The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-07 00:00:00

REGISTRATION APPRALS.

Notice was given this moniinf that appeals from the
decisions of rerisink ►arristers will be heard on Wank
the 17th, and Tuesday, the 20th instant.
MORGAN v. NICHOLL
-•• • • •

Mr. linddlesten,Cß., said that this was an Wits se
recover some in Wales, and there had been tee
trials, one in 1147,eLitid the other, before Mr. Justice fibs,
at the last Monmouth assizes. On the 'second mesas
the verdict was for the defendant, but the present motile
was for a new trial upon the ground of the impeem
ection of evidence. This evidence was that of
ib.
Walsh, the short-hand writer, who in croes-esaminsiich.
was asked to state what Morgan, a witness on the leg
trial, who had since diet:, Fail stated in reference to a qes
Lion of pedigree. The principal ground upon which this
evidence was rejected was that the parties to the two sahc
were not the same. The learned counsel submitted list
though not actually identical the parties were sabres.
Rally the seine, and stated that:Lets to be these
present defendant was co-defendant with his fak
in the former case: and the son of the pi.
sent plaintiff was then plaintiff. Mr. Morgan, tea"
having been connected with some chartist riots in Igo,
and also having had some differences with his wife, left
Wales and went to Clerkenwell, where he remained
secret, and was believed to be dead. His son wan
fore plaintiff in the grit case, but 111 r. Morgan, scram
hearing of the trial, came forward and made Miceli
plThe court held that the plahitiffs in the two nits ed
being the same, the evidence tendered was not admissible,
Rule refused.

HARVEY C. LAWRENCE.
This wee an action to recover for work done in *4,4
arid improving Carvel-house, near Torquay. The ambit
was that the work should be done according to ths play
and to the satisfaction of the defendant's architect. The
architect had expressed his aatisfacticn, but at to
trial the defendant sought to give in evidence the
the work was not according to the plans, and in per**
that the gateway was not wide enough to admit the E,„
feudant's carriage. Mr. Justice Byles, however, reed
to receive the evidence, and the plaintiff recovered are
diet.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., now moved for a rule for awe
trial upon the ground that the evidence had been M.
properly rejected.
Rale granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,
Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Baron Martin egg
Common Jury.)
NEWTON V. GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY GONPANS.
This was a singular case of assault.
Mr. Joyce was counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Serjeut
Ballantine for the defendant.
The plaintiff is • publican, having a house aped
the Mail Coach, in Farringdon-street, and meths
at Hrtrbury, and likewise carries on the bar*
of • potato merchant. On the Itth Jane lea
he took a second-class return ticket from Loudon a
Barking, and returned by the 12.13 train in the evenai.
At the Stratford station the ticket collector Sabi
him for his ticket, but he had mislaid the null
piece of card, and could not produce it. He prowilei it
he could not find it before he rmtched Shoreditch EA*
the c
there pay his fare, but this did not eat*
the collector, and he ordered hint to come ont of the can*
The plaintiff refused to do so, and the collector mond
the compartment and tried to pull him out. In tie
attempt he failed, and calling two porters to assist hist.
They all tried to eject the plaintiff, but he succeeded a
resisting their united efforts, and the ticket collect,
seized hold of his nose and wrung it with such violas
that it bled profusely. Another passenger paid the plat
tiff's fare, and the train went on to its destination, II
before it reached Shoreditch the plaintiff found his take
which was now produced in court.
The plaintiff and • respectable tradesman named Sean
were called in support of this statement.
Mr. Sell-leant Ballantine said he need hardly tell ii
lordship that the company would not have defended Ye
action if they had received from their Ace's ed
an account of the transaction as that now prat
Doubtless there was some excitement on both
but until that moment the company had not hael
anything about wringing the plaintiff's nose. They We
stood the only assault was putting the band on the*
tiff's shoulder, and requesting hint to leave the rung,
and after the evidence which had been given, he felt ill
duty on their part to express regret at the occurrence, al
consent to a verdict for the plaintiff, with an apology.
Mr. Baron Martin said that was the best course to a*
Pulling the plaintiff's nose was a most scandalous thig;
it was worse than striking a man, and was an indignity*
which no person would submit.
Mr. Joyce said his client felt, in justice to himself, s
well as to the interest of the public, to bring the sills
into court, but after the statement of his learned hid
he was ready to take • verdict which would awry am,
as the action had not been instituted fur the rupee ef
recovering damages.
A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff—Damage

