The Express.
London, England, 1867-04-25 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 25, 1867.

Pd. 1 al. me.. I Mai..

94 9G
93
93 96
81 86
63 65
103 106
103 186 xd
10! 194 zdi
104 108
90 31\1
10: 104
107 109
106 107
103 106
104 108 I
106 107
104 106
96 97:d
96 96

94 116
fg
87A
102 103
&Si 89
991 100 ii
102 103
96 99
91 92

106 106
Los 106
loft 1061

S 4

-

xd

971

a,

I Pd. I Cl. pious. I Sale..

all
1! Par OM
.311 1411-18 AP:
1:114 la 4418:
He./ 3 ;pm 15-16 pm
I
1
ail. 16 51
i 11;1' Z
22 2
S I 1 I ;
1
: . 2 z
,16 6I 14 165
a 4 S thPare
Si!'nll
1 Illea—
-1 1,

all
2
ao
sa
100

?
I

11. prior. I Sas.

WTI
If 21
fl ♦ die

die

9)
3)
d. 19

14 x In
51 1

2111.5-16
114

-
i 15-16

151:6 15)

2 5716 II

_di.

tato ihrtelligtate.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Artut 24.
&Milne in 11Anco.—(Before Justices Blackburn, Mellor,
aad Shoe.)
BANCROFT r. MITCHELL.

Mr. Williams said this was an action tied at Manches-
ter before Mr. Justice Mellor far false imprisonment, &c.,
when the plaintiff Wal. imamate& The action was brought
against the governor of the county gaol at Salford by the
plaintiff, who had been taken under a warrant that had
been issued against him for the non-payment of • certain
sum of money due under the Poor-law Act, which pro-
'Med that a son should maintain his parents where he
was is circumstance, to do so. There was also a count
for excess. his hair having been cut and his
whiskers shaved off he was also dressed in
the prison dress, and treated in every respect
as a felon, instead of as a misdemeanant.
The case involved the question whether the
money due under the warrant was in the shape of
a debt or for penalties, and if the former, whether
the plaintiff had nut been relieved from the payment
under the Bankruptcy Act. It was contended that the
magistrates' order was an order for the payment of money,
and not in the nature of a criminal offence. The learned
counsel moved to set aside the nunsuit, and enter the
I verdict fur the plaintiff for 151. or one farthing, or both.
(Laughter.) If the detention was unjustifiable, the
verdict was to be entered for the plaintiff for and if
it was justifiable, for one farthing for the excess in cutting
the hair and shaving the plaintiff, which would have •
material effect on the costs. The plaintiff's treatment, it
was urW, , was severer than that provided by the Pri-
sons' :ftulation Act, which came into operation the
day on which he was arrested.
Rule gr.inted.

house. It was anonymous, and in the same band.
writicg a.l the other letters, and. moreover. was
enclosed in an envelope which corresponded exactly with
a packet of envelopes found in the desk belonging to ono
of Mrs. Wells' children, to which Miss Cooler could have
access. The writer of it appeared to have known what
had taken place that very day.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—Had it any postmark?
Mr. Serjeant O'Brien--No. It was in these terms :
—'. My intention when I first wrote these letters was to
try and get your nurse out of her place; but as I could not
do that, I tried to annoy you by setting you against Miss
Cooper, and tending her away to your inconvenience ; but
finding I could not do that, I have tried to annoy you. But
I now solemnly take my oath that Miss Cooper has bad
the last letter she will ever have, and you shall never have
another. May God forgive me for ever writing such letters.
Once I should have liked to have seen nurse sent away,
for I bated her. The writer of these letters has lived with
yon. You know her as well as you do nurse. I know you
and nurse quite well ; but I know very little of Mies
Cooper. Once more I take my oath that thin is the last
letter you shall ever have. I did not live as long with
you as nurse did, but I know you an well. I confess all I
have said is untrue. I am a liar, or I never could have
said what I have. I never, by all that is sacred, will
write to you again—either of you."
Mr. Baron Bramwell—That rather seems to be the letter
of a person living in the fainily, because instead of using
" the ' before nurse, the writer speaks familiarly of
" nurse." The learned baron also remarked that he (lid
not see how these letters could be worth 1001. to the
plaintiff unless she was the author of them.
Mr. fierjeant O'Brien—That is exactly the way in which
I put the matter.
The Lord Chief Baron--It is impossible not to feel that
the jury might have been influenced by the consideration
that if they found this young person to be the author of
these letters it would be her immediate and butting de-
struction in this world. They found that there was not
sufficient evidence to justify them in saying that she was
the writer—not that she was not the writer.

