The Express.
London, England, 1858-02-24 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Faa. 23.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins.—Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and
Common Juries.)

O.IADUIZZ V. ROBINS.-BREACH OP PROMISE OF MA lIRIAO E.

Mr. X. Chambers and Yr. Gray were counsel for the
piebald; Hr. Skinner apprised for the defence.
In this esas the plaintiff, who is the daughter of a licensed
vkinaler in Broadway, Ludgate-bill, sued the defendant, •
commercial traveller, fora -breech of promise of marriage.
The defendant estimated the value of the injury sustained by
t...ttatntiff at 101., which sum he paid into court. The
each of whom is about 22 years of age, were intro-
gce7l 'ut 1854, and after a yea?. acquaintance were, as the
lady's mother expreesed herself, " engaged as orators," and
la 1868 matters so far progressed that they were, amording
to the same witness, " engaged to marry." The happy event
vas at first fixed for Christmas time in tbe latter year, and
the bride elect made the necessary preparations. However
the ceremony was postponed at the instance of Mr. Gardine;
sad the defendant's family, on the prudential ground that
the parties were " ower young to marry.' Late in
1867, another day was fixed for the nuptials,
mad the wedding dress was bought. Suddenly,
however, • change came over the defendant's mind, and be
broke off the match without asaigningany reason, though the
plaintiff's family telegraphed to him to know why an engage-
meet which promised so well to all parties should be brought
to so sadden a termination.

Meru elicited by the crces-examination that the plaintiff
bad been previously engaged to another. That she was in
such a delicate state of health u to be unable to thaw the
Deer for the customers, and that the defendant had supplied
somas of the money expended in anticipation of the marnage.
It was also stated that the defendant's income was about
200/. a-year.
Mr. Skinner addressed the jury be mitigation of damages,
sad his lordship having summed up,
The jury found • verdict for the plaintiff, 401. damages,
beyond the 101. paid into court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Fin. 23.
(Bohn Mr. Coinodadosor Holroyd.)

IN RI NOSELIT AND NOSELZY.

The bankrupt., Charles Moseley and John Marlow
Moseley, were newsagents, of Catherine-street. This was
the adjourned examination meeting. Their balance-sheet,
prepared by Messrs. Hart, shows a capital at the beginning
of of 1,863/. They now owe to unsecured creditors
8,383/., besides liabilities of 3,2261., chiefly on trade bills,
drawn by the bsnkrupts and discounted with their bankers.
The assets .re thus stated .—Good debts, 1,0701. ; doubtful
ditto, 247!. ; property, 4471. • cash at the Union Bank, held
against bills discounted, et. It is contrary to the usual
practice to name the particular creditors on an estate; but as
this rule is constantly violated by the limes, often to the
serious injury of the parties concerned, it is almost a duty to
mention that the proprietors of the now are creditors on this
estate for the al rge sum of 8261. The profits (in a
little lees than two years) are returned at 4771. ; trade ex-
penses, 3,227/. ; drawn out by Charles Moseley Hal.; bratie
other bankrupt, 4601. • Imes; 2,7061., of which the
sum sf 2,682/. was stated to hare arisencn the sale of
goodwill, lease, and fixtures dills premises.
Mr. Ford opposed for the assignees, on the ground that the
soaounts were to alartre extent estimated.
. . .

Kr. Lowrance, for the bankrupts, submitted that the ba-
lsams-sheet was the best which they could furnish. There
were sales to the amount of 76,0001., of which 67,0001. were
vonehed, and the remainder unvouched. The newspaper
trade was in this respect—that when those in the
employ of the kalnwpts went to buy newspapers no Invoices
or receitiptasserid.
smThe court would observe that the profits
bwr the small pgfits on't;:e newspaperhich a
tr:dated e
infotrgengtesotnlyf
Umea, but by the fact that there been of late excessiveo
competition, and that the profits had been still further di-
minished. The dealings of the bankrupts were to the extent
of 2001. e week. - . _

—l3i;l6nOirsaid that in judging of the sufficiency of the
accounts he was bound to have regard to the particular cus-
tom of tbo trade. In the course of 20 months' trading be
found that the dealings had been to the extent of 76,0001., of
which sum 67,0004 was Touched. This being so, he:should
allow the bankrupts to pass.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.—Fas. 23.
(Before the Recorder.)