40s.
Mr. Baron Martin observed that the settlement at iii
action reflected great credit on both sides. Ile sbo co
plimenteil Mr. Serjeant Ballantine in stopping the CAA
and said it was a course which other coungel might
adopt when they found the evidence against them.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
DUNN r. DUNN.
Mr. Serjcant Robinson and Dr. Tristram for the plain
tiff ; Dr. Spinks for the defendant.
The testatrix died last year at Folkston, untasind
The plaintiff was her nephew, and in 1837 she emoted s
will in his favour ; but as he was one of the site
witnesses, the instrument would be practically
tY
NIL
Under these circumstances ho
alleged
on the 21st of May, 1881, she formally 5
executed the document, and that her aignetna
was verified by other witnesses. The respondent, atom
brother of the deceased, and father of the plaintiff, ms
the heir-at-law, and he denied that there had bees of
re-execution at all, his ease being that the tramming+
simply a handing over of the will to the plaintiff, end ta
attestation a mere witnessing of the receipt. It ma as
urged on his side that the signature of the testatrix mg s!I
affixed to the will till after the witnevice Lad Soli.
The defendant, it should be stated, had of Lite years ims
on bad terms alike with his sister and his son.
(The case was proceeding when our report left]

COURT OF ADMIRALTY.
(Before the Right Hue. Dr. Lushinetza)
TEE UNITED RTATRA OF AMERICA v. PRIOLEAC.—AUI6ID
CONFEDERATE VESSILLS.—PROCEEDINGS or THE AVEIRII
coeerteetewr.
The American government had seized several
Liverpool of great value, alleging that they hail
to the Confrulerates. They were still detained by thew,
shal of the court, and application had been made that all
might be rale:seed. His lordship bad expreie,eil his ref'
nese to expedite the hearing, on the grouud that the me-
ter was of great importance to Mr. Prioleau, a niercluntsi
Liverpool, who declared that there were no grounds fortis
seizure of his vessels, and that he had been greatly db•
mated and
There were seven cases—the Penguin, the ow .
la
Lark, in which the motion was fur ilages and costs
the alleged illegal detention, and to the four O
vessels the application was for the release, and they lao
aneoun ting case
from
ro
anbolitit
named the Wasp, the Fox, the Badger, awl the ArMelni
It was ported in the Express on a former °maim.
ow
At the sitting of the court, it was rumoured thlt b
tlement had taken place between the parties.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., Mr. 3filward, QC., Mr. Batt, al
Mr. Benjamin appeared for Mr. Prioleau ; Mr. Brett, Q•cu
re ,tY hada n
cd.'et.ihteed Ztuuehe inertertal"A
and Mr. V. Lnshington for the American government.
Dr. Deane said there was no 'motion before the act
and by consent of all parties the cases would the
c
and the vessels remain as they were at Liverpool. Now
could be named at present.
Mr. Brett, Q.C., remarked that if it finished the ilsel
work it was a good day's work done.
His Lordship—No doubt.
The matter accordingly stood over.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Comndeiomr Goo',Lure.)
IN RE DR. WEBBER.—THE TUNBE.!1)(;I: 11 ELLS "I''.-
The bankrupt in this case WilS WIII. Webber, meal
surgeon, of Zion-house, Tunbridge-we:lg. The ass
be remembered as that in which two medical :
of Tunbridge-wells had both brought action.; sgstest_g
other, which, being referred, had resulted in 5E........0".-
against the bankrupt for 19:1. damages and costs. 11*"
real *
upon he was arrested some five mouths 't'o : 0 I.
successful applications were made by him for releste,a
being one of the claim of cases in which the rcelL
no power to discharge from custody, and the 101.1!,7,1
now came up by adjudication to pass his essaterf;
and apply for his order of discharge in the
course under the bankruptcy. The dititio ire On,
couMnrts. E.
oßutepb,
efornetchemarye ass,ignaneedsh
principal creditor being Mr. Trustraw, the dm.—
creditor.
amine bankrupt sa to property. ...1 toll
His Honour inquired how long the bankrupt ..--
in custody.
Mr. Reed said he believed five or six months. .1
His Honour—Then I think it time thettlte
doctors gave each other a mutual discharge- ae
I believe this man has only ens creditor, sad he is le
hod for libel or slander.
ditor, said that was so. Ott°
Mr. R. Griffiths, who appeared for the detaiaief it
His Honour said he was of opinion that it wet
__, of
bankrupt should be released, and though that erfigie
:aiadlsothei3tshedal 4:
' not the power to release him, it could grant Limp".
of discharge. SOP
Mr. Griffiths said he was his own custodian-

