The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-08 00:00:00

• :11c 1.,t crown papot .143. chis.tenn.

I giI.CAT-Ml.-.071CN ItAIIAVAY COMPANY.

al:. Hayes (with whom wire Mr. Barrow and
a1i..1. t I.l;tiltit,) appeared for the prosecution. It was an
itoitet.hent against the Great Western Railway Company,
num.:, of the river Kennett navigation between New-
ton v :o.•; elin for the non-repair of the bridge, and
the 'tin.: was whether they, or the county,or the parish
set, talk int- the repait
Withont calling upon Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., with whom
was Mr. Dowd...well, Q.C., for the defendant,
tie court gave judgment for the defendants.
IeSTIN
an rppeal against the decision of the. justices
oft ender the 2:l7th sec. of the Merchant Snipping
Act of I •-d. On the 4th April, 1.501, Austin being in
C.odir .i:ti et: into an agreement to ship himself as a sub-
stitute fin a seaman who had deserttsl a British ship, the
Etichnir, C 0..:. He was afterwards met by Olsen and
asked to ship himself in another ship, but he refused, giv-
ing :t the s tine time the reason for his refusal,viz., that he
tel ,liipped ett board the Eng: attl'a Rose. Olsen repeated
hi. .ippliettion, and Austin again refused. Olsen was
suas.ittieley summoned under the 25itli section of the act
for atteilipting to persuade" Austin to desert his ship
and join another, and convicted in the penalty of 101. Austin
went to sea, and on his return he laid the information com-
plained of. The penalty it appears goes to the prosecutor.
Two points arose first, whether Austin was a Sefanan not
having signed articles at the tittle Olsen applied to hint,
aol .ecotelly, that he had not laid the information within
siN eo,ittlis required by the act, and that point involved
another question, at what period the time co ~,,,, enced to
run. The respondent was unable to lay the information
before the ship sailed the following morning.
Or. Wieldy appeared for the appellant, and contended
that the conviction was bad.

No one mpeartal for the respondent,
The court said the case must be sent back to the magis-
trates for them to state the hour when the solicitation
took place, and the hour the ship left the following morn-
in;. and if it was practicable for the information to have
le t laid before the man proceeded to sea.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sitting" in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Atrium Martin, Bramwell, nod Channel.)
SLADE T. SLADE.
Mr. Coleridge resumed and concluded this morning bin
argument in favour of the defendant.
The Solicitor-General then proceeded to reply. It is
not likely that his address will be concluded by the rising
of the court.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
SMITH AND SMITH 7'. TEOHITT AND I,TFINILS,
Sir I:.liner, Q.C., Serjeant!tontine, Dr. Spinks,
Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for the plaintiffs; the Queen's
J
Advocate, Mr. Edward ameA. Q.C., and Dr. Tristram for
Mu. Tebbitt, the principal defendant; the Solicitor.
General. Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Sere for the others.
This ce.c was once more resumed.
Ilr. Henry Cook, the husband of Mrs. Tebbitt's eldest
daughter, gave evidence respecting the religious con-
ver,ations of the deceased similar to that which
has been already reported, nsque ad nauseam. The
object for which be was specially called, however, was
to corroborate a statement ut his wife, that she had kept
a diary of her aunt's saying& and doings. The witness said
he had bought the book, had given it to her, and had
begged her to keep the record in question.
'rues-exam ineit—Hail received a letter vesting wit-
ness to come from Paris to give evidence. Presumed it
M.ii from his wife, but could not say for cer-
tain. It was directed in her hand-writing. The
fact was that his brother-in-law, Mr. Alfred Tebbitt,
bad come over to him, bad told him that his evidence was
rola ired. but lied begged hint not to hold any further coin.
munication with him on the subject. Mr. Tebbitt also told
hie, that witness's wife had written to him, but begged
bite nut toopen the letter. They therefore wentto the mime,
asked bin to apply to the poet-office for it, and place his
oßicial veal ujsm it to certify that it had not been opened.
Ti,. maire accordingly did so.
Serjeant Ballantine—But did he also place his official
sect upon the lips of Mr. Alfred Tebbitt!
Witness--1 submit that that is not a proper question,
bemuse it relates to an impohqihility.
The Queen's Advocate—lt is only meant to be a kind of

s Ilallantine—l did not mean it to be a kind of
.Pke. but to convey the impression that his evidence had
/1131,, upon Ille.
Witness-1 hail no further conversation with Mr. Teb-
hitt than I have stated. The diary was kept while I wax
lining in London. When we went to live at Worthing it
was discontinued, because we did not think it right while
we were living near :Aim. Thwaytes.
Serjeant liallantine —Then differences of locality make
a deference in moods?
Witness No ; but when I wax at Worthing, I was more
directly receiving benefits from Mrs. Thwaytes.
The letter with the seal unbroken having been put in,
The Queen's Advocate proceeded to sum up the case of
the defendants, and was speaking when we went to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RI: I,AVI4.—REVI'4AL or A WITNESS TO AV:IIFR.
Mr. Ree.l appeared in support of a judgment debtor sum-
:now, which had been taken out, under the 70th section
of the Act of at the instance of the official liquidator
of the Accidental Marine Insurance Company (Limited),
who had obtained judgment a.;ainst Mr. Davis, a shipping
a;ent, for _t W., debt awl costs. At a former sitting the
defendant had obtained an adjournment, on the ground
that he had instituted proceedings in Chancery against
the o:!itiJl liquidator to Ptay proceedings under the judg-
ment ; but it was now stated that the suit in Chancery
had iaan dismissed.
Mr. Dark the defendant. being sworn, objected to be
examined in the present stage of the case.
Hi, Honour overruled the objection.
Bee,' was proceeding to examine him, when he flatly
114,...,1 to answer any questions.
MA Honour thereupon made an order for his committal
to pri,n.

The
T defendant said he should appeal against the order,
and hi., Honour consented to stay the execution of the
warrant for ten day'.
(Before Mr. Commissoner Goulburn.)
IN HE W‘LLACK..—sENTY:NCE or 1311.nleoNMENT.
lon'olipt way a boot and shoe manufacturer of
l)ebts, 1,6001. ; no assets. This applies-
for order of di-charge was opposed on the usual
that of contracting debts without probable means
141..3 ni.ont.
Ilia Honour, in giving judgment, said this was one of a
ch.., of cows now too froluent--where there had been a
f”re...r bankruptcy. before his last failure the bankrupt
bad zi‘,l a bill of salv on all he possessed to Davis and
Nqn, who, very improperly, had allowed him to give m-
Thices to them, and thus to obtain credit from Mr.
•sv and other creditors. Having obtained
"L'r'ke goods, he disposed of them in his
way, and then Negev*. Davis and Bon stepped