Mr. 4erjeant O'Brien was insensible to the considera-
tions which might govern the jury in that respect,
because he was satisfied that throughout greater kindness
could not have been shown by any human being to Miss
Cooper than had been shown by Mr. and Mrs. Wells.
The Lord Chief Baron—The folly of Mr. and Mrs. Wells
was, that, having reason to suspect Miss Cooper as the
writer, they did not give her back her letters and send her
about her business.

Mr. Serjeant O'Brien submitted that they would hare
acted wrongly if they had done any inch thing, as the
letters contained foul libels upon members of the family.
Although Miss Cooper left at the end of November, Mr.
Wells paid her salary up to the Ist of February following,
but she claimed the cost of board and lodging daring that
time. The learned counsel then referred to the evidence
of the experts, and said, that although the suggestion was
that the letters might have been written by one of the
domestic servants, there was no false spelling, and that a
scientific word which an illiterate person might be sup-
posed to be not able to spell. had been correctly spelt.
The Lord Chief Baron said he should have been glad at
the trial, and would be so still, if a stet processes could be
entered.

Mr. Serjeant O'Brien—l should have no objection to a
stet prooessus as regards the whole proceedings.
The Lord Chief Baron—But before a suggestion for that
purpose can be made, you must show you are entitled to a
rule.

Lltnnately, the court granted a rule nisi to enter a ver-
dict for the defendant on the count for trover.
Rule nisi.

COWAN T. MELBOURNE.

This was an action for the breach of an agreement to let
the St. Anne's Assembly-rooms, at Liverpool, for the de-
livering of lectures, and was tried before the Recorder of
the borough in the Passage Court, when a verdict was
found for the defendant.

Mr. Littler now moved to enter averdict for the plaintiff
for the amount claimed. The rooms were let to the
plaintiff for two Sundays, and he distributed placards
about the town stating the nature of the lectures to be
delivered. One of the subjects was, " The character and
teachings of Christ—the former defective, the latter mis-
leading ;" and another, " The Bible shown not to be more
inspired than any other book." The defendant said that
these were irreligious, blasphemous, and illegal lectures,
and refused to allow them to be delivered. The learned
counsel said the real question was the spirit and intention
with which the lectures were to be given, and that if the
author only proposed to express the opinions which he
sincerely entertained, without any desire to annoy or in-
wilt other persons in their beliefs, they did not bear the
character assigned to them.
The Lord Chief Baron said, in his opinion it would be a
violation of the duty of the court to have any hesitation
upon any of the points raised in refusing a rule. What-
ever °entrant might have been entered into by the de-
fendant, no doubt could be entertained that he was justi-
fied in preventing his rooms being used for the puma's
mentioned. It needed no authority to show that Chris.
tianity was part and parcel of the law of England, and to
publicly attempt by argument and reasoning to prove that
the character of oar Saviour was defective and Hia teach-
ings misleading was blasphemy and impiety. Not only
was the defendant justified in refusing the use of his
rooms for the purpose in question, but he was bound by
the laws of his country to do all in his power to prevent
them being so used.
Mr. Baron Martin expressed the same opinion.
Mr. Baron Bramwell said that the use of the rooms in
the way proposed was clearly illegal under the 9th and
10th of William 111., which provided that those who in
writing, printing, or preaching, denied that the Christian
religion was true, or that the Holy Scriptures were by
divine authority, should be subject to the penalties
therein mentioned. He added that be was glad in ar-
riving at the name conclusion as his learned brethren, as
these placards must have given great pain and offence to
those who read them.
Rule refused.

Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Baron Channell and
Common Juries.)

These were the second sittings at Nisi Prins in Term.
The list contains 42 causes, of which six are entered for
special juries. An unfinished case occupied the court the
greater part of the day. The other asses disposed of were
of no public interest.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
APRIL 24.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
WIGHT V. WIGHT AND FIELD.

In this case, in which it will be remembered that the
jury lately found for the respondents, the court dismissed
the petition, and condemned General Wight in Dr. Field's
costs. It refused, however, to give Dr. Field the costs in-
curred by him in a previous and abortive trial

HANCOCK (TAMMY CALL= PEATY) V. PLATT.
In this case the court pronounced a decree of nullity, in
conformity with its previously expressed opinion that the
lady was insane at the time of her trial. Dr. Spinks, Q.C.,
dated that the present condition of her health was not
such as to justify the respondent in carrying the case any
further, and he therefore, with great regret, submitted to
the finding of the court.
Decree accordingly.

begged to be allowed to join him again in order to receive
some money to which they were jointly entitled. Leave
was given her until 5 o'clock, and the prisoner again quitted
the house. In a short time afterwards, in consequence of
a communication made by the errand boy, Mrs. Tuck was
induced to examine the drawers in her bedroom, end dis-
covered that they had been opened and ransacked, and an
opera cloak and two petticoats abstracted. Suspicion at
once attached to the prisoner, and the officer Brown was
sent for, and he, accompanied by Mrs. Tuck, proceeded to
the house of a crimp, in a retired court in Batcliff High-
way, where the prisoner was found, and taken into
custody. On her being searched a qitantfry of duplicates
relating principally to property stolen from her employer's
premises was found upon her, and two embroidered petti-
coats, a rich child's cloak trimmed with white fur, and •
second cloak were now produced by the pawnbroker, and
proved to have been pledged by the prisoner on the pre-
vious flay shortly after one o clock. These articles were
identified by Mrs. Tuck as her husband's property.
Detective officer Brown proved the capture, as already
stated, of the prisoner, whose real name was Kent, and
who had cohabited with a well known crimp prior to
taking the situation in the prosecutor's family. The
officer applied for • remand to enable him to trace the
valuable property which was still missing.
The Lord Mayor granted the application, and the pri-
soner (who had nothing to say) was remanded to Saturday
next.

JaiNO Randall, 18, deecribed as being a porter, was
charged with being concerned with one Henry Taylor
(already committed for trial), in obtaining on the 29th
March divers merino shirts, value 305., and on other dates
divers other valuable goods, from Mews. Morley, of
Wood-street, Cheapside, with intent to cheat and
defraud. _ _

It seemed that the man Taylor had formerly been in the
service of an extensive retail house in Regent-street, and
while so employed had been in the habit of coming with
orders to Messrs. Morley's 'warehouse, sod being supplied
with the goods. After his dismissal, which had beenunknown
to the prosecutors, he came several times, representing that
he came as before from his employers, and thus obtained
large quantities of goods, until by accident the fraud was
discovered, and Tlor given into custody on his last visit
on a similar errand. It subsequently transpired that the
prisoner Randall was mixed up in these frauds, and on the
previous night be was taken into custody at a common
odging-house, in George-street, Bloomsbury, where his
companion Taylor had taken up his abode. On Randall
being searched, the officer Waller, 121, found upon him no
less than 74 pawnbrokers' duplicates, all relating to goods
obtained from wholesale houses. One of these duplicates
related to a merino shirt which had been pledged by the
prisoner. This was produced and identified by Mr. Henry
Gardner, of Mews. Morley's, as one of the six
fraudulently obtained by the man Taylor on the 30th
March last. This was pawned by the prisoner on the
same day.
On the application of Waller, the officer, the prisoner
was remanded to Saturday next, with a view to enable the
former to trace the other property to which the dupli-
cates found on the prisoner related.