The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-16 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING..

NAVAL.

WOOLWICH, MAY 1 4.—Dillsesco, store ship, was towed
down the ricer this =horsing by the Jasper, IL-T.—Tfos esta-
blishment is imanealow with the Postoissa at nolybead is
(as the reader is aware) ordered to be beck's op, wad the
Llewellyn, w.-pkt., has bees dispeeed of to the anapsay who
have taken the osatraet for the campus et the
The Beeshes aad Otter, st -pkts., have haw ordered to be
paid off, bet the fete of the Carados sad Ordaddlis has not
yet boss melaseholy saddest inatassallaa flanday
evening on board the Wye, osavlet ship, owed albs lower
part of the town. The best wee bitioa raised by the davits,
with three seaside in it, whoa by some saddest the ropes
Rate way, sad the unfortasate prisoners were throws into
the water. Oa* of them was saved, but two perished. The
preemies is a reprehensible sae, es even where it is domed
necessary to adopt it oa board ships of war only sae ass is
allowed to be la the boat whew it ie raised.

lab) intelligence.

COURT OF QUERNI3 BENCH.—Yzeremay.

'swum ur

Los, Campus up C7onisa

Hrrzianctitth v. M'Conmice.
Mr. Lash sad Mr. O'Brien appears u for the plaintiff, and
Mr. O'Malley for the deteadant.
This was an action of trespass foe false imprisonment. The
defendant was a carver and gilder in Holywell-street, Btrand,
end the plaintiff ea Irish attorney, who had become reduced
in ciressamancek and had acted se a parliamentary agent on
his gassing to ffieglacd. His residence was stated to be
Mitmcoart, Temple. He had been employed to collect
debts for the defendant, and was given into charge by him
on the 19th Nov., for embezzling 21. 45., which the defen-
dant alleged he had got for hiss from a gentleman
in Woolwich, but which be had Rene paid over. Oa his
way to the station, the plaintiff Mined to make it all right
ne at day if the defendant would not pens the demand. This
was brought out on cromexamiastien. The defendant
thereupon offend to withdraw the charge, bat the police-
man into whcee custody ha had given the defendant said
he ernld not release him without ping to the statics. At
the station the defendant repeated the charge, and signed it
is the bock. The plaintiff was remanded three different
times, without being ultimately tried en the charge. Whilst
In custody, another charge wee preferred against him. It
was upon one of A. other @harps that be was tried.
• The defence was that the defendant had acted bona fide,
and that then wars easettnd demands between the parties.
Lord Campbell observed that this was a case for damages,
the question for the Jae, bong as to their amount.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
one farthing.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—TISTERDAT.
Benno AT Kw funs AT 0131.D11ALL.7911701111 KIL Africa

'Dilawn, Asa • Opium. !oar.

WITTINNALL S. CRANCILLOIL-ACTION •OATNST AN
OMNIBUS PROPRIBTOR TO RECOTIR COM 888888 lON TOR
♦N 11111:11T RIMI:LTINO FROM AN ACCIDINT ALLIOID TO
MAYS SALIM PIACI VAIIOUOM TER NIGLIO/NCI OT RIB

Mr. Barjeent Byles and Mr. Pearson were roman for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Honfroy, Q.C. with whom wu Mr.
Bramwell. appeared for the defendant.
This wee ea action brought by • stockbroker, linty
year of age, against the defeadent, who was the prc-
, prietor dame omnibuses rousing trim Chelsea to MiL-end,
' to recover corporwion is damages (or having broken his
arm whilst getting out of one of the defendant's omnibuses,
which accident it was alleged had occurred through the
sattlinscie of the contiacor. It appeared that, about 6
o'clock in the shinier. on the 24th of August last, the
plaintiff got into one of defendant's omaiosaes, in Fleet-
street, going into the City, and while he wee in the
act of getting set at the finial Ezoltange, the omnibus,
by the direction of the condteAor, was Armen on, which
caused the plaintiff to fall heavily forward and I
break his ann. Notwithstanding the accident, the
omnibus was not stopped, and the plaintiff wes picked up by
• person who had witnessed the occurrence. To prove the
plaintiff's mu several witneeses were called, the principal
ones being • Mr. Challis, who had assisted him to get up,
sod a Mr. Corfield. Both of these gentlemen stated that
they ran after the cmnibus to ascertain to whom it belonged,
and they saw on it the name of the defendant—George
Chancellor, London. Mr. Corkid further stated that as
soon r le had discovered to whom the omnibus belonged,
he went into the European Coffee-house and wrote down
the came of the defendant on a card, which he now pro-
duced.