Georgs Rithard iarelife, 19, a well-tittered young man,
was charged with uttering a forged cheque for 301., with in-
tent to defraud the London Joint Stock Bank.

Mr.Tindal Atkinson prosecuted;ii;;;lsoner we. de-
funded by Mr. Robioson and Mr. °ridge.
The circumstances under which this charge was profaned
against the prisoner were of rather a peculiar character. It
appeared that the prisoner was clerk in the service of Messrs.
Mockford and Maenad, merchants, in Thames-street, and
that part of his der was to fill up the cheques of the firm,
keep the cash amount, and being back the pass-book
at certain intervals from the banker's. On the 27th of
January the prisoner gave the pees-book to Mr. Mesuard, who
upon looking over it at once discerned the entry of the pay-
ment, on the 19th of January, of • cheque for 301., of which
be had no recollection, and upon looking in the pocket of the
book where the cancelled cheques had been plao.d, he could
not discover any cheque of that date, and the prisoner, on
being Inser.'oned, said he knew nothing about the cheque,
and thee coenned of illness, and left the office of his em-
ployers, sad the cheque which was alleged to be a forgery
bas never been discovered. It appeared that it
wee paid by a 101. and a U. note, and fifteen
✓ealigns, and the prosecutor swore that no genuine
cheque for 301. was issued by the firm on the 19th
of January, and the only 301. cheques they were cog
nisant of, were one issued on the 16th and the other on the
20th. Both the notes that were the produce of the supposed
forged cheque were traced to the possession of the prisoner,
one of them, the 51. note, having been changed for him by
an attorney's clerk, named Vernon, at a supper room In
Holborn, and the other came Into the Bank of England with
• fictitious name and address upon it in the prieoner's hand-
writing. It also amazed that when the prisoner was takea
into custody by Bort, one of the City of London detective
Apses, be dropped, or attempted to throw away, • piece of
paper, which turned out to be part of • cheque, and which it
was suppler was a portion of the forged cheque that had
been presented to the bank, and which the primmer had
afterwards abstracted from the par-book.
Mr. Robinson, at the close of the case for the prosecution,
submitted that there wee no evidence to go to the jury, end
be argued very ingeniously that. inasmuch em it was admitted
that two genuine cheques for 301. had been drawn at nearly
the same period as the supposed forged cheque, there was
nothing to show that the one presented on the 19th was not
one of those so drawn, and that it was consequently a
genuine instrument.
The Recorder inquired of Mr. Atkinson how he proposed
to get over the difficulty that had been suggested by the
counsel for the prisoner ?
Mr. Atkinson said that neither of the genuine cheques was
dated the 19th of January, and he was informed that they
I were both in the prosecutors' possession at the present
moment.
The Recorder said they should have been produced.
Mr. Atkinson said they could be sent for in the course of
a very few minutes.
The Recorder said that he bed already, dining the trial,
allowed the prosecutors to send for a piece of evidence which
was considered material, and be did not think he ought to
allow any further delay for the purpose of making out their
ore.
Mr. Atkinson then said that be WU not in a position to
offer further evidence in answer to the objection on the part
of the prisoner, and he must therefore leave the case in the
hands of the court.
The Recorder observed that whatever suspicion might be
entertained regarding the conduct of the prisoner, it was his
duty to take care that no one was convicted of a crime un-
less upon legal testimony, end in the present cue the ern-
demo that might have been forthcoming to show that the
cheque paid on the 19th of January was not one at the
genuine cheques that had bean drawn by the prosscatars,
had not been laid before the jury, and therefore lbet prisoner,
as it allured to him, ought not to be convicted upon the pre-
sent charge.
The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
There was another indictment against the prisoner for
Meiling the blank cheque, which was valued at one penny.
Mr. Atkinson said that be bed been suddenly o
to conduct the proration in consequence of ens IC
keened friends bet eg compelled to leave the court, end he
applied to have the trial of the second indictment postponed
to the following day.
Mr. Robinson urged that the trial should at ma
The Reorder, however, said that the prima =lt