creditor Mr. Trustram, bad offered to release him
i2j34... poring' a public apology.
sm"c.rjwissioner—B e have nothing to do with that
TV ,hall grant the order of discharge unless you show
ele'open• t reason to the contrary.
ss,„„heirkrapt was briefly examined as to some of the
l'irige schedule. He stated that he had carried on
boos of a oonsulting surgeon for several years and
sea•
Lea 40 years he occasionally advisk in
• w sent for. He did not furnish drugs, and was a
d the College of Surgeons. In 1854 a large pre-
ell4ol tankard was given him for his attention to the
who had subscribed their pence to the amount of 201.
ptimardal was now at Tunbridge-wells.
Tyenssioner—l think th is the shabbiest thing I
to pursue a matter oft is kind.
Rood—The assignee thinks it his duty to do so. It
and belongs to the estate.
;IPrtYcalulissioner—Yon only represent a creditor for
61..bris go on by all means.
bankrupt, further examined, stated that he had
. of • gold watch and chain to his sister-
-10, named Eyre. The furniture of his house
wee claimed under a former bankruptcy ; it
dgmed by his daughter, being bought by her
His wife now paid the tradesmen's bills. After
~tat Tunbridge he brought an action, in which he
• damages for injury done to the windows of the
sad the furniture, and had got 50/. The assignee
oppoing had paid for ale for the rioters, and had
the police off their beat. His wife had property
41 on her which produced 4507. a year.
gs Honour said this was the most important fact
ud been elicited. The settlement deed ought to
r, tees produced. But as there was a former bank-
the bankrupt's interest under the settlement, if
;maid pass to the first assignees.
Reed observed that if there was any surplus interest
old lass to the present assignees.
Gnifiths said that on behalf of the detaining creditor
opposed the bankrupt's release from custody, on the
that the court had no jurisdiction under the 112th
the bankrupt being in custody in an action for

r.the
s for
other
were

I. ,
)1r14.4
erest.

11.-WrHonour said that might be so, but this was not the
of a man owing a great many debts, but that of
medical man, who libelled a
•r doctor, and had in consequence been
to prison. He now came before the
;Li forma paupers, having been obliged to dispose of
such and chain for his support: and the assignee,
pito+ for 161., wanted to deprive him of a testimonial
bad been given him for his services to the poor.
one had arrived when the bankrupt ought to
kis examination and receive his order of
• ; and the court would sign it gladl,y,
aced that he had suffered enough for the
that ho ha(' committed. (Loud applause from a
court followed the announcement of this decision.)
10E41 be stated that the granting of the order of dis-
does not carry with it the release from custody
t! after a lapse of 31 days, during which further time
askrupt will have to remain in prison.]
THE POLICE COURTS.

(THIS DAY.)

IL&RLBOR013011-STRKIIT.
A USEFUL CACTIOS.
yr. Tyrwilitt handed the following letter and encloser*
4e2 reporters thie morning :

" Nov. 6.

sir,—l beg to call your attention to a circular eon-
toil a Caution to Householders,' requesting them to
kw their area gates locked at dusk, and not unlocked
mil sins in the morning. This last-named is a very
coartint precaution, as thieves are about, early as well
slate, If you will kindly place the notice in the bands
the reporters, the publicity which they will no doubt
dad the matter will be of great use now families are re-
v* to town. As for area gates, they are so constantly
rule open that the question suggests itself, ' What are
n.y for?' They might just as well be off their hinges
ti the use they are. It is a very dangerous practice to
Sire them open, as children and infirm persons are
n; to fall down the steps.—Sir, yours, lac..
" PRECAUTION."

