The Express.
London, England, 1860-04-20 00:00:00

CHURCH RAM ABOLITION BILL.

Sir J. fitkidiilifEiovea the third reading of this
bill.

Lord J. MANNERS declined to discuss so important a
measure at that hour of the morning (half-put one o'clock),
and moved the adjournment of the debate.
After some remarks from Sir J. TRZLAWNT and Mr.
BENTIBCIL the house divided, when the numbers were :
For the adjournment of the debate 76
Aping' t
Mr. LYGON then moved the adjournment of the house.
The home immediately divided, the numbers being—
For the adjournment 73

Against 124-51
Yr. HUME moved the adjournment of the debate which
was agreed to without a division, and stood adjourned until
Friday (this day) week.
The other orders were then disposed of, and the house ad-
jotumed at five minutes after 2 o'clock.

tato intent sena.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Aram 19.

Bitting' in Banco.--(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie, and
Justices Willem, Byles, and Keating.)

RICHARDSON r. MINN.-FALSE

rATIoN.

The plaintiff in this awe had purchased a public-hoose of
a Mrs. Clifton, upon the representation by the defendant
that a certain amount of business was done in the house.
Subsequently the plaintiff sued Mn. Clifton, upon the
ground that the representation was false, and on that occa-
sion the plaintiff failed, because it appeared that the defen-
dant bad no authority from Mrs. Clifton to make the repre-
sentation in question. Thereupon the plaintiff rued the
defendant to recover the loss which he had sustained by
purchasing the house, and also the costs of his fruitless
suit. At the trial before Mr. Justice Byles the jury found
for the plaintiff—damages 5811. Bs. 6d.
Mr. O'Malley now moved the court, pursuant to leave
reserved, and submitted that the plaintiff could not recover
at all, or, at all events, could not recover the costs of the
suit against Mrs. Clifton.
The Court granted a rule in reference to the point as to
the costs

Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesex.—(Fiefore Mr. Justice
Williams and a Common Jury.)

MOON P. TOWERS.-THE PROPERTY-MASTER AND THE

MASALOCE.

The plaintiff had been property-master at the Victoria
Theatre, and he sued the proprietor of that establishment
im
prisonment.
Mr. mover damages for false
Mr. Prater appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hawkins
and Mr. Lewis for the defendant.

It was stated that it was the duty of the plaintiff, as
i
master, to purchase articles used on the stage,
and among other things fireworks and coloured fires. Last
boxing-day a pantomime was produced, called Harlequin
King Pippin ; or The Enchanted Chickens, and in one
part of the piece there was a representation of several large
fowls with fire issuing from they mouths against the
Clown and Pantaloon, setting fire to some fireworks
about the clothes of those performers, and enveloping
them in smoke. On the 16th of January it was deemed
advisable to bring out a second piece in which more fire-
works were consumed. Ttis consumption of fireworks of
course produced extra cost, and possibly led to the de-
fendant's son giving the plaintiff into custody the next day
for defrauding the defendant. The plaintiff was locked up,
but afterwards admitted to bail, and ultimately the charge
against him was dismisacsL
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and set up the defence
that he had not authorked his son to give the plaintiff into
custody.
Evidence was given on both sides upon this question, and
also in reference to the accounts between tho parties.
The jury found for the plaintiff—damages 201.