The Express.
London, England, 1850-12-06 00:00:00

Lab) 3intelltionie.

EQUITY COURTS.-.IIgBTEIDAT.
Bnott rut Murat or rut /Lou.
_

II VMS MATRA VP rna NORWICK YAW( COMPANY.—
TV HIDING VP ACTS.
Roswell addressed the court is answer to Mr. Bethell's
argument, that the jerisdictioa of the coon to direct an
*glints a• law, was takes away by the Winlins-up Acts.
The Muter of the Roils upraised bit opinion that the
court had jurisdiction to direct an action if It thought
proper, for the purril••• o: trying the validity of the claim of
the E.st ilagleed Link, and that this jurisdiction wu not
takes away by the provisions of the Windieg-up Am. The
ease wee nada to those relating to the administration of the
*SUMS of &teased persous, in which it was usual for the
court to direct an action to be brought by a crei:it r to est&
Wish his d.bt, if th- face were not ascertained, or there
wu any d.fLult question ce law to be Cotenants( In the
pretest eau tics Iser on which the claimant'e delta depended
wu not clear, and as tee teleiel teenager desired it, be should
direct tit actin at law to try its validity.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BERM—YESTERDAY.
Illerrain AT NAM PIMA AT TTAMITTSTAIL-031010 LOAD CAMMILL
.vs rien.ctAt. Janus.
°ITALIAN v. BATINAN.—ACTION TO ARCOT'S COX-
PIALATION IA DALANAI 701 AN ALLSOID MALICIOI.4

Mr E Jason, Q C., and Mr. Hawkins, were counsel for
the plaintiff; and Mr. fferjeaaShee, ldr. Macauley, Q C.,
aid Mr. H Hill, repmeented the defendant.
From the (openly's statement of the learned counsel, and
from the evidence subsequently addend, it appeared that
this wan sn brougst to recover compensation in da-
mage. for the defendtst having maliciously, end without
reascc.ahlo and pro, sb:e (MOM, given the plaintiff into cus-
tody, on • charge of veilfulle breaking down a fence. Tile
tody,
defendant was also ,herded with prosecuting the plaintiff
heroes tie Lord Mayor, whereby be was imprisoned
for tea &lye ; and also with putting the plaintiff to
greet 'spiny, by prettying against his an ;iodic-meat
for a riev. It 0p,..5re.1 that the defendant was a timer
merchant having pr,rnisis in an alley called Angel alley,
.. which ws eines d tetwe'n Long alley and Bishops ate'
street. 1! appeared that an obstruction had been plated
acrose the all• y in the year 1840, by lame hoarding heirs
avected near the premien which the defendant now occupied.
On this lot of June, 1843. a spice was served on the deten.
dent to etc effect that the hoarding would be pulled down
se the In lof Jane. This none* was rorved by • person
it the name of Brows, who on going to lull down the
koardin.e am gives late tweedy by the ii (indent. Od the
9th of Amiga, 1843, the plaintiff and • person named
Joeiss llitentan, who was is his service, and was no relation
to the defendant. name late Loop alley and a' tempted
to rei.ov• the hoarding, upon which the defendant pave
this into ce-tidy. Tte plaintif and Jame Bateman were
then takes to the Mansion-house and;cltairred before Alder
seas C ipeland wits wilhally damaging • tenet. The alder-
man committed them to take their trial for • riot, and they
were kept in ',ices nail the lt.h of August, when *a ap-
plication was mode to a learned judge to admit them to bail,
which he are..rtlioily dE. Upon the indictment amiss en
to be tri. d no one at peered to support it, and conseq•eutly
the plaintiff soil J slat 11 muss were acquitted.
hi, Serjesst Shee ad. r seed the jury for the defendant, and
said the qu 'non with respect to whether the plaintiff wee en-
titled to nom pensation in demean far peeferrian tbit I ndietment
was wi.hdrown by arreentene frothe emisideration of the
fury. sod the only pint they would have so decide was
wheat• r tta doleadont hail given the plaintiff into custody,
and, if en, had to ine it maliciously. Ho (Mr. &leant
SIP') wield peeve th,t the defendant was net the party who
had gives the plaintiff into custody. With respect to the
hoarding which was sphen of as Mine unlawfully erected,
it had bees placed acmes Angel.alley by an order of
maestros's, dosed Div. 11, 1810 The reason of Angel-
alley being sti.ppd up was Oat the alley divi led the city of
L .adon iron we sous, of Middle eon, and consequently
bad charac'en of whom the City police were in pursuit were
*Bahl. d to escape through the alley out of the jurisdiction of