Mr. Cock, the house surgeon at Guy's Hospital, who
set the plaintiff's arm, stated that his charge for doing that
and attending upon him was 16 guineas.
Mr. Humfrey then addressed the jury for the defendant,
and mid he should be able to prove that the omnibus out of
which the plaintiff was getting when the accident took plain
did not belong to the defendant.
On the part of the defendant May WitMena were called,
amongst others a man named Ward, who wag acting as con-
ductor to the omnibus from which the plaintiff alleged that
he had fella, and he stated that no senclest had marred to
any one in getting out of that omnibus as the day in voo-
doo. This statement was corroborated by the evidence of
another omnibus conductor named Sanders, who happened
to be riding outside the omnibus which thi plain•lff bad
identified as the one from which he had Want the time the
accident wee alleged to have taken plate.
Mr. &light Byles baying replied spoil the whole case,
his lordship commenced lamming up, and after he had pro-
ceeded for some time, he was interrupted by the jury, who
said they had made no their minds to fled a verdict for the
plaintiff, but had not decided what damages they would give.
After mosulting together for a few salailteu, the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaiatiff—damages 4W.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YunapAy.
Nut Panm.—avow But P. PoLLAIOI, C. 8., aim ♦ LONDON 031111011
Jam

DODD v. DUILNFORD,-ALLZOND LIBEL.

This was an action for a libel contained in a private letter
from the defendant to her dremmaker. The defendant
pleaded not guilty, sad also a jastiticatson.
Mr. Keating, Q C , and Mr. Pigott, were counsel foe the
plaintiff. Mr. Cockburn, Q C., and Mr. Smithies, for the
defendant.
It appeared, from the statement of counsel, and the evi-
dence of the witnesses, that the plauttiff is an attorney, car-
rying on hts busing's at New Broad-street in London, and
the defendant as namsnied lady, residing at Southampton
place, New-road. The defendant emanated an intimate
acquaintance many yeast ago with •Mn linrington, a
widow lady (aged 84 years), who lived at Winchtster-placo,
New-road, near the defeadank's residence. Mn 11
was possessed of about 901. sow, Long Annuities:l=
the death of her husband, ia 1841, the °midget sf her shin
was confided to the plaintiff, ss her most intimate fririaL
Prior to 1849 Mss. Meningtses legal adviser waa • Me-Punter,
who bad power to receive her dividends, and had died dale
then. It was ascertained that Punter had eassed the son
standing is the Long leoninm to Mn. Meniagires ac-
count to be transferred to his own name jointly with bees.
Some disputes having arisen the defendant susposted the :
haw* el Mr. Puttees dealing with Mn. Marriage's,
sad magisayed the plaintiff to institute proceedings te sea.
pal • tre-nessfer of the sum in the funds to the joint names
of the defendant and Mrs. Mervington. Two suits in
Chancery were instituted against Punter, and the result wee
lire Menington's annuity was properly smeared, but there
were some unsettled claims between her and Punter re
speeds' her bullhead's affairs, which nadend a third snit
in Chancery neesseary. lan June, 1849, the pantie' sold out
about 181. pm mamas, part of Mrs. lierriagton's annuity,
sad realised 1601. for the purposes of the last mentioned nit.
This sale having some to the deleadaat's knowledge, she
&eland that it lad been effected by the plaintiff without her
'assentor that of Mrs. Marinates, who was Ileum, infirm,
sad she employed another attorney. It appeared the plaintiff
wee introdueed to Kiss Dunked by an accountant, named
Fettillade whom daughter was employed as a dressmaker by
the defindeat, sad in the month of October last tie letter,
which formed the subject entice of the libel, was written.
It woe in these term:

reaftle,—ifelt rather wafted at year llama after
what you had previously written. Wheal teethed that age sporty
was here who offered to do It tar me, knowing that I bed put made
the only dressmaker I could depend on for you to do It, nay well
knew I could not ge bask to bar, sad as to other work, I an tory
sorry to ea that Dodd has proved a none MVO than Punta, sad I
eat wader the neosesity of gang to law with Wm—Yours. fa.
Beaman, IL DOMVOID.
The contents of this letter laving been annannisated to
the plaintiff, an explanation or an apology was demanded;
bat the defendant refused to give either, whereupon the pre.
sent action was brought. The plea of justification alleged
that the plaintiff had fraudulently obtained • power of
attorney authorising him to sell cut the annuity of 184 per
annum. This part of the plea was not, however, supported
by the evidence, and the chief defence relied upon was that
the plaintiff had bees guilty of misconduct by Gillis, oat
wt of Mrs. Nerrington's annuity without any necessity
fat doing so, and without having previously consulted ter or
the defendant, upon whom the management of the old lady's
affairs bad devolved.

To support the defandant'a cue a witneu, who bad for-
merly been sonaning clerk to the pl►intiff, and had left bill
unites last autumn, depute' that he alone bad commtnil
, gated with the do fondant /carving Ildra.Merringtou'oaffUn,
and the he had not communicated to her the foot that the
steak wu about to be or had been sold.

It appeared, however, by entries is this witaer's band•
writ* that nob 0013101unications sight be Wetted ; but

May f

Wee wee se seldom* that be er the plastid hod ewer nee i
sr eemmealrated peened/ with Use. blarriegtem
The Lard Mist Berea Left It to the jury to say whether
the pies ofjeellsellea wee made oat la telebteee. Es wee
espial,* to temsepperted if the jury ware rathard that the
ehmermarily mid eon the meek emedieg la
M▪
rs lleasiestee's sad the defeatist's mmees without her
realms esemat or that of the deherlast.
The JIM eller delneralase tegettler e short time, head a
eordlethrthe *WI ea the plea of set pally," sad for
the ashe the
the' ltessh
demo et jeetillsaliee.
With theme

ADMIRALTY OOURT.—YurzaDAT.
Dams Da. Lawaerca.
Tai OLOIT.--BAivAos.
Tka mimosa fa thla are Inn amended today. •
report of ds• fiats hat already appeared to oar *lna They
terwanal Ow artless perfonsod by petals banana of
leareetat td the Glary while ashen as the Como■ .nods,
on the 19th of Mush. _ _ _

Dn. Jmnsr and Dmns sppessed ler the Imams; and Dr.
Hardin, sad Dr, Bsyfewel far the Glory.
The Court thought the servies itself was of a very simple
same, and ptrWmed leader me eirennestance of pee-
-1 timelier danger. The salvers ameover, had • sst-
off spinet them for miscondist fa violently preventing
the masa-tau Hobert Own, ham underlies assistance to
the Glary. To this thugs they gave a sort of quasi-
denial, and staid that the master of the Glory sea inca-
pable, front intozieadce, of altering late any arrangement
with the tug. Looking at the whole of the evidence, the
court eater-ained no doubt that the mime did tender
her servims—that they were seeepted by the muster of the
ship, and also that the Waimea prevented the tog from
seeking an effort to relieve her. Ives were the court to
moms these Balton were is pmesedea of the vessel, they
would have been MI wrongly is refusing farther assist-
um; but u he (Dr. ) smoldered they were
not employed by the master, sad bad sot • shadow of right
to intuited in the matter, the mart had no hesitation in
myiag their conduct was utterly unjustifiable. With
respect to the comequeness of that miseoaduct, the court
meld not say the isteuerease with the tag amosemily en-
tailed a loss gym the swam, and if the salvors' behaviour
admitted of any extensation, it was from the fact of the
Glory's muter being in • drunken Mate, and not capable of
commanding eves his own mew. Had there been no bad
conduct cm the put of the salvors he (the beamed judge)
would have awarded NW., bat he thought their misconduct
so gross that he should only award JOOl. For the sus
reams they would not be entitled to their full costs. lie
(Dr. Lastdcgton) thought their &mid of misconduct so
gross, and supported by evidence so palpably false, that he
should give them no oats on that patios of the case.
Taking It at one third he would pronounce for the 1001.,
and two thirds the costs.

SECONDARIES' COURT.—YzarzaDAT.
Banat Ma. Seco Poises.
IIiCtIONALD V. BROIROLIII.—F Alas litnueoemixe.
This was a writ of inquiry to assess damages In an action
he trespass and false impruoament. The defendant had saf.
fend judgment to go by default.
The defendant, it appeared, was a chemist, (furling at
baldness in the Holloway•rned, and in the month of August
last year the plaintiff, who was described se an assistant
eargeon, entered his envie* is the capacity of shopman, the
terms upon which he did so being that, it his services gave
satisfaction for the first its months, be was after that time to
receive a salary of 201. a year. Toe defendant had some
important business to transact In the country, and sabot-
quest to his return to town he and the plaintiff had a
dispute about an old knife which had iron missed during
his absence, and on the plaintiff resenting attain bus-
nestless in respect of the knife, the defendant calltd him
a " thief " and a " lying vogabond," and threatened
to douhle him up." Afterwards, at the defon-
dast'a request, the plaintiff consented to remain
in his *recite (having threatened to leave) ; but
upon the defendant's return luta the country, where he
had been superintending his father's funeral, he left, having
been appointed assistant-surgeon for MIS of cholera at the
Lambeth workhouse. The plaintiff went to live at No. 11,
Hampton-temee, Hampstead road, and thither the defen-
dant, accompanied by a police officer, went on the 7th of
October, aid gave him into custody on a charge of felony.
On an examination of his trunk afterwards, some phials vit.
taieing drugs and chemicals were found, and these the de-
fendant asserted were his, but the plaintiff asserted as
strongly that they had been purchased by him for the pur-
pose of making chemical experiments. The defendant,
however, swore that they were his property, and upon the
charge of stealing them the plaintiff was committed for trial
at the Ventral Criminal Court, where, however, he wee ac-
quitted, almost before the defence was entered upon. It was
now proved that the defendant had said at the time that he
persisted in the charge of felony to save himself from an
action for delamation with which the plaintiff had threatened
hint.

Mr. Pain addrelead the jury in mitigation of damages,
and they returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 701.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.-YESTERDAY.
Bcroas Faunas BATLIT,_bwa.
But. AND DISTIL v. Ray. .1. E. WHIDNAM.—A

RICAL

Mr. J. Beal Instructedstateiliiiiiie;as by the defend-
ant, is the month of January of this 'eke, to sell the next
presentation to the rectory of "Boob Dennis." near, Ilchester,
in the county of Somerset. In pursuance of which luetruc •
tion, he acvertieed in several papas for a purchaser; and,
perhaps, his Honour might remember how the alvertisement
was e mounted upon by the press; be would read it:—
" Next presentation to a sinecure provincial rectory, produc-
ing 2521. per annum, to be sold. Present incumbent aged
72. No pauper population—nu poor rate—no church—no
glebe—no duty. Terms to be had of Messrs. Beal and
Dater, land agents and auctioneers, 107, Regent Quadrant."
(Loud laughter.) An offer of this sort was too tempting to
be neglected, and his Arm bad received no less ago
b 0 tenders, and crinseluently had to answer all—ore
gentleman (Said 1,4701, subsequeady he tendered 1,510 ,
and at last agreed to give the upset price 1,5601. He now
eought to recover 2W —his original el( mend was however
231. le., which he had reduced to bring it under the County
Court jurisdiction—for commission, labour, and work done,
and expenses incurred. Mr. Beal then read a great number
of letters respecting the negotiation, sad alto:wards handed
them to his Honour.

A clerk from the office of Mr. Wickens, said that the
plaintiffs had assumed more than their instructions directed.
His Honour—How do you make out your contract ?
Mr. Beal—l submit that Mr. Windham's first letter,
wherein he directs as to Pell the presentation, is sufficient.
His Honour—lf that be so, which