The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-10 00:00:00

ELEVEN OF ENOLAN:
scor

This match was commenced
leg is tho result of the three d
fauteeu.—(s
Wiaden ► Wylie 8
Clarke, Dot out . 13
•. Wan. Eau., 0 Usberwund ll
Pon, b Vaberwoad
b I.7.berwand
'lettingen. ► WO* .
N. Yens, P. q., ► Wylie. $
Was, b Lammas 23

Icorums.—(Si
W. ILAbs66l6, Ls. sot cot— 9
Wright, 719 999
Lientesaat Dickstr, b Doke 0
I.A 04Clark•
T. Crett, b Whm
W. Lq., s

ARRANGEMENTS OP THE SURREY CLUB.
TM amoselittee of this club usambled on Thursday, at Dia
°Week. kr the purpose of aressilag their snatches for We

. .
pewit elMetin.
The Hon. F. Ponsonby was in the chair, sad was sup.
potted by the lion. H. Orimstos, W. Denison, E'q. (who
.Eating been compelled to Nolan the bm. stscretupoip by
tb• pressure cf other avocations, has beer elected on the
ocommittee), C. H. Hun, &q., W. Kiddie, Esq., and H.
Mmtimer, Esq.
The following matches wen appointed for the days af-
fixed to each of the " grand public matches," whilst the
days for the "private" matems were left open until the
respective dabs shall have been tessimunicated with.
Monasy, May 20, at Lord'a.—Surrey v. Middle's:.
Thursday, May 23, at the OvaL—Married v. Single Mem
ben of the Seamy Cash.
Monday, May at the Artillery-pound —Surrey Club
v. Hoe. Artillery Club.
Thursday, Jam 6, at the Oval.—Surrp v. Middlesex.
Thursday, Juno 20, at the oval.—Gentlemen of Surrey
Club and Comity v. the Players of Surrey.
Thursday, June 27, at the Oral.--Serrey v. Smors.
Thursday, July 4, at the Ove/.—Gresalemou of Surrey v.
Oentlemest of Kent.
Thursday, July 11.—Suirmy v. Kent.
Thursday, July Z.—Fourteen of Surrey v. Warm of
lE=Club v. the Cleptos Club (two days' match).
Surrey Club v. Streatham.
Surrey Club v. Blackheath.
Surrey Club v. Camden Club.
It is also expected that • match will be played East
Barmy v. West Surrey.

OXFORD COLLEGE BOAT-RACES were resumed on
tto evenings of Weds, and Medne.day, but the eat,-oily
wet weather was a great dra beck to the company. On the
former evening the struggle be wean the three first boats,
via , Wadhant, Christ Coureb, and BAWL, was great, but
no alteration was made in heir respee,ive positions. The only
bump wee between Univsnity and Trinity ; the latter were
compelled to give way to the maser. On the latter evening
Christ Correia ureic suffer. d deeat, having been beeped by
Babel epee? the Willqws. Jens were defeated by Merton
war the Kldasys, and the "woad Wocesster ran into the
mooed Cheat Chetah, in the Oct.

CHAILEiXiTZ LrcT, war fitzatford-upon-Avon,
Web? .ted as the so at of fitt,kspearies Justice Malkno, was
broken isto and robbed es Kenny night. The property stolen
consisted chiefly of articles at jawallery and vino; a ring
preie.nted by Henry the Eiohth to LW treasurer; a miniature
of the celebrated Sir Thomas Lucy, of ShAspeare's day; •
gr. at number of gold coins and other property, to the value
of several hundred pounds 01.0 of the burglan was taken
hirmingnam on Wednesday evening at his lodgings, and
a great portion of the properly was found upon him. TLe
scoundrel Lad upon him • loeded pistol when takro ; he
has Maas ezpesesd regret that he did not shoot A. police-
men, intimating at the mat time he must "ut hmit inane
time. Hie real nun is ot:ieved to be Bannister: Nom
somas Waco hi *Reeled hie soaps Iran Worositar gaol.

saw intenteenct.
COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.-YESTENDAT.

