days ago—that a so far as particulars—when I mot in my
brn of ousts wirers the defendant for 1,1001. Before my it
1/eduction to the plaintiff I was to be solicitor to the Wit-
bey Railway. I pre an acknowledgement to the plaintiff
a the 9th April, 188% that I had received two prornisscey
soles for 600/ each—one for the puree*, of renewing the
DM at the Union Bank, and the other the proceeds of which
were to be handed to Mr. Pickering as soon as discounted.
I acknowledge the letter which states this to be
ray handwriting, but that was only in the inset
that the loan should be panted by the beak.
I did not bead the proceeds to the defendant, became I
wee told to be seam in dealing with him. I did not
apply the mossy to my own use. I paid it into a Witesey
bank, to replace lAN. I owed. I told the defendant, both a
the Ith and Bth May, that I had discounted the bill, bat I
did not tell him where, as he was unwilling it should be dis-
counted at the Union Beak. Ile acquis,cod in my keeping
the money.
laden were then put is to show that the defendant bad
frequently demanded the snowy for or the return of the
bill of 3981.._ . . . .

The plaintiff went on to state that when the private bill
had been thrown out in parliament the defendant had
turned round upon him, and that he had not answered the
defendant's letters because he thought be had adopted •
bullying system.
Re-examined—He had been 11 years practising at Oxford
as solicitor, and be had never remised sixpence of the bill
which be had discounted, having applied it to the purposes
of the railway. He hail also carried in ha bill of costs
against the defendant the 500/. bill of the 9th of April.
Mr. Beattie, manager at the Union Bank, having been
called to prove the bank accounts,
The learned counsel mi. both Mdes then consulted, when

eerjeant Parry said that after the evidence that had
been adduced be, acting for the defendant, felt Loynd to
withdraw all the pleas reflecting on the plaintiff*, c:aracter,
and with the consent of he learned friends be proposed to
withdraw a Juror.
Mr. Jams—l fully concur in the suggestion which has
been thrown out by my learned friend. The object of my
client has been simply to vindicate his character, and he
does not desire to disturb those harmonious relations which
formerly existed between himself and the defendant by
preening for damages.
The Lord Chief Baron—There was no pretence whatever
for saying that a charge of embezzlement could hare been
brought spinet the plaintiff ; and I may say this, that if
an indictment had been found apiat him for embezzlement
in a criminal court, and I had been the judge to try it, I
would bave put an end to the came in 20 minutes during the
Min,
A verdict was then taken by consent for the plaintiff,
damages 40a.

Daucz r.

(CLERK).

la this adia, in which the defendant was charged with
derider, is
.giving circulation to the charges against the
*Miff anal* out of the previous action,
Chambers (with whom was Mr. Norman), after the
examinatioa of the first witness, said that on the pert of the
defendant, who wan a clergyman of the church of England
and the incumbent of the pariah in which the plaintiff re-
sides, he denied beving uttered the slanderous words im-
puted ; that he never intended to impute &graceful con-
duct to the plaintiff, but bail merely spoken about the
matter, which was the subject of notoriety in the neigh-
bourhood.
A juror was then by consent withdrawn.

WILLLAMS V. THZ OZZAT NORTNIMN VAILWAT COMPANY.
Wears requested by the plaiatiffs attorney in this action,
tried s few days since, to state that Dr. Harrison sever
offered the ',Watt!, say sum of mosey, uor did the latter
receive any compensation from say of the company's set.
vests, re reported.

COURT OF PROBATZ AND DIVORCE.
Dec. 14.
Piston th• Jadp Ordinary.)
wastron r. W 13310101 AND D7llll.

The petitioner in this nue wee a coal and wine merchant.
He anurial the respondent is 18216. The cohabitation lasted
eleven years, aid was broken se by the respondent, who
soddenly quitted her home having bahrad her tie following
note addressed to her bashned " As you have given me
Mane tug. out of the hams while an this whitewashing and
dararag is going forward, I la wre lakes you at your word.
for I don't feel *Tad to lbw* such discomfort —Yount,
lc., HINIUNITIt Ana` this a separation was
agreed to, and the praillemor agreed to allow her
501. a year. In cenewmaeo of the respondent haring no
relative who could he bee tensile, the eorrepondent, Mr.
Jab Godfrey Dyes, a schoolmaster at Twickenham, and a
Mind al the family, agreed to act in that rapacity. Dyne
ems a martial maa, but in 1847, when these transactions
occarnd, ha area also separated tram his wife. At a later
period Mrs. Wiaraleao applied to bar bushaad for an in-
creased allowarco, ma tho pound, as It was suggested, of her
in health, sad evidence was gime .that she was suffering
tram MOOS of the Mart. Oa Mr. Winstoee's refusal, she
brought a salt for a judicial asparatioa on the ground of
cruelty. Thin led to imparts@ as Gm part of the husband,
sad he discovered that hie wife bad committed adultery
with Dyes while she was orneadhly living with him as his
housekeeper. The roil spurt him was decided in bis
favour and be then filed the premed petition, is answer to
which ,the respondent mewed her charges of cruelty.
Mr. Boirbat aid De. 3piaka appeared tar Ohs pett

timer ; Mr. Keane& Meemday, Q.C., and Mr. Matthew'
for ihe remparhot
The o.4=allitt wow haddibdeszt lirehee up, aeg
mikerbig afteres the wane% found lot. the
haeband, sad
The court dissolved the marriage with costs aphid the
co-respoadeut.