The Express.
London, England, 1850-06-24 00:00:00

es Medias dee ee;ey. ,
Mr.ldeneley having replied upon eke wkele

The Lord Chief Justice in summing up left the following
questions to the jury—tint, whether they believed the
plaintiff te be the ban fide owner of the goods when the
distress was put in ? secondly, whether the meesenzer from
the Coart of Bankruptcy wee in possession at
the time of the distress ? 3rdly—Were the jury satisfied that
the &fondant Large, who acted as his broker, had used due
discretion, or whether he had made an excessive and sores.
'enable distress ? 4thly—Did the plaintiff hold as actual
tempt of Mr Cabbell sthly—Were the jury sanded that
Bishop was a bankrupt at the time of the distress, or had he
committed an act of bankruptcy at the time of the alleged
rale to the plaintiff; because if so there sold be no doubt
that the assignment of the business to the plaintiff was
fraudulent, and he could not therefore be considered as the
owner of the goods, or entitled to bring an action for
damages ?
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the defend-
ants spas all the points left to them by his lordship.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—SAreRDAT.
Nut Pans. Basoas 8I F. Mums, C. 8., MEDDLIMIX

Stumm Jrsuas.

HASS C. BAXINDALI :131;;LIIIIC11 OF RAILWAY PAN,
Cll.B.—Tun CARRIERS' ACT.

This wu an action to recover compensation in chromes
for the loss of three cues containing fancy dresses, delivered
to the defendant. as common carriers, for the purpose of
being conveyed from Loudon to Liverpool.
Mr. M. Chantba n C Mr. Bramwell. arid Mr. C.
Pollak were counsel lOr the plaiatiff; Mr. Martin, Q C.,
and Mr. Wilke for the defendant
hap that the plaintiff, whoeuries on the business of
r and dealer in fancy dresses, sent a message to the
lAN of the defendants, who are carriers for the North
Western Railway Company, requesting that a cart should
be sent to Lis plue of busineu for five cum, to be despatched
to Liverpool, In anticipation of a masquerade ball then about
to come off there. The defendants' porter was accordingly
sent, and the five cases were delivered to him, but before
reaching the railway three of them were stolen. Amongst
the lost articles were paste shoe buckles, mounted in silver
and gilt, pkilabegs, shoulder brooches, Scotch disks, (valued
at nine pilaw each), gold and silver lace, Scotch
pebbles, and a variety of fancy dresses, made of
silk, including " tights,' valued at 601. For the plain-
tiff it was contended that those articles wen aunt, though
ornamental, and that they were es essential to the dresses u
buttons to • man's coat or ribbons on a lady's bonnet The
defense relied on was, that the articles same within the pro-
visions of the Carriers' Act (1 Wm. IV. e. 6b), by which it
was enacted that no comm.. =rim, by land, for hire, shall
be liable for the loss of er injury to gold and silver coin of the
realm or of any foreign state; gold or silver manufactured
or unmanefactured ; renew stones, jewellery, watches,
En, " trinkets," bills, beak notes, &c, gold, or silver plate,
Of plated articles; glass, aka, "silks in a manufactured or
uninanufactured state, and whether wrought up or not
with other materials:" fun, "lace,' do., contained
la any packages delivered either to be carried
for hire, or to aceosepeny the person of any passenger
if the value gamed 101., unless at the time of the delivery,
the value and nature be declared and an bummed charge or
tegegerment to pay the same be amopted. The statute fur-
ther enacted that the rate of sash inereseed charge should be
notified by a public notice eased in some conspicuous port
of the °Ea, warehouse or receiving-house of the carrier,
which should bind the parties sending, without further proof
of its having come to their knowledge. The only exceptiou
were ia cues of special contracts and loss or injury ari,ing
from the felonious acts of the servants of carriers. In the
present eau, It appeared that notices were posted in the
defendanae receiving-hones, in pursuance of the act, and
that no declaration of the eaten or value of the property in
question had been given on its delivery to their servant,
The Lord Chief Baron told the jury that most of the ar-
ticles came 'expressly within the provisions of the set, and as
the requisite notice had been given by the defendants, and
no intimation of the vane of the seines made to them, they
could not be held responsible. Such NM the law, and it was
very. jest, 90 nothing cook* boson 910414701111 titan to make
camera liable for • parcel containing perhaps 5,0001. or
10,0001. without paying them any extra remuneration it
their risk. The carriage of each a parcel might not cost mere
than a few shillings, and it was only fair that an Intimaltsa
should be made of its value by the seeder, and that
an inermsed charge should be also paid for the carrier's Mo-
bility to lass. It might be said that no more care was Pew
sary foe a small parcel containing 10,0001_, than •• bends of
hay ; but the carrier had • right to be paid for the hennemed
risk he ran, and if he wee net ez paid he was exempted from
all liability beyond the sam of 101. This action was b=
to recover 1951., and the question was whether the
property same within the sat It had been suggested that
the twinning of the term " trinket" was " sonsethiog saw-
filmes it would, therefore, be for the jury to de-
tonnes whether the eat steel hackles, highland dirks,
and luny of the other articles in question, came
within that term. If so the plaintiff could not recover, Re
should direst the jury to find a verdict for the defendants,
and reserve leave for the plaintiff to move to enter • verdict
for him fee the full vale of the articles, should the court be
of opinion that this direction was wrong. The jury should,
therefor*, moms the value of the articles, and say whether in
their opinion they came within the ant
The jury, after • few minutes' coesaltatioe, found that all
the articles were within the as They (erased part of fancy
419191019. which 1/011" ampere acme, and therefore come within
the meaning of the term " trinkets," and that their value
was 1661.
Verdict for the defendants accordingly.
OIL'S v. PRITCHNIT.—ALLIORD CAIN. CAN.
This was as action to recover ectespeneation In dinars
fee criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife, Mary
Eliza. Pleas—sot guilty, and that the said Mary Eliza wee
sot at the time when &a., the wife of the plaintiff,
From the opening statiiment it appeared that this was a
vereipmesßer use. Ne appeal was made to the sympathies
M ine jury to take into consideration the outraged
flaky of the plelatiff, as he complained of no sash
Wiwi but he heil been compelled to bring this esti=
to peeeeet hamar frees the liability of being called on here-
after tatsuntan the oldies of his wife and the defendant
la the Inesith or Awed. ISIS, the was married at
lieeadieni to hi milk whose mine was Barry.
!MtnOD Ole enniornest of Mann. Leaf, ribbon na-
gubsborsos. sod &only afterweros an up in Wipes on his
diro assenst, but he was salketaaate. He bad two abildna
phis wife, an of when, a girl, was still linen. However
lin happened that • sopranos took pips between them,
dad Mn. win returned so her own re-

_ .2........--faiiikrtiiiier 4114.
I
1 Imre ;obi betibet I don't prefer to de so. I told Every ebarg.' was arktrware amid b, bar **ads to
M. P. I weld his the bens& He are asked me resent dr 7piala if add MI true dram
b land Wm Nate seasey, and ha rdd be weld get a sod ultimately `MEP yea laddatted ea bell=
kW le MN Ike ant dir. XL ha and Ms. /kelp la as Onts, dada swum itatrals 4 mask

et them was proutremed ea the grimed of advhaey
to have been coeusited by him. That thane et lbs Bee
elesisetied Court was very diffeeent hem a seetemes of di
veers ab hallo. It merely aspersed the imbue' mid wife,
but neither of diem could marry spit, and h was 110 bar
to the hashar.d's right to being sus\ so aetioa as this, as
he might, notwithstanding, be held liable for the maims-
same asta education of dm issue of his wife's seisaisal ma-
armee. The deisedant, who wee a steekbeekn, sad Kra.
Odle were, is fest, formally maned. Tatty bad two Mil-
hem, ens aged 7 peen, the other I, sad the planar' oblige
was to be »leased frontal Ware liability with refstemes
them.
The plsialifre marriage balm beet proved, it was
sashed ea crost-ezamisation of some el the witnesses, that
issemmenne between tlis phial, sad his wife Led mooed
he Ms less ton lean, that he was at precut clerk to Mr.
C. Lewis, his mummy is the smite, sad that his daughter
had hest maintained sad educated by the deisudaat mime
his ceaseziou with the pialutirs wife.
Mr. Martin was about to address the jury oa the oleos of
the piaintifa to m, whoa
Toe Lord Clef Baron asked the learned sowed whether
It was worth while, after dues face had bees proved, to
panne the aim farther.
Mr. Martin said he should certainly mak tbe jury to fled
a verdict for iris a lies. in the ere of " Weldon v. Tim-
broil " (6 T. R., 367), it was held that so maim of tro-
pe for criminal maversation could be assiataised roe se
set el adultery attar . asperatira between the husband and
wife.

Mr. Hunifrey said that doctrine bad bees efterwards over.
ruled, and it was held that a deed of separation did not pre-
clude such an action as this. Reference was then made to
the ease of " Winter v. Henri " (4 Car. end P. 494), is
which Mr. Bane Alderson that laid down this law upon
this subject "In an action for criminal 0011•SfSlig011 the
plaintiff will be entitled to a verdict, sakes he has been in
some degree party to his own diihoacwir, either by giving a
general lieew I. his wife to conduct berseU as she pleased
with Imes generally, or by mooting to the particular act of
adultery with the defeadmit, or by having totally and perma-
nently given up all the advantage to be desired from her
KC eq."
Mr. Martin said that the defendant and the lady in
question had been continually pomaded by the plaintiff,
sod it was most desirable an end should new be pat to the
system pursued.
The Lord Chief Baron said the question for the Jury was,
whether they would give a verdict for the dehiscent Of for
the plaintiff, with such damages as they thought he had 11%11-
mined. His opinion was, that if the plaintiff permitted his
wife sad the defeadant to bye together for so nu.oy years,
and that they were now living together with his essent, the
action could not be maintained. If the jury, as mm of the
world, farmed from the evidence that the plaintiff had long
knows of and sanctioned those parties living together, he
amid not recover.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-SATIIRDAT.

DOING ♦ LITTLI IN RAILWATO.

A my man, a law
writer, applied under the Protection Act. Be bad cnly
one debt in his schedule, and that was to 1,0001. for
" calls" to • railway company. Ile had a salary of 651.
a year.
Mr. Comaimloster Phillip+ said it was a precious specimen
of railway speculation to go forth to the publics. What did
• law writer, with 651. • year, want with railway shares ?
The insolvent had heard of penons speculating In railways
and ea 3001. bad been paid on them he tried his head.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips—l hare • goodlmind to let you
"speculate" in prison. What right had you, sir, to engage
in such a gambling transaction. With your 651. a year
getting shares oa which you now claim protection for 1,0001.
The legislature never intended the Protection Act for such
gambling transactions, and the best course would be in such
a as to dismiss the petition.
The insolvent asked for protection from prison.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips—l shall adjourn the SW to
Monday to consider what I shall do with you.
nil ease was adjourned to Monday.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—SATuaDAy.
BEMIS Ma. SADJAANT ADANA, AND • HANOI or ItAINNA•TICS.
DISPOSSESSING A TENANT.
_ _

John Dawson, Richard Dawson, and Richard Atkinson
were Indicted for forcible entry, riot, and assault.
Mr. Parry said the defendants were charged with an
offence which the evidence wou:d show to hays been com-
mitted with a very great deal of violence. The prosecutor
111111 a Mr. George Norris, who carried on the business of •
turner, on some premises in Pump-row, Old-street-road,
and he regularly peed his rent to Mr. Cook, the original
landlord. The defendant, John Dawson, who appeared to
he a person of respectability, bad • lease of these premises
from Mr. Cock, which lease he assigned to a person who
afterwards left the country, and the lease then fell into the
hands of Norris, the prosecutor. As the term of the lease
had nearly expired, and Dawson was bound by covenant to
repair, rite., Mr, Cook served him with notice to give up the
premises, in good condition, within three mouths; but
Norris refused to recognise Dawson la the matter. Cones
usently, on the 20th of May, the defendants went to the
premises. and took forcible possession, and then proceeded to
remove the roof from the workshop, the flooring from the
water clouts, and to take cut the windows. A great mob
was collected by the disturbance that took place, and great
personal violence was used towards Mr. Norris, sad • Mr.
Chard, who remonstrated with them. The verities had
keen much damaged, by being unprotected by a roof, from
rain.

When the prosecutor was called into the witness-boz,
The learned Judge said it was quite clear that North,
meet glee up possession to Dimwit, as the term of the lease
was nearly out, and Dawson was responsible for repsin to
Mr. Cook. Dawson had evidently taken • vary illegal
course, and it would be far better that some arrangement
should be made than that the cue should go to the jury.
Aftor some deliberation amongst the counsel and their
clients, it was arranged that John Dawson should pay
Norris 301 , and release him from a quarter's rent now due,
and that Norris should give up possession to Dawson within
a fortnight.
The defendants then pleaded guilty. John Dawson was
bound in recognizance. to appear in July, so that the court
had power to cubed the arrangement as far as he was
concerned ; and the other defendants, having acted merely
se We servants, were fined Is. each.