811,17,01 to BAN CO terra
TIIIII.—VIITIIII JUSTICES ?LIMON
ANY honoree.
IN to BARBER.
61s F. Thesiger, in resuming his argionest against the
rale ler the admissks of Mr. Barber to the attorney's yell,
comesesord by saying that in his previous address he had
soneladod the observations which t • intended to make upon
what wen caned the forgery eases in which Mr. Barber had
been Implislatsl he would only remark that the court,
hods, all four eases before it, bad a great Mentor over
the Bmeatary of 13•ats, who had ioquired old, into the anent
which Mr. Barbee had bees convicted; and tionuth it was
possible to believe that he right have beet deceived in one
particular case, yet the wised* of the oases clearly show, ci
that he mast have been a guilty party. He lion cali, d the
attention of the court to the two cases is which it was shows
that Mr. Barber had appropriated two miss restive,' by bias
foe legacy elute to his awnless; and contended that those cams
done were quits sufficient grouted foe the court to refuse to
motors his to his peonies as en attorney. In the month of
April, 1844, Mr. Barber wee convicted of b, leg as asepory
before the fact to forgery, and sentenced to be trionowerted
for life. Hefty one could have come at that time to ask that
Mr. Barber should be allowed to practice, that adplieation
must have been refused ; and when, open his pardon and re•
turn to this country. Mr Bieber applied to this court to be
allowed to take out his certificate, the court of its own wool
directed an inquiry to take place, in order to aecertain whither
there were any cirmunstanees in Mr. Barber's professional
coaduet which rendered it improper that hie application
should be granted It was said by his learned friend (Mr.
Serpent Wilkins) that the charges of misconduct now
brought forwaed were stale cheeps, and the court would
not entertain them Bnt it must be borne in mind MP from
the eartelt of April, 1844, when Mr. Barber was convicted,
down to the yew 1849, when he was pardoned, he was out of
this mantry, and it was only upea his return to England and
applying to be .'lowed to practise the investigation could be
set on foot. The Bret ease was that of Robins's*. xecutorsoehieb
°mum d in the year 1842, and that one alone was of itself
auffloient to justify the court in saying that Mr. Barber was
a very improper person to be allowed to prude* as an officer
of this court. He had tottered into a negotiation will Mr.
Robin's executors to recover some pr petty belonging to
their testator, on condition that he should have mu - lath of
the sum rat:mired for his own use; and in the agreement
which he drew up to conclude the negotiation, he recited as
a feet that a Mr. Turrell, of Brighton, was in possesion
the information, whereas, in p dot of fact, he know that Mr.
Terrell was not in possession of it, and is fact knew nott iet
of the traaseetion ; that was done in order to enamel the name
of Fletcher, who was the real isformant. He subsequently
dgned, as attorney for Mr. Turrell, a receipt for the sum
of 1054., as resuneretion for recovering the money, and
for his coot costs and charges. The nest cue upon which the
Master bad reported was that of " Guest v. Reynolds,"
in which Mr. Barber had swoon, in an affidavit made on
the 27th of May, 1839. that he had paid two sums to two
parties, when, in via of fat, these same were not paid
tin the tith and 7th of June respectively. That was delibe-
rate perjury, for which. if application had been made to the
court at the time, Mr. Barber must bars been struck off the
rolls. The nest case was Steidoll's case, and related to the
non-payment by Mr. Barber of certain premiums upon an
assurance which had been effected up m Mr. Steidolre life for
the sus of 1001. A receipt in the handwriting of Mr. BlT-
bet was produced, which purported to be a receipt for a pre-
miss which had been load by Mr. Barber, when, in fact, it
turned oat that that premium bed not been paid, hot the
money bad been applied by Mr. Barber to his own use. It
WSJ said by Mr. Berber that he had received Mr. Steidoll's
autkort yto apply that sum to other purposes, but that ex-
planation, he submitted, could not be satisfactory to the
court, when the receipt which was now produced proved the
contrary. Thom wt re the cases which the Lser Institution,
anxious only for the respectability of the profession, bad
thought it proper to brine before the court, and, having done
that, they would leave the decision of the case to ther lord-
ships, who, they had no doubt, would come to a conclusion
which would give satisfaction to the public, and tend to
maintain the character of the profession.
Mr. Boyd' then followed, and addressed the court upon
the same side.

Mr. Seri, ant Wilkins (with whom was Mr. Lush) then
addressed the court in support of the application, and re-
repeated his conviction that Mr. Barber was an ill-need and
innocent man. He sorted the Muter of the Court of
p tier facts, though not wilfully, in the report whirl
he had laid before the court, and was several times inter-
rupted and corrected by the muter in the sta'emeate which
he made is reference to it. The learned serjeant then come
to the merits of the cue, and, in answer to what had been
said as to the effect of the Queen'. pardon, reed aothorities
to show that a IT` pardon not only absolved a man from the
penalties which attached to guilt, hut made him as it were
a new man. But he contended that Mr. Barber was not a
guilty men, for hie very appearance in this court was owing
to the conviction entertained by Sir George Grey that he was
innocent. It had been maimed that the attention of Sir
George Grey had been scm fined tt, Slack's ease, and that if
hadl”en made acquainted with the facts of ell the case.,
their.. pardon never would have been granted. But the
assumption was quite gratuitoes, for the whole of the trans-
actions were before the Se,retary of State before the free
pardon was granted. It was also a'id that if Mr. Berber
had not been wilfully blind, his suspicions meat have been
excited by the circumstances of the different eases. It was
as easy thing after events had happened to find fault with a
man's want of prudence, but if the court would view the cir-
cumstances as they existed at the time, and not in the light
which subsequent events had thrown upon them, it would be
found that fraudulent wereso mixed up with bias fi • trans-
actions that it was quite impossible for Mr. Barber
to distinguish betwei n them. Toe whole conduct of
Mr. Fletcher shown that he was deceiving Mr. Barber,
and making use of him as an unconscious instrument of
his crimes, whereas that of Bybee showed that he was
innocent, for otherwise he would not have made himself so
unnecessarily prominent in doing things which it was not
absolutely Incumbent on his to do, while the really guilty
parties were keeping out of the way. Much stress had been
Lid on the insertion of Mr. Terrell's name in the agreement

