The Express.
London, England, 1866-06-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

EQITITY COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
THE HMO? OT NATAL T. GLADSTONE AND OTHERS.
The argionents in this case were resumed this morning
by Mr. Selwyn, Q.C., on behalf of the defendants, who
was followed on the same side by Mr. Pemberton.
Mr. James, Q.C., having replied,
His Lordship reserved his judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesez.—(Before Mr. Justice
Wines and a Special Jury.)
DAWKINS V. LOBD KOKKBY.
This action arose out of circumstances which have
already been frequently before the public. The plaintiff
was Wm. Gregory Dawkins, a captain and lieutenant-
colonel in the Coldstream Guards, and he sued
Lord Bokeby, the colonel of the regiment, to
recover damages for false imprisonment In placing
the plaintiff under arrest, and for causing him
to be compelled to sell his commission or to go upon half-
pay. The defendant pleaded not guilty under the Mutiny

Act.
Mr. Karslake, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge Q.C., and Mr. Ray-
mond appeared for the plaintiff ; and ihe Solicitor-General,
Mr. Bovill Q.C., Mr. Gifford, Q.C., and Mr. Dowdesireiff

for the defendant..
Mr. Kerslake, in opening the cue, said that the plaintiff
was the son of Colonel Dawkins, of the Coldstream, an
officer who served with distinction under the Duke el
Wellington in the Peninsula. The plaintiff had himself
been for many years in his regiment, and he served
throughout the Sebastopol campaign. The action was
brought for the in • tion of some circumstances that
ought to have been disposed of before • court-martial,
a tribunal which, however, had been refused to the
plaintiff. The facts extended over several yeses, end there
had been a vast deal of correspondence upon the matter,
but in general terms the charges now brought against the
defendant were these. That some time ago he ordered the
arrest of the plaintiff under pretence that he bad committed
a military offence that he hadnotinfaat oommitted,andtbet
having caused his arrest he neglected to bring the plaintiff
before a court-martial. That, having done this some years
fto, the defendant had from time to time made "tenements
alone, and in company
with other officers, who owed Col.
Dawkins • grudge, sad at last they had induced the Duke
of Cambridge, without allowing Colonel Dawkins •
court-martial, to cell upon . him either to on half-
pay or to resign his Gammon= The altogether. The learned
counsel then stated the circumstances in detail, com-
plaining principally that the plaintiff had been placed in
arrest, and so kept for 11 days, for having refusecl, at the
camp at Ash, in 1860, to shake hands with Colonel Lord
Rokeby, his commanding officer, at the same time, how-
ever, sainting him as his superior. This conduct,
it was contended, was no offence against mi-
litary law, and it further would be urged that even
if an offence had been committed it was illegal to keep the
plaintiff under arrest for more than eight days without
bringing him before a court martial. A great deal of cor-
respondence took place in reference to a variety of com-
plaints that were made, and matters went on until the
30th of June, 1864, when Lord F. Paulet told the
plaintiff that he was utterly unfit to command,
and that he should not command so long as he
(Lord F. Paulet) had anything to do with the regiment.
This course was acted upon on the occasion of • review in
Hyde-park which took place in July, where the plaintiff
was superseded, and when he asked what be was to do,
he was told that he might go home. From that time in-
sult after insult was heaped upon him, and at the court of
inquiry which was held, Lord Rokeby justified the state-
ment that the plaintiff was unfit to command by referring to
what had taken place at Ash in 1869. In 1865 there was
another court of Inquiry, when the old story and others were
again raked up, and Lord Rokeby
.and other officers said
that the plaintiff's temper was so infirm that he was not
fit to command, and Lord Rokeby even went so far as to
say that the plaintiff was mad at times. Upon the report
of this court of inquiry, the Commander-in-Chief ordered
that the plaintiff should resign or go upon half-pay, and
he refused the plaintiff's repeated requests for a emu t-
martial, before which proceedings of • regular kind would
be taken and evidence on oath received, instead of the mere
statements upon which the courts of inquiry acted. The
result was that the plaintiff was compelled to leave the
regiment and go upon half-pay.
Colonel Dawkins said he had joined the Coldstream' in
1844. Captain Newton was then an adjutant, and he
seemed to take an unaccountable dislike to witness from
the first. In 1858 witness was away from his regiment
and he received an unnecessarily harsh message, and wit-
ness remonstrated with Colonel Percival, and the matter
passed off. Colonel Newton most unfairly after-
wards referred to this to witness's prejudice. Tho mat-
ter was brought before Lord Rokeby in 1859. In the
winter of 1858-9, he was on leave at Rome but
had left his address in England at the Guards Club,
and his letters were regularly forwarded to him. He was
due in London on duty on June 1, but if there were a
muster of the regiment before then it was his duty after
notice to be present. On his way home he received • letter
from the adjutant at Wiesbaden, it was dated the 3rd
May. It stated that there was to be a muster on the 9th
May, but he did not get the letter until the 10th May.
His foreign leave expired on the 31st March. He received
another letter, ordering him home, and he, two or three
days afterwards, left for England. On his return he went
to the orderly-room, Wellington Barracks. Colonel
Newton spoke in violent and in very aggravated terms as
to his absence. He said others should not suffer because
witness ran riot. He threatened witness with so
many times a day, • most unusual thing for an oftrerrate be
subjected to. His manner was insulting and harsh, and
non-commissioned officers were standing at the door and
must have heard much of what passed, and Captain bionic,
witness's junior, was in the room throughout. At that
time there was a Queen's regulation against reproof
being administered in the pp ace of inferior officers.
1 [The case was proceeding when our report left.)
to

