The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENC&

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
SECOND COURT.

Sittings at Nisi Prins at Middle's's—Mehra Mr. Jtudioe
Smith and a Common Jury.)
NAVIN; T. LAWLEY.
This was an action against a pawnbroker, in business in
Farringdon-etreet, to recover a watch, worth about 16/.,
which had been pledged with him for 61. 10a. by a perms
named Imam, to whom it had been entrusted to repair.
Evidence was given that the plaintiff was the owner of
the watch, and that he tendered the pawnbroker's ticket
and demanded the watch without paying the sum which
had been advanced upon it. It was not so clear, hosever,
that there had been • mhos' to deliver up the watch.
Mr. Serjeant Parry for the defence, said that he could
not deny the ownership of the watch, but the defendant
had felt that when property was demanded of him as this
was, that he should havesome opportunity of invedigatiag
the circumstances. He had never received the address of
Isaacs until the 23rd inst., and, besides, the matter was
one which might have been settled cheaply and quickly
before a magistrate.
A consultation took place between counsel, and in the
end it was agreed that the watch should be given up, sad
that a juror should be withdrawn.
Mr. Justice Smith said that he thought that it was a
proper end of the case.
The jury said that they thought so too.
Juror withdrawn.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Prins at Middlesex—(Before Mr. Baron
Pigott and a Special Jury.)
HARDIEST r. ROBERTS.
This extraordinary cue of assault came on ft.r trial again
this morning. The action wu brought by a surgeon,
formerly practising at Milford, Pembrokeshire, against the
defendant for an assault, which, it wu alleged, had per.
momently destroyed his health, and rendered him incapable
of following his profession. The defendant pleaded that
he committed the acts complained of in self-defence. The
damages were laid at 7,0001.
Mr. Serjeant Salentine and Mr. Joyce were conned for
the plaintiff. Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. T. Salter,
and Mr. A. T. Williams for the defendant.

Mr. John Davis Roberts, the defendant, was the East
witness called for the defence. He said that for eever.d
years be carried on the business of a ship-builder and ship.
owner at Milford. He was a magistrate for Pembrokeshire,
had filled the office of churchwarden, was trustee of the
National Schools and Mechanics' Institute, Chairman of
the Local Improvement Commissioners, and a member el
the Local Trinity Board. The plaintiff became tenant
of his house at Milford in September last for twelve
months certain. There was an arrangement that be
should become the purchaser of some domestic articles to
the house. A list of them was made out. He found there
were some articles which the plaintiff had not sent to him,
and which he bad not purchased. Had a eorreepondence
on the subject with the plaintiff, and sent him a copy of
the list. Having business in Milford, he went there in
the beginning of January last, and called one evening
upon the plaintiff about half-past Bto see about some re-
pairs to the house and the articles mentioned. He
met the plaintiff in the most friendly manner,
and shook hands with him. The witness thee
said that plaintiff &bowed him into the surgery, and closed
the door, when after some angry remarks by the plaintiff
respecting the list of articles, the plaintiff said to him,
" Say by your God you handed no list to me." I (con.
tinned the defendant) said I am not in the habit of making
use of such language, and I don't see any occasion foe
tieing it now. The plaintiff laid, " Get out of my hones,
you d—d scoundrel." He then called his servant
John, and said to him, " Show this d—d fool out el
the house." I said, Allow me time, and I will go out."
I took up my hat and umbrella and commenced
going, when he put his band on my shoulder
and pushed nie. I said, " go out, but keep off your
hands." The servant had opened the door. I retired
backward, being apprehensive he would assault me. When
I got to the door he said, "Get out of this, you villain."
I replied, " You are a villain, sir." Whereupon he aimed
• blow at me, knocked me on the cheek, causing it to swell
considerably. He also kicked me on the leg, causing a
bruise. He knocked my hat off and tore and mutilated
my overcoat. (The witness produced a long strip of a
mackintosh coat which had been picked up after the as-
sault.) When I got outside the door he knocked
me against the rails. On recovering myself I called oat
to those who were by, " Witness this man has assaulted
me." He was again in the act of striking nie, when I
defended myself with my umbrella. Until then I had not
used it. I retired into the road, for I was afraid of him.
He followed me, sprang at me several times, and I again
defended myself with the umbrella. I was retiring the
whole of this time. He followed me for 15 yards beyond
the house. My umbrella had a hook for the handle, and
it was broken off by coming in contact with the railings.
(The umbrella was produced.) I am certain he struck the
first blow. _ _ _

Croes-exazinned—ln the excitement of the moment I
scarcely know where I struck. I believe I struck the
plaintiff'a head. I struck where I could in defending
myself. I believe I only struck him three times on the
he►d. I dare say I struck him as hard as I could. I
wished to keep him at bay. When I let the plaintiff the
house I was not aware of the story about Mrs. Latham
and the Divorce Court. I knew of it about two and a
half months afterwards. A mason, who happened to be
paring at the time of the occurrence, said he thought the
plaintiff was the best man. It was three to one in his
favour.
[The case was still proceeding when our report left.]

