The Express.
London, England, 1860-04-28 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-APRIL 27.

Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Betore Mr. Justice Wightman and
Common Juries.)
NON•ATTINDARCZ OF JURORS.

His lordship lined several persons 2/. each for non-
attendance.
nowt" C. DOTD.-117/401IDIVAIT BILL CABE
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an estate
agent in Bridgs•street, Blacldriars, on two promasory note'
for 3321. 17s. 10d. and 35/. respectively. The defendant
pleaded in substance that the And note had been paid to
one Dean as collateral security for a debt under a written
wsement that it should not be negotiated, and that the
plaintiff had discounted it with a full knowledge of the fact.
As to the second note, the defendant pleaded that it had
been discharged by the plaintiff having accepted a renewal
in satisfaction.

Mr. Temple and Mr. Keene were for the plaintiff ; and
Mr. Harrison and Mr. Laxton were counsel for the de-
fendant. _ _

In support of the plaintiff's Me the notes were put in and
the handwriting proved.
The defendant then stated that he was chief clerk in the
Registmes-ofies. In 1866 his father was indebted to a so-
licitor named Dean, of King's Bench-walk, for law costs
amounting to 3;12.1. 17s. lfkL, and au agreement was come to
that defendant and his father should give Dean a joint pro-
missory note as collateral security en a policy of insurance
effected on the elder Boyd's life, but as long as the pre-
miums were paid the note was not to be negotiated. Shortly
afterwards the plaintiff informed the defendant that he had
discounted the note for Dean, of whom, knowing the cir-
cumstances, he had required security, with which he was
satisfied. The plaintiff had also said be was aware that
neither the defendant nor his father were liable, so long as
they paid the premiums on the policy. The detail-
, dant's father died in 1867, and Dean received the
amount of his claim out of the insurance. The plain-
tiff then asked the defendant to assist him in
recovering the amount from Dean again, saying he had no
claim on the defendant. Dean having been charged with
the commission of frauds left the country, and up to the
period when this action was brought the plaintiff had made
no claim on the defendant with respect to the note for
3321. 17s. 10cL The note for 351., dated March 28, 1856,
was discharged by a renewal, but the discharged bill was
not returned by the plaintiff, who said that he had dis-
charged it.
In his cross-examination the defendant said that the note
for 351. had not been dated by mistake March 28, 1856, in-
stead of March 28, 1837. The date on the stamp had been
punched out.
The defendant's brother proved that he was present when
the plaintiff told the defendant he had no claim against him,
as he had been well aware of the agreement with Dean.
He and his brother had at the time made a memorandum of
the conversation.

Mr. Dean's lute clerk deposed that, according to the
terms of the agreement, the note was not to be negotiated,
but was to be held as collateral security for the payment of
the premiums on the policy of insurance.
The plaintiff was then called to rebut the defendant's evi.
denoe. He deposed that be had received the note for
332.1. 17s. 10d. from Dean in the usual course of business,
and had never beard of any agreement between Dean and
the defendant. He had never told the defendant that he
did not consider him liable. The note for 351. bad been
accidentally dated 18.56 instead of 1857.

Craw-exiiniined— The defendant's account of his convene-
Con with him wars untrue. He had charged Dean 30 per
cent. for discounting the bill.
The learned Judge, in summing up, left it for the jury to
decide on the question of credibility to be attached to both
sides.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-APRIL 27.

Satiny is Banco.—(Befare Lord Chief Justice Me, and
Justices Byles and Keating.)

OACILIT T. OODDEIN. -DIFFICULTY OF FORMING A COURT.

Mr. M. Chambers this morning, in acconlance with what
took place yesterday, asked that this mile should be post-
poned until Mr. Justice Wiles, who had heard the that
part of the argument, should be in attendance to go on with
the matter.

The Lord Chief Justice, however, said that he had been
talking with his learned brothers, and their impression was
this. They could not calculate on having a full court this
term, and if the case stood over until after the term was
ended there would be a shift of the judges, and they could
not foresee when it would be pnwiible to get the same four
judge, who had heard the find part of the argument in
court. Under these circumstances they thought that they
would not be doing justice if they postponed the remainder
of the argument until the former part bad become faint in
their minds.

Mr. Chambers said the learned judge who was accidentally
absent had heard the argument on the other side, but only
part of the argument on his side.
The Lord Met Justice—Then he would take no part in
the judnt.
3&. LUrnbere—Mr. Justice Williams, who would be pre-
sent next term, had beard the motion.
The Lord Chief Justice—But not the argument of Mr.
James, Mr. Hawkins, or Mr. Coleridge.
Mr. James, for the defendant, said he was there to pro-
test against any postEskienientjle effect of which would
be to ruin the Moulne, who had been recalled to India.
After some further discussion the court said the case must
go on.
Mr. Chambers accordingly continued his argument, and
was followed by Mr. Macounara on the same side.
The Court took time to consider their judgment.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES. —Anui 27.

(Before the Judge Ordi!arn Mr:JustiosWillee, and Mr.

JV.l.lii]Li

The court dissolved the marriage in the following wale.
fended cases : —Pearce v. Pearce and French, in which the
parties had been married since 1847. In 1852, the peti-
tioner having first duly provided for his wife, went, with
her consent, br Aust•alut. In his absence she cohabited
with the driver of a Woodford 'bus, by whom she had three
children, in addition to her legitimate family of the same
number. Ou the petitioner's return from Australia he dis-
covered these facts, and they rendered it necessary for him
to be confined for six months in Bethlehem Hospital. The
court gave costa against the eedueer.—D'Arcy v. D'Arcy.—
The parties were married in Dublin so long ago as 1838 ;
but lest year the respondent committed bigamy in London
with a woman named Zillah Tempest.—Neva v. Neve and
Wiley.—The parties, a labourer and a servant, were mar-
ried at Norwich in 1874. The co-respondent was a person
in the same rank of life.—Holmes v. Holmes.—The parties
were cousins, and were married after a previon+ cohabitation
in 1852. The respondent subsequently twice committed
bigamy, and was now undergoing a penal servitude of four
years for one of those offences.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-Aniz, 27.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fans.)
IN RE DRAY.

11!!-. TAU in ippl!n.tion fey 6n.011 he William Prin
a fanner, at Parningharra, who formerly carried on the busi-
nem of agricultural implement maker at Adelaide-place,
London bridge His debts and liabilities are 14,0001., and
assets have been realised to the amount of 3,5001.
Mr. Linklater appeared for the asaignees, and Mr. Bagley
for the bankrupt.
Mr. Linklater said that expectations were entertained of
great assets being realised from some royalties and patents
in the hands of the assignees, and it would therefore be de-
sirable that the bankrupt should not be released entirely
from the obligations under which he would remain until he
received his certificate to assist the assignees in the realisa-
tion of the estate.

Mr. Bagley said the bankrupt would cheerfully render
every substance the assignees desired.
An adjournment was thee ordered until the assets in
question lave been realised.

IX II WALLIXIII.

This bankrupt was n gnicer at Peterborough. He WAS
ted by his assiipiees, in aoooniewm with an onler
prosecuted
Commissioner dated Feb. 11 last, for not surren-
dering to his bankruptcy, and for fraudulently obtaining
poiLl within three months at his bankruptcy. The pro-