Witold kis consent, and, though that was not in strictness
justifiable, it was one of those things which, from frequeat
use in the world, had come to be viewed as almost venial.
As to the legacy duty, there was not a tittle of evidence to
show that a farthing of that money had come into Mr.
Berber's hands, nor that the mosey had net been paid.
Neither was it to be believed that he would jeopardise his
character for such paltry sums. It had been sug;ested that
at that time Mr. Barber was in needy eireningtances, and
thateven small sums might then have been semptable ; but
the fact wee that those traesaetimg took place shortly after
he had received into his business a partner, who had brought
tt'e sum of 1,2001. into the concern. It had been alleged as
a circumstance of great suspicion that three different proctors
hod been employed, but that circumstance did not in reality
tell against Mr. Barber, insomuch ag they would not meths
wily know the nature of the property. Had three different
brokers been employed, the case would have been different,
but it was found that the same breksr had been employed
in all three of the transaction'. As to Robins's ease, that
did not reflect any disgrace upon Mr. Barber's integrity,
for, so far from demanding any one, he had been the means
of res'orialt to the rightful owners the sum of 1,0101. which
had been passed as unel.imed stock to the account of the
Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.
That was a perfectly honest trannetbn, both on the part of
of Mr. Barber and Mr. Fletcher, though Mr. Smedley, in
his efildavit, pretended that he had warned Mr. Barber of
the impropriety of and that unless he desisted from such
transactions in future, he (Mr. Barber) would get into
trouble. Yet what did that moralist end censor (Mr. Smed-
ley) do ? He asked Mr. Barber to become instrumental in
obtaining money in a similar way for him, thus holding the
bat k of censure in one hand, and at the game time shaking
the puns of bribery and corruption in the other. The
learned serjeant then proceeded to show that much of the
argument relied upon by the other side was without foun-
dation. The learned ssrjeant was about to comment upon
Barber's connexion with the Sleek cue, when the court rose.
The argument to be resumed to morrow (this day.)
881T019I AT Neu Pans.—lteroas Loan CATIPIIIILL AIM COMMON
Juana

BILOADIEUTRAT V. CVMIII;4-07-LIABILIIT 01 H&CILIIET

CAB PROPRIETOIII.

This was an action broeght to retiover the value of a port-'I
mention of the plaintiffe,whicli was lost from a cab of which
the defendant was proprietor, which conveyed the plaintiff
from the Waterlo, -statn of the South Western Railway.
There was no question sa to the fact of the loss, and the
vales of the pormantesu and its contents were agreed on at
211.55. For toe defence it was contended that a cabman was
not bound to take lugger* with a passenger ; but If he made
• contract to take it, he was liable ma common carrier for
ila safety. In this ei se there wee no contract to take lug-
gum, and therefor* the defendant was cot liable.
Lord Campbell told the jury, that although there was

esprus coatiact in this mitt G take luggage, yet there wag
sufficient evidence to show that a contract was implied, inas-
much as a 11101 uyond the ordinary fare was paid for tke
conuyanea of the luggage. la point of law, there was no
necessity for an express contract, it the cabman had authority
from his matter to take lugger', of which thus was evidence
here.—Verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF RANKRUPTCT.—Yrzrznay.
limas Ma. Coennenowca Fawn.
IN as DELAPIRLD.—AII&NDORDISNT OP TIER PROPOS

Amman° aaa T .
There was a dividead meeting this day in the cue of
B tweed Thomism lltisfield, late lents of the Italian Opera
House, Covent' garden. A amber of parties were in at.
%cadence to prove their debts, including members of the
ballet corps sod pencils employed in various capacities
alynit the theatre. The court being most inconveniently
crowded owing to the greet number of these partite, his
Honour directed the unopposed peals to be taken in an ad-
joiniag onoocupied c‘urf, Kr, Whitehesd, the registrar,
proceeding then for that purpose, so that the regular basi-
ns's of the ex art stein not be lefeened with. Prods to
the amount of 1001. or 2001. were pi old on the file, many
of the claimants having received pert payment in full under
the Hasa ri end Servants' Act.

The masts at prearnt in hand consist of the 1,0001. received
by the 40eipre, infra= Mr Beale, in satisfaction of their cisins
on the Wllbw Bonk property; also 601., the pr•veeds of
the sale of wine Land in Buckinghsoishire ; and some other
small luau at'sing from the debts collected.
The amtunt of dividend could not be exactly weertained
at the meetiug. Aa tho profile on ale will probably ex-
ceed 16,0004 it is thought the dividend, so he do eland in Mho
wane of a few days, wilt not be sure than a *haling in the
potted.
t Lewis nt.sr app! eh !or the bankrupt's (syndicate. Ha
state@ that It WSP und:rstocd upon the last °corium that too
bankrupt skaskt carmine a third-class aertifkata upon his