The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-20 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Jsx. 19.

Sittings in Banos—(Before the Lord Chief Baron Pollock
and Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.)
BOUILLON AND WM V. VALNNTIN.

Mr. Berjeint Simon moved for a rule calling upon the
plaintiffs and their attorney; Messrs. Denton and Hall, to
show cause why they should not give security for costa in
the action of Bouillon and wife v. Valentin, in the event of
its being ultimately decided in favour of the defendant, and
why they should not bring into court for safe custody the
coepons, shares, and other property which had been taken
from the defendant. Be said that both the plaintiffs were
foreigners, residing in France, and that on the night pre-
ceding the day on which the verdict was given at the last
trial, M. Bouillon, who had come to England to give evi.
demo; suddenly left thin country in consequenoe of being
told by some one that if the verdict was against him he
would probably be arrested for coat; He had never made
his appearanoe here since, and was not likely to do so
The
%
The court said that as regarded the properly alb gad to
have been taken from Madame Valentin they had no power
to do what was asked, and that the application an to costs
must be made before a judge at chambers, from whose
decision there would beau appeal to this court.
Application refused.

BAIL COURT.-JAL 19.

Sittinp at Mai Pir:ius at Teatiniaattr.-7-(B!sfore Mr. Justice

Shoe and Commas Juries.)
CLAYTON 0. GOODTEL—EILANDEB.

This was a rather peculiar action for slander. The de.
fendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Haddleaton, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were counsel
for the plaiatiq: Mr. Eyre Lloyd for the defendant.

The plaintiff is a young lady, -about 17 years of age, au
apprentice to Mews. Howell and James, in Regent-street,
and the defendant is a chemist, carrying on business in the
immediate neighbourhood. In November laat, the plaintiff,
who was going out to make a purchase, was commissioned
by Mir Gilbert., who was also in that establishment, to
purchase her a pair of gloves, sod at the same time gave
her half a sovereign. She purchased the gloves at Menus.
Marshall sad Snelgrove's, receiving in change two half-
crowns, a florin, and threepence. She then went to the
defendant's shop, and purchased a pot of cold cream
and a cake of soap, which she paid for with one
of the half•crowes, receiving le. 6d. in change. A
few days after, the defendant accidentally met one
of the young ladies of the establishment, and told her
that one of their young women had purchased some cold
cream at his shop and had given a bad half-orowa for it in
payment. The defendant also went to Messrs. Howell and
James and accused the plaintiff with having passed a bad
crown piece at his shop. Mr. Hicks, one of the partners,
subsequently went with the plaintiff to the defendant's
shop, and he again stated that she bad passed a bad crown
piece to his shopmsn, who did not discover it until after
she had gone. Ile produced a bad crown piece, and threat-
ened to take a summons out against her for passing a bad
half.crown, and at his request she gave him her name and
address. The defendant did not take out the summons,
and as he refused to apologise, this action was brought.
Mr. Huddleston said be was ready then to accept an
ample apology, but the defendant declined to give it.
In crosi-examinatiou she said she never had passed a bad
crown piece.
Defendant said be had DO accusation to make against her,
but he wished to test his young mares accuracy. Her re-
maining with Messrs. Howell and Jame depended on her
clearing her character.
After some discussion between his lordship and the
learned counsel, in the course of which his lordship said
the defendant had an opportunity of retiring from the case
like a gentleman,
Mr. Lloyd said he was instructed by the defendant to
say he never intended to make any imputation against the
young lady, sad to consent to a verdict of 404., which
would carry costs.
Mr. Justice Shee—lt must be understood that the young
lady leaves the court without the slightest imputation on
her character.

Mr. Lloyd—Certainly.
Mr. Justice Shee said he thought that all the persona
connected with Mews. Howell and James's establishment
bad acted in this case with great propriety. He said no-
thing about the defendant—he, no doubt, relied on what
mole images had told him.
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 40a.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-ROUSE

A lad 14 years old, named Ws.. IFintosh, was brought
before the Lord Mayor, charged with having "broke up."
a term now well understood, it appears, by workhouse offi-
cials, and which, when translated, means wilfully destroy-
ing his clothing.
Henry Bellawav, the superintendent of the limitless
poor ward attached to the Est London Union, in Bishops-
gate-street, stated that on Thursday night about 6 o'clock,
prisoner and 29 other men sod lads applied at the ward
and wets admitted. Eseh of them was provided with a warm
bath, and a pound of bread was then given to each of thew,
and they ware also supplied with a clean shirt to sleep in.
Yesterday morning the prisoner was called, with the others,
sod told to dress himself, but instead of doing so, he tore
his clothes into shreds, and he was provided with the
canvas suit in which be now appeared, and the pattern of
which had been suggested by Alderman Wilson, when •
similar case was brought before him a short time ago. He
had made some ioquiries about the prisoner, and had ascer-
tained that he bad " broke up" in a similar way about •
week ego at Stepoey, and he bad done the same thing
at Lambeth a short time before that.

The Lord Mayor asked the prisoner what he had to say
to the charge
He replied that he did not deny what the officer bad
stated, but it was oot true that be "broke up" at Stepney,
it was at P?ytar. (A laugh.)

The Loid Ma or—Thee 'caw are really very' puzzling to
know what to do with them. If all we read be true, the
prisoner would be treated better in gaol than he is in the
workhouse. _ _

Kellaway stated that the offence of destroying the
clothes was very much on the increase.
The Lord Mayor said he was aware of it, but then the
difficulty remained, what was to be does with snob persons?
It appeared to him that it was utterly useless to send them
trisoo where they were better treated than in the'
Kellaway said that be could assure hie lordship that the
paupers were well taken owe of in the Feet London Union.
The Lord Mayor said that if all the regulations were car-
ried oat, paupers lo union workhouses would no doubt be
much better off, but the fact was they were not. In prisons,
which were under the control of the Secretary of State, all
the regulations were strictly eoforced, and the come-
queues was, he believed, that persons were much better off
in a prison than they were in a workhouse. He did not,
therefore, see that it would be of the slightest use to send the
prisoner to gaol, and he should remand him, and consider
what was the best amuse to be taken with regard to him.
The prisoner, who seemed quite indifferent as to the re-
sult, was then removed.