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
ROWLINNON r. ROWLINSON.

Dr. Spinks, Q.C., and Mr. Mitchell for the petitioner;
the respondent in person.
This part heard suit is a petition for a divorce on the
ground of adultery and cruelty, brought by an actress
whose professional name was Fanny Gwynne, and who had
performed at several theatres in the metropolis.
This morning the respondent tendered himself as witneis
and denied all the charges of cruelty which had bees
brought against him. He protested that he had never M-
used his wife in hislife, and suggested that the bruises which
she bad had upon various parts of her body bad
been caused by her having frequently bad to fall down
while she was acting. He maintained that the whole pro-
ceeding had been dictated by sheer malice and by the
knowledge that be was without means of defending bin-
self. He appealed to the affectionate terms of heroin
letters in proof of his case. and he insisted that hers was
an entire fabrication. So long as he was in affluent cir
cumatanoex she was content to live with him, but the
moment he fell into poverty she wanted to get away—
illustrating thus the proverb, that when want tame in at
the door, love flew out of the window.
Dr. S,pinks having replied,
The Court had no hesitation in saying that it gave es-
tire cred.-nce to the statement of the wife. The conduct
attributed to the respondent was so calculated to produce
a feeling of indignation against& man who caul. i thus actthat
the court bad afforded hint even more latitude than perhaps
be ought to have had ; but it bad done Co in order that no
circumstance that could be alleged in hii favour might be
kept back. But it now entirely believed the petitioner's
story, and it was a question whether it might not be the
duty of some one to take steps in • criminal court to see
who bad spoken the truth—the husband or the witnesses
who had contradicted him.
Decree nisi, with costa.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Kr. Commirioser Goallsurn.)
IN RE G. T. WATWIN.
The bankrupt was a boot and shoe manufacturer, of
Holloway-road. His debts are 1,347/. ; assets realised
1•277.
Mr. Wetberfield opposed for the maligned, and Mr. Reed
for creditors. It being stated that a quantity of goods
had disappeared from the bankrupt's premises, an adieu,*
meat was ordered for cash, goods, and deficiency account&

RELCPTON.
The bankrupt was a leather dresser and seller, late of
Asylum-road, Old Kent-road. This was an adjourned sit-
ting for examination and discharge. The debts ore
of which 2,7061. is due to unsecured creditors; insets
realised, GOV.
Mr. Lawrence stated that the assignees at the last sit-
ting bad required additional accounts which had been fur-
nished and were satisfactory ; them was, therefore, no
further opposition.
His Honour granted the order.
IN RE C. B. CLATDON.—CARE OP A SOLICITOR.
The bankrupt was described as an attornev.at-law. of
Lower Ilelgrave-place, and late of Brighton. He curie be-
fore the court with debts of 1,1621., due to no less than 74?
creditors. Of this amount 9%1. is due to unsecured credi-
tors, end there are no asset; the property haring been
taken under a bill of sale.
Mr. Aldridge appeared for the official assignee ; no trade
assignee had been appointed. He said it would be for the
bankrupt to explain the circumstances under which be
bad contracted his debts, as it appeared that he could
not have had reasonable or probable expectation of paP
went.
The bankrupt stated that he had formerly been a har•
rister, but was disbarred.
The Commissioner—Disbarred? What, for nidrrac•
tires
The bankrupt—No ;it was for practising without the
intervention of an attorney.
The Commissioner—Well, that is a malpractice.
The bankrupt said he bad since been articled to at
attorney for three years, and bad a salary as clerk of ltd.
a year. He had expected a much larger salary.
Mr. Aldridge—What reasonable expectation bad rot
with a salary of 160/. • year of being able to pay debts
of LOOM
The bankrupt said he had a very good practice when be
was at the bar, and part of his debts had been incurred lo
security for another gentleman. When he was Jo*
barred, be thought that the only way to render his trh'to
available was by qualifying himself to act as an atrcrreY•
His Honour asked what was the mum of disbarring.
The bankrupt said that a number of charges were fee'