The Express.
London, England, 1858-01-15 00:00:00

THE LATI GOLD DCIIT .

BONDS.

is OP 11:11ULTSX

Mr. Wilde applied on behalf of the Corporation of London
for a rule to show cause why a asetiorari sheald not lien to
bring up an order of the Central Criminal Court, in the matter
of William Pearce, with the view to its being quashed. The
syplication arose out of the trial of Pearce and others, at the
Old Bailey, about • year ago, for being concerned in a gold
duet robbery on the South-Eastern Railway. Pearce at the
time of his arrest was in the possession of certain Turkish
Ronde, and the learned judge who tried the case made an
order for their divas'. This order the corporation sought to
quash, on the ground that it appeared on the face of it, as
wellprosi ailithe allbiaviee on which he moved, that the
larger of these bonds was not purchased out of the
of the robbery for which Pearoe was indicted, and
that therefor* the court had no power to make an order for
their Memel. By abeam the Corporation of London were
grantees of Mond property. The sit under which a mind-
en' court meld make an order foe the restitution of dole*
goads was 7 sad Bof Geo. IV., c. 29, see. 67. It enacted
that the court before whom the felon wan tried should have
power to award the restitution of the property which he was
convicted of having stolen to the owner, in a summary
saner. Theories la question directed that one-sixth of
the hada, which it stated were the premeds of the felony,
should be given up I. the railway company, and that the
n oreathe, which Pearce at the time of his
anineattnial ll
as trustee of Fanny Kay and her child, should
be held In trust by a prson named Rem, for Key and her
child. The order not etas that the Ave-alathe were the
proceeds of the robbery, and the fact was that they were
not, aed under those drenrostanoes the Central Criminal
Court Ind no right to make any direction with regard to
thew The nominal value of the whole Turkish bonds was
2,3001. The learned counsel contended that under the terms
• the act of parliament the Central Criminal Court bad only
jariediction over the subject-matter of the robbery, and not
over the felon's property generally.
Lard Campbeil—lt appear. on the order itself that there
hi, been am. of jaridiction. Take a rule to show cause.
Rale nisi.

WLLLIAIIII V.

CTION 101 ItALICIOCS PILOSICU-
TION.

In this adios, which was for • malicious piroarcutlon, the
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 16W. The
omen et aotkin arose out of certain election proceedings at
Cheltenham. The plaintiff and defendant took rival sides,
and some aafrous existed between them. The defendant in-
dicted the plaintiff and several other parties at the assizes for
committing sa assault upon him at a polling booth, but the
proonsation in each casts ii fled.
Mr. eirjeant Pigott now moved for a naw trial on the
gemmed of rurpriee.
Rule aid.

BAIL COURT.-Lug. 14.

;Sitting, at NUL Prina.—Blfers Mr. Judie, Erie and
Common Judos.)

81.711 MAN V. SIPHOP.--Yll.lll

- ----•
Mr. M. Chanilere end Mr. Francis were comae, for the
plaintiff; Mr. B. James and Mr. T. Tapping appeared for
the defendant.

This was at action for Liao imprisonment. The deimditat
pleaded not guilty.
It appeared that the plaintiff had ftemerly kept the Barley
Mow public-house, is Mount-street, Oroevenor-equare. The
defendant le a watchmaker in North Andley-envet, Is May
last the plaintiff left a watch with his to be repeirei, on the
understanding that It was to met 178.6 d. Some weeks after he
called toe the watch and laid down a sovereign. The de-
fendant said the charge wee 21. be. The plaintiff easserted
that it was to have been only 17s. 64., end that he would not
ham left the watch at ell if he bad known that it would cost
more. He then wet( away. Some time after he called again,
and saw the defindant's son, Tho watch was laid on the
counter; the plaintiff took it up and tendered 17s. 6d. •, the
eon refused to accept that amount, and the plaintiff walked
off with the watch. On the 17th of September, while he was
sitting at dinner, at au ordinary which wee held at his house,
the defendant came in with a policeman and gave him into
custody on the charge of stealing a watch; he wu conveyed
to the Vine street station and detained a couple of hours..
The defendant bad since taken proceedings in the County
Court, end obtained a judgment for 21. 6e.
The defence was that whoa the plaintiff left the watch he
was distinctly told the charge would be 21. 6s. and the ee-
fendant gave him into charge under the impression that
there had been a decision by one of the magistrates which au-
thorized him to give the plaintiff into custody. At the
station he charged him with stealing the parts of a watch
value 4 is.

The jury fend a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 51.

COURT OF COMMON PLRAI3.-JAN. 14.

(Sittings In Bane.—Before Lord Chid Jodie* Cockburn
and Justices Williams, Crowder, and Wilke.)