Tke following is the notice alluded to :
"AREA Tuisyss.—CAUTlON TO HOUSETIOLDERS.—Hoods
families are respectfully requested to assist in sup-
;bang a pernicious system by deciding to have their area
ea. henceforth kept locked from dusk in the evening till
clock in the morning."
CRCEL CASE OF DESERTION.
';toes He. cab-driver, badge I,IV, was brought before
i. Tyrwhitt on a warrant for neglecting to mountain his
de and two children, Mary, aged three years, and John,
Ord four months.
gr. George Badderley, assistant overseer of St. George's,
haarer-square, said that about six weeks ago the wife and
*children of the prisoner were admitted into the work-
hue in a destitute state, and he regretted to say that
me of the children, the youngest, died on Monday last,
el that the wife was very ill. It was a very bad ease,
he prisoner having deserted his wife and family to cohabit
ad a girl.
The prisoner bad nothing to say.
Tyrwhitt said the prisoner had deserted his wife,
ul left her desolate, to cohabit with a girL His conduct
*cruel and disgraceful, and he would be committed for
math with hard labour.
WORSHIP-STREET.
.t DISPUTED CAB FARE.
Mr. S. Thompson, a surgeon in the Mile-end-road, was
exmoued by Harry Burrell, the driver of a Hansom cab,
somber 2,720, for refusing and omitting to pay him the
moot 44., being his alleged lawful fare, incurred on the
bob inst.
Defendant at once remarked that although the demand
ea an overcharge, he contested it purely on public
pounds, the vehicle being in a really dangerous condition.
Complainant denied it, and protested that it was nearly a
scrub. Moreover, he did not believe that the gentleman
sond have demurred to paying the 45., and which really
oe;lit to have been another flit, but for having been eat-
dually struck by the blind over the eyes as ho (coin-
plaaza) was lowering it.
Defendant said that although he had received a most
ride* blow, it had not influenced him in this matter ;
titled condition of the cab alone had actuated him.
The Magistrate observed that such, whether fact or
celinvise, could not be imported into this matter.
Complainant then swore that when he took defendant as
a foe at Mile-end-gate he distinctly noticed by the
clock there that it was five minutes to 3 o'clock, and
wilierdriving him about apparently to different patients,
to *him down at precisely the same spot, he of course
allood opportunity of seeing how long he had been
hod The time amounted to 4a., apart from fid. for
Tuusq, which, however, he did not demand. The gentle-
!tie disputed the time by his own watch, and offered
aq,nhich *mot course refused, and a summons obtained.
Defendant insisted that he could not be mistaken in his
each, and finally the magistrate remarked that there
vs not any evidence to guide him. If the clock had be-
Mad to a church instead of a turnpike, it might have
bra diffennt Complainant had better take 3s. lid.
filmed, and defendant pay 25., being the cost of the
tosimons
, _Complainant took his money, but complained that he was
lordly treated—the hearing had been adjourned one day,
Itolmollust his pluce, and was also out of work—instead
of iteetving his just claim and all his expenses.

age

; sad
14•C•9
t.
court.
over,
;o de/
141

Lad be.

hens te°
I jy c‘d.

,iug ‘g"

tilDsZ
ham,
Tbe

THAMES.
Rint•M DRIVING.
hyderirk Prole, a greengrocer, of No. 6, Market-place,
Wandsworth, was brought before Mr. Paget, charged with
famously driving his horse and cart this morning, at half-
PIK 1 o'clock, in High-street, WhitechapeL
The prisoner was intoxicated and driving at a reckless
He ran into a cab and broke the back panel. The
wirer of the cab seized the prisoner's bone
and attempted to atop him. The prisoner made a
hey at the cabman with the butt end of his whip, but it
tollerried. The prisoner was then given into custody.
", • treed in his defence that he was upon the cab before
ee vas aware of it.
gr. Paget said the prisoner had endangered people's
"" by his furious driving, and fined him 40a., which
'I" Pal The cabman was left to his remedy by action.
FOWL STEALING.
Sir wretched-looking, boys named George Pat more,
TANwis Cooper, Gt,roc Mart, Edwurci Sargeant, Charles
Borreff, and Wiliioni Bordrat, were brought up on remand
before Mr. Paget, charged with stealing five fowls from a
fowl-hoax in the garden of Charles Jones,Victory.cottage.
Nliddlem v, and George Smith, cowkeeper and
dairyman, of Catherine-street, Limehouse-fields, was
"aged with feloniously receiving two of the fowls, he well
knowing them to be stolen.
The case against the boys was complete, and three of the
salen fowls were found on two of them. Bolden, one of
}m"r", said that two of the fowls were sold to Smith
a his cow barn, and he was confirmed on oath by two other
buys, accomplices. The fowls were not found on the
Remises of Smith, and the evidence of the boys received
no corroboration whatever.
gr. Stoddart, solicitor, who defended Smith, said be
Tau a man of unblemished character, and there were
Moons who had known him eighteen to twenty years
a attendance to speak in hie favour.
,Ifr. Paget would give no opinion on the case of the cow-
raper Smith, but no the evidence of the accomplices was
not confirmed be should discharge him. He sentenced
9" bays, who were all under 14 years of age, to one month's
urProonawnt with bard labour. The learned magistrate
threw a letter from him which bad been banded to him
through Mr. Stoddart cod Mr. I'yer, the chief clerk,
"rat", by Smith's wife, and said it was highly im-
Prier to send written communications to any magistrate
'judge re a case to come before them. The coma
amication was a most improper one.
Mr. Staidart—lt was handed to you by Mr. Pyer.
Mr. Pyer—lt was put into my hand by you, sir, and
Ong
it was addressed to the magistrate I gave it to him.
ratte r. Paget said Mr. ryes. was quite blameless in the
r.
Mr. Stoddart—l have been 40 years in the profession
and should be sorry to do anything irregular.
..gr. Paget—A lawyer of your experience, Mr. Stoddart,
"rand have ascertained what the letter contained before
"_,Yras handed to the bench. You should have asked your
meet's wife what it was about. Ignorant papaw who