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
MORRELL AND WIFE V. WILTS AND PLUMLEY.

The Queen's Advocate, Mr. Kandake, Q.C. and Dr.
Spinks for theplaintiffs; Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Dr. Wambey,
Mr. H. T. Cole, and Mr. Massey for the defendants.
The plaintiff, a fanner at Barton Stacey, in Northamp-
tonshire, propounded the will of Mr. Humphrey Flower,
and it was opposed by a number of tho nephews and nieces.
In 1849 the plaintiff married the half-sister of the tes-
tator, who was 25 yeare her senior. Soon afterwards the
testator expressed a wish to reside with the Horrells,
and he accordingly did so till September, 1865,
when he died at the age of 74. He bad promised
that he would pay for his board and lodging,
but in point of facet he did not pay any-
thing. In 1850 the plaintiff took a farm, and the tes-
tator advanced him 8801., the plaintiff's own capital
amounting to about 1,5001. The testator, however, did
not interfere with the management of the farm, but, on
the contrary, the plaintiff transacted his business for him.
For years before his death Mr. Flower was paralysed,
and his sister had to dress and undress him. By a will
executed in January, 1862, he left her the hulk of his
property, which amounted to some thousands of pounds.
The other relatives of the deceased, who only took small
legacies, being dissatisfied with this disposition, resisted
probate on all the grounds.
[The case was proceeding when our report left.]

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
r/f RI RUDOLPH JUNG.

The bankrupt was • merchant trading under the firm of
Jung and Co., at No. 9, New Broad-street. This was an
adjourned sitting for examination and discharge. The
case has been before the court since the 22nd November
last. The aggregate liabilities are 44,3541., against which
security is held to the estimated amount of 30,8591., con-
sisting of consignments of silk, and the assets are stated at
1,1301., besides 7,700/. bankrupt's interest in some mines
in Carthagena.
Mr. Phelps, for the assignees, stated that the bankrupt
was in a deficiency of 1,4001. in 1863 ; but in May, 1865, he
had produced a balance-sheet showing • considerable
surplus in his favour, and quite inconsistent with the pre-
sent state of affairs. The assignees wished for an expla-
nation of this, and asked for an adjournment for the pur-
pose.
Mr. Lawrence, for the bankrupt, admitted that an
adjournment was inevitable. From the balance-sheet of
May, 1865, prepared by an eminent accountant in the
City, it would appear that a large amount of property
WY unaccounted for ; but there was no allegation against
the bankrupt of concealment of property.
An adjournment for a month was ordered.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Gonlburn.)
IN RE NATHAN DITRIZS.

The bankrupt wss a whareinger and lighterrnan, of
Wapping, and of Bury-court, St. Mary Axe. Debts 1,809 f. •
assets of trifling amount. This was an adjourned sitting
for examination and discharge.
Mr. Sydney, for the assignees, stated that the bankrupt
bad furnished all the information required of him, and
they were willing that he should pass.
Mr. Reed opposed for creditors. The bankrupt had
settled all his property on his wife, and the creditors
wished to inquire into the validity of that settlement ; for
that purpose they sought the appointment of another
assignee, the present assignee not being a creditor.
After a statement from the bankrupt to the effect that
his liabilities were not so large as were represented,
His Honour directed an adjournment.