The Express.
London, England, 1850-04-20 00:00:00

iLitU3 illtentetfiCt.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTIRDAT.
Boom vas Mum or rum ROLM
lICST V. TIM SIMISIIIIIC/IT AND CHEATS& KAILWAT CON-

PaNT-14•11011110,1 01 TIM Rlllllll Dill
This was a maims II the plamdß, eat of the shareholders
of the above mammy, to s Praia the Cseapasy end the M-
ontan slimed Wm poseestiag s bill in parlismeat for die
ereassneney sad imprereemeat of the River Dm at tho ez•
penes of the Camp eay sad oa the sorority of say of the um.
aim sad Coatis sad fn m applying the sum of 2,0001 ,
or owy eithe moneys of the Counsel, in mast of say
=insurred, or Oa be Warred, to promoting the said
rliament, se ferasy other purpose net sathorieed
by the seta et parliament relMieg to the sea pony, sod from
mkiag may maps or fasurriag say moose on at wont of the
Company, with $ view to improve the aavigatha of the
rhor Dim _

Newee. Tower sad Speed were heard Is Nipped Of the
swim _

Maws. Mallets and °Wad appeared for the defendants,
sod atter soma dientsiew it was arranged t►at the a idiot
awed stand over, t►e defendasts undertaking sr to apply
any further away foe the purpose of mina say apnea in
Sr &bola the prosewatien of We bill in parliassot, with a
view to t►a improveineut of the aaviestka a the Rivet
Dee, without tie leave el the amt, the plaintiff also with.
draw* the artless live■ by him without prejudice.

BAIL COURT.—Yurrzarmy.
Berms Na. Joan= Coadoines.
Rs JOettl Cairn.—CONDUCT oe AB AITOZWIT.
Sr. Warren moved for a rule, rolling on Jobs Cutts, an
attorney of this emit, as show mem why ba should not pay
over a erstais sum of money to Sarah Partway. It appeared
that Mn. Partway had suploysd Mr. Cats for many yams
in inveriag snug on mortgage Ear her. A sum bad bees
last to a Mr. Diana in this meaner, and the principal sad
lutenist bad been repaid sines January, 1843, Mr' Mr. Cutts
bad retafand 1331. of Mat sum Berne 1840, a ism of 8001.
had boss lent to • Mr. Argent. and the psi seipal sad in.
wrest had been repaid; bet a sum of 1181. 134. 4d. had beam
retained by Mr. Cutts sloes January, 1843. Another sum
of 3001 had been lent in 1827 to a Mr. Usher, and ft was
trthat the principal and Lateran bad been paid
. Cutts in July, 1839, bet he MA net paid ft
over to Mn. Partway. Several appliestioas had bass made
to Mr. Cana without araceesr, sad on this OM el April a formal
demand el 7111. lbs. 104., the anneal dee, was mad. and
at an internowletween Cutts and Mrs. Partway's staraey,
' on the 18M of April, it Ina agreed that he was Indebted to
her in RM. lie. 4d., bet no portion of it had been pail.
Men granted,
Me," AT Num Tame.

DAVIS IL DICRINSOX.—ORILACIII or 1111•111,MCIT or • Cow.
Kr. B. James, Cl C., sad Kr. Uathank appeared for the
phdatiff ; and Kr. Sediment Shoo and Kr. Pearson for the
defendant.
This was an Mira broverkt by • gentleman residing at
Champion-hill, Camberwell, against the defendant, a cattle
dealer at IldisoaPin, he the breach of a warranty received
with • sow. It appeared, that the plaintiff was in want of •
cow about to calve, in order to securer • supply of milk for
the 'dater, and he instructed • poem of the name of /fol.
!mails to parcbase one for him. That prison acoordingly
parebamd • young cow from the defendant at Kiagston
fair, he warraated her to be about to calve in six weeks. Oa
her being taken to the plaintiff's. it was discovered that she
was not with call, and she was returned to the defendant.
Brideoce of Was. facts was given, and it was stated
that it was impossible the cow could have been
with cal', as in • abort time after she went to
the plaintirs she desired and submitted, to the
endearments of a bull. For the defence it was
contended that the cow was really with calf, but owing to
her being overdriven is her conveyance from the fair to the
plaintiff's house, she slipped her calf. Witnesses were called
in support of the case, but the jury, without hearing Mr.
Jena in reply, gave a verdict for the plaintiff.
The rest of the day was occupied by a case of Powell tr.
Btutely, which was an scam against the proprietor of the
Panerchnicon for injury done to the plaintiff 's furniture by
' its being improperly peeked in ono van instead of two, as
was agreed, and which was upset during ire conveyance from
the defesdants's storerooms to the plaintiff's house. A sem
of limey had been paid Mt° mart, which the defendant
alleged was sufficient to cover the damage done. The as.
was not concluded when the court rose.

COURT OF COMMON PLEA&—YESTERDAY.
SIT Basco.—Baroas Loto Cam. Jyrrice WILIAM. Ida.
Jo>nca Corwin, Mt. Rims Writsams, AND Ma. !mica
TaLrovito.
Tmoitzsox 1. WILLIT.—WLIT Or PROZIPITION TO THR

COCNTY COURT.
In this cue. Mr. Lash aoplied for a rule to show caste
why a writ of prohibition should not done directed to the
judge of the County Court of Hertfordshire to stay ell
proceedings in twa plaints which the plaintiff had dried
against tho defendant for the aura of 471. odd. The first
plaint was (or 191. Ba. 'Ltd was for stoney lent, and the
seeped wad for 281. odd k r goods sold and delivered, and
for work and labour done. From the the of 281. odd, the
plaintiff deducted W. 6a. 3J. credit by balance of • Mr.
Pinnock's account, thus leaking the amount which ►e wo-
olly sought to recover is this second plaint 191. 19s. 10d. The
learned counsel now submitted that the plaintiff could not
divide his Brim into two parts so as to bring his action in the
County Court, when it ought to have beta brought in a
superior court, and in support of his argument quoted the
ease of tt Re Ackroyd," Ist Exchequer Reports, page 479.
The court 'ranted a rule nisi.

MAIM 11. FIBLD.—Tics EIACTIOC LIGET COMPANY.
This was an action which had been brought by the plain-
tiff, who wee an Italian, and a phUottoph.ml and matliessa•
tical instrument maker, to recover compacted= from the
defendant as a member of the Electric Light Company on
account of that company having occupied some rooms in the
plaintiff's house, is which they had fitted up machiamy for
the purpose of trying certain experiments. The ease was
tried before the Chief Juries at the sittings at Nisi Pa ios, at
Guildbeli, after last Hilary term. Oa that occasion a ver-
dict was found for the defendant, the jury being of
apition that there was never any agreement or
nadentaading between the plaintiff and the company that
he should be paid for the use of his rooms. At the trial it
appeared that the plaintiff had been employed by the com-
pany, at a weekly salary, which had been always paid, to
superintend their experiments, and when his moons*s had
been fluffy settled he had made no claim for the occupation
of his roams.

- Mr. Serjeut Byte, on behalf of the plaintiff, sow moved
for a rule to show canes why there should not be a new trial,
on the ground that the learned judge had rated that it wu
not admissible to sub a wiener named Puree what ►ad
passed at a muting at whisk Petrie believed the dekndant
to have been preseat. Mr. Petrie, it appeared, was interested
in the Electric Light Company, ►aving a share in the
patent, mad the loused unjust now contended that as that
theaftnmeianamstintheaduse "fee Li" wisthancettheloesgcsale bo y
Er.
Petrie would have bound the defendant, as they were in the
putties of co-contractors, and therefor* the Chief Justice
had wrongly decided in not allowing Mr. Petrie to say what
had taken place at the muting. The learned serjeant quoted
several authorities in support of his argument.
The Chief Justice said the court would inform Mr. Su-
lam, Bytes whether Of not they would grant a rule when his
learned brothers bad looked over his notes of the evidence
end some other documents connected with It.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—YisrmDAT.
Sri PYT• •i VIJIMIUMMI. 11117002 NIL B•wa •LDMoI um
• 11001J01 SPIIICIAL JULY.
_

Or.= s.
This was as action on a hill of exchange for 2001., amepted
by the deseadast, and discounted ►y the plaintiff. The de-
fendant pat a number of pleas on the record, ernonfiet others
denying the acceptalee and endorsement ; that [Le bill was
Rites ler ansomenodation ; that no vale* was received for it ;
and that the bill wee obtained by one Humbert, Is adhesion
with others, from the drawer by fraud sad mein. Me. Mar-
tin and If r. Willie went fc r the plaintiff, and Mr. 'imam
and Kr... Keens far the defendant.

Mt. Mactl~ my Wielist•t7rrthe cam to the jury. The
Glees, is a baker in Regent etsvet, the defendant
Mr. Gordon Beans as officer is the 69th regiment. The
bill, which was dated 20h September, 1849. payable tam
months after date, was drawn by Mr. C. B. Barry Baldwin,
an sflisir is the Riffs Brigade, accepted by the defendant,
and indorsed ovor to the plaintiff, by whom it was discounted.
The bill, oa arprroivetiteitr maturity having bendishonoured
the primal wore commea ,
ced. The learned
oonseel them called • teem, who proved that the adapt.
aim wee is the haadweitins of the defendant.
Huaafrey then addresped the jury for the defendant.
He said the *Miler, in addiion to the bssiame of a baker
which he carried on at 108, Regent. street, was in the habit
of dieematiag bills. He was also the own. r of the ram
horse Laming B. in, so famous in sporting history a few years
ago. The defendant, Mr. Gordon Seam, was, at the
of the transeetion referred to, a lieutenant is her Maralitris
69th regiment, and the bill was drawn by Mr. Baldwin, a
lieutenant is the Rifle Brigade, and son to Mr. Barry Bald.
win, JLP. for Totems. It was in fact an accommodatios bill.
A person tamed Humbert, who had become ululated with
Baldwin and Evans, voluateend to get the bill discounted,
and Baldwin was inouoed to write the followim letter:
imperial Hotel, OcesMogem. Sept. 25, 1849.
dear 814-I.aelomd sea will dad • MI figneld ,us bare ri•Op
me Ms amass. Yes are as pelbst Amp Se pas Ms same es say
Hrempart you war Sialt4Lesparillesse if pa MI pet year name ea it 1
it awa ft wiles WIN bums yes ma Owe me 'ben
we nest wet—l am, say dor sir, years wary
C. ILL !Puma, Lieu=ll9l Itripds.
To (hap Ilambert,
P.B. The bill that I modoised Is yaw kr the rettirest day
account with you is draws by me ea Llestmem Orden Weiss, Pa
Regiment, farad., at three rasselmf ant le sore Is be met Mee
doe. If you save
cell and me Me say 91114.1141 s per
fag,l dull feel much obliged, sad ea wllll make as
Mr. Baldwin gave use bill to Humbert, and 7;m that
time to this not ism single farthing'. consideration had been
remind. After the present action was commenced, Mr.
Abrahams, the defendant's attorney, wrote to Mr. Gill, the
atteeseyen the other aide, requtestlag to be fatroared with the
address of Humbert, who could not be found after every
search vetJeti the former had instituted. No answer having
bees returned, soother applies' ion was sent, tel. h an intima-
tion that • melon should he made to postpose the trial. Oa
the 27th of Mere% an answer was at length obtained from
Mr. Gill, la thole terms:—"Dear Sir,-1 kayo sada Mr.
Olen oa the subject of year applicatios. Mr. Oleo, is his
business se • baker, I lase time eappli. d Mr. Humbert
with bread, but some thus ago ha amised to deal with
him. The broad was delimited to his at 3, Name-
street, S thu-aiinare, and no doubt os inquiry you
will Sod him there." The housed commit this
adduced the hail iwii.g evidence is toppled of the ease :
As affidavit sworn in Chancery by the ;IMMO was then
nut la sad read, la which he declared that lie was the holder
et the bill for vane, sad that he teak sad received the 'saw