HSI.. e. TANCICE/LAT—ACCIDINT IN FLEIT•STIIENT.
The plaintiff is this case is a bid about fourteen years of
age, the sou ors cowboys", and he had been run over in
Yiest-street by a waggon belonging to Messrs. Tanqueley,
the distillers, and so severely injured that his let arm bad
been amputated. The ease was erica before the Lord Chief
Jambe in Middlesex, when the verdict wee for the plaintiff
for 6001.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., now moved for a new trial upon
the ground that the damages were exceseve.
The Lord Chief Justice—Do you mak my opinion P
Mr. James-1 am quite willing to be guided by your lord-
ship's opinion.
The Lord Chief hurtles—Then I think they IMO not ex-
cessive. The plaintiff is a hey, the son of respectable parent*,
end he has suateined an injury for lile. It was a mutation of
negligence ; but, alter the negligence was established, I think
that the jury ought n.t to mete out anything less than the
fall roam» of damage,.
Mr. James—l am satielled with your lordship,' opinion,
and I am authorised to soy that my clients will be so too.
Rule refund.
(Sittings at Niid Prins in Middleaex.—Before Mr. Justice
Bytes end a Common Jury..)

lAlltl V. 111111.-ALLEGED YALU IEPILLIENTATION.
This was sn action to recover damages upon the ground
that the plaintiff had been Indmod to buy of the defendant
the goodwill of a laundry betimes by a false representation
&its vales, and the plea was aot guilty.
Mr. Lash, Q.C., and Mr. Harcourt appeared for the plain-
tiff ; sod Mr. Serjeant Perry for the deleadant.
The plaintiff carried on at Kensington the laundry busintas
which he had bought of the defendsat fur 871. lea. The
plaintiff's awe was that it had been nyrimented to him that
the laminae' dose amounted to 101. a wok, bat that in feet
the amount of Mildewed done for the year sticoesding the pur-
chase was only 81. 60. ed. a week on the average. lt appeared
that for the Mil mond.* preceding the panther the Waimea
bad, in fact, amounted to 91. 14a. a week, but that
included ta• beet part of the year. The average I::l:attet
whole year was 81. 9.. 9d. a week. A abort time before the
tale to the plaintiff the business had been sold to a Captain
Mahoney, who had been told that the receipts averaged 10/.
• week, but he had demended end obtained back from the
defendant the purchme money because the receipts were con-
salerabli Ism than ill. a wait.
Mr. eajeant l'arry called no 'titaness, but he addressed
the jure, and submitted that the representation made was
eubstantielly correct, and that the defendant war, shadow,
entitled to • verdict.

---iiiaTi.;yoc;42;;l;e4 the matter for nearly two bows, sad
then g.ve a mak.* fur the plaintiff—damages, 25t.

COURT OF EXCIIEQUER.-JAY. 14.

(Sitting in Banco.—Before the Laid Chid Banntand Barone
Martin, Bramwell, Waimea, and Channel'.)

CetleTllae I. MICEMIT.—MONET LENT.
This WY NE action fur money lent, tried before the Chief
Boron at the bliddhaes sittings after lest term. Th. plain-
tiff. who la a surgeon, carrying on business in Southwark,
sued the defendant to recover Alt on an I 0 U. given by the
defendant under the following circumstances:—The defen-
dant entered into an agreement to become the plaintiff's
partner on the payment of 20W. for a share In the goodwill
and stock of the business. He paid 1001. sad gave his
aoceptanos for i.mither 1001., It being understood that the
money wee to form • verve fund to carry on the business.
The CYO for the plaintiff was that the cb-feniant Non asked
the plaintiff for the loan of 301. to praises furniture and
gave his I 0 U for the amount. The defendant's came, sup-
pvted by his own evidence and that at two independent
witnesses, was that he had asked for part of the money beck,
having found on inspection that the stook was not worth the
surd be bad agreed to pay, peamismg to reined ft when the
reserve fund became prod vs. The memorandum of the
queening could not to produced at the trial, but the plain-
tiff's attorney, Mr. H. B. Drum*, produced • doe:meat which
purported to be • copy of the 1 0 U, and the jury found for
tbeiptelatiff.
Mr. Hmsymen cow nomad for • new trial on affidavit*, and
also on the ground of misdirection. He relied on the affidavit
which stated that the evidence of Mr. Dunne, which hot
taken the defendant by surprise, was unworthy of belief, he
struck
having been off the wills for Improper preonres in the
Insolvent Court. Mr. Deane bed nods an affidavit in
answer, santaining 26 paregrapbm bat be bed not yreunred
to deny that be bad been streak at the rota.
The Lord Chief Karon—Theo it suet be taken for granted
that be woe Ana off the rolls.
Mr. Hasynem—Mr. Dam* had not denied it; he bed
wely two mbs magnet oognheat oi say laptops, prectkin