the Cl•y.
0a ►rba!r of the defradaat several witnemes we►e tailed to
prove that be did not Fit* the plaintiff into custody.
Mr. J awes havirie it plied,
Lord Campbell sontroed up, sod lift it to the jury to say
whet►er the defead,at had elven the pleineff Into custody.
and if it. had h- A, m it malicicusly. If t►e jury should
Swan t *h. •s'irsestiunain t►e affirmative, thea he ( Lad Camp-
bell) would till tit. m that In hie opinion the defendant ►ad
Rives the plaintiff int.. melody without having( any mita-
We and prohibit cat r, abich would justify bins is n

•
Ong:
The jury thenntirrd, Acid after an absence of about hell
se hour re unsed into court, with a verdict for the pleintiff.

—Damages 60i.
We shoshl may that this was the second time that this a
led been tried.
12021111 IP. Line Lavin.—INDICTMF.NT von PRIM:RT.
Mr. Preaderg. to, Q.C., and Mr. M'Nassara appeared
ice
support of there, s. ninon, and Mr. Ball.ntine anelle
lied-
dMe'oee ft richest.% the ile•endaist,
TM. via, an is fictine•-• pro toned against a dewier, named
Aga Lave? who • as • widow. chitlins on the hula, m of a
atepselks in Itati..iff Highway, P,X p• spry. The prosecutor
• the ir.licussat win • person nsin.d Bantam, who kept
▪ g Fenn by sail.,' at the teat end of the town. Th.
alleged perjury e meted in the defend's% haying denied
when s assailed upon oath at the Whitechapel County C7llll
that she had tear been tried at the Central Criminal Court
for forgery or any o,h, r off. nee, or that she had ever been
lockul cep is the roams& police station house or any other
anti m .use.
Mr. rtesiforgast hash g nand the ewe to the jury, Fra-
nnie, in call si • (colonies evidence.
Me. John U agent, s ermined by Mr. M'Nansara—Wit-
nem was an avorney, and produced certified copies
of the proendi. gs in the Whittchapel County Court in
the nu of " Lacey a nourish," in which Ann Lavey
was the vlsintiff. Wcnere produced the oeke copy of the
plaint and of the hearing. Ana Lawry was the plaintiff in
that eclair, and it ass heard on the 9:h of A;eil last. Wit
saw Arran d ins the d, (rodent. Ann Lacey was called as
• intro in and was dilly sworn. Ann Levey was a downs.
Ann Leery wee esandeed by her attorney, at the
Whiteekapel County C•sert. She swore that the debt
was justly ovine from Mr. Hannah, the defendant, to her
(Ar.n Lacey). The amount of the debt was 161. odd.
Witness tress-examined Awe Levey, and saki d her when
sin was last at the bar of the 04 Batley ? She
sepli d Me ? 1 was never there ; but what is that to
your Witness said, "What! never for uttering a forged
endorsement to a seaman's advance note?" Ann Levey
teplied, "Never; I am surprised at your question. and at
pear inseleam." Witness then asked her if she had not
been tried then years ago at the Oid Bailey for some such
since. Ann L Ivey said that she never was. Wetaew
then asked Ann Lacey if she bad never been tried at the
Old Bailey for any effect* whatever, and she odd," Never."
She said she would awe., that on the oath she had taken.
She also said she was a in cus'ody at the Themes Police-
statien.house, or any other lobes station-house, and that
witness kn. w it. Wimeis now produced an examined copy
el the record of an indictment prefetredeigainit Ann Levey
at the Old Bail, y let forgery.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ballantine—Witnees wrote mat
the notes which he had token of Ann Lany's'evidence at the
Whiteehapel County Court, on the same renting. Witness
had twin endive:tired to get the cue of " Lacey v. Demob" I
tried again, but failed
Mr. I'oolll4i Vtlity, exunised by Mr. Prendergast—••••••cub._
saes was an attorney and assisted Mr. Hodgson in ear
doming the &fele^ in %Incase of " Lacey v. Ilannah," whoa
tried to: fore Mr. Sergeant Manning. at the Whiteckspet
County Court. This witness corriborated the evidence of
the lest witness eat° Ann Levey denying that she had nor
bee. tried at the Old Bailey for any oliOsce.or had ever bees
coallasd in any station how.,
Cron 'noised by Mr. Sallentine—Witene took motes ell
Ana Ln ' vidtueo bat had lest them. lie did set
knew that Aom Levey load been tried at the Old Bailey sad
acquitted.
James Haw, examined by Mr. 11'Nansara—Witness was
• polies engem., 71 K. On the 21st of Aegust, 1843, wit-
nen arrested Ann Levey at her owe house, and she was
locked up all niobt at the Thames Polieestation. Witness
took her into en,tods en • charge of fording a seaman's ad-
sun note The seaman who charged her was named
Yates, and was matte on the occasion. Ann Levey said
Yens was an ungrateful fellow for making such a charge.
Ann Lave; was token to the Mansion-house before the Lord
Mayor, end was then let out on bail. She was brought up
stela on the to:lomat Thursday and committed for trial.
She was tried at the Old Bailey before Mr. Baron Rolfe.
Crossexamined by Mr. Ballantine—The judge stopped
the can on the grand that *be was latiorrectly indicted.
Witness did not hear Mr. Baron Rolfe say there was no int-
plead.* on Ass Levey's character.
Mr. W. 0. Laing examined by Mr. Prendergast—This wit-
nen confirmed the evidence of the police constable as to the
arrest, committal, and trial of Ann Lacey on a thane of

• -
W. Davison Day, 'Remised by Mr. M'Naniara—This wit-
new, who was a pollee constable, mho corroborated the
iridium gives by rilice-eergeaut
A sop, of the record of the indictment preferred against
Ann LeArty at the Central Criminal Court was then put in,
and read.
Mr. liallanties thee adiremed the jury for the defendant.
He mid bo thought that he had reason to complain that the
coutiml for elm prostration had not ventured to notifies the
testimoey of Ass Laver, given at the Whittchape I County
Court, to far as it referred to any' of the mitten really
is dispute, but had: brought the charge agate's her on
a natter whollyl Wet aaaaa and immaterial. He (Mr. Bal-
Latin ) labmitterd that it was very probable that her state.
sent, ',hie\ woe alleged is be perjury, was meant to convoy,
not that she bad never been tried at the Old Bailey, but that
she bad never been found guilty of any offence, and that she
bad been confined in any station-hones on the charge
of levier committed soy offence, for which the was Bubo.-
quentle convicted.
Lord Campbell them seamed up, and said that if the jury
believed the defendant mime derstood the titan of the
question' put to her at the Whitechapel County Court—if
they wen immaterial, or U she had really forgotten that she
had ever bean tried at the Old Ballay—then she would be
entitled to an aegaittal I but If they thought otherwise, then
it would be their deity to fine her guilty.
The j, after a short consultation, found the defendant
Orily. but reariessaanded her to gamey.
Lord Campbell asked Mr. Prendergast if he slaked toI
hare lodgment pared tuns the defendant immediately, and
ha replied is the eillnutive.
Lord Cespbell—la the defendant in court ?
Mr. Prendergast—No, my lord.
Lied Campbell then said that the present ewe was one of
web impenatem that be would at mice per sentesee,
Ohm. dre &feudist wee absent. It wen highly temente'
AN people *mild b• Inglit to kaow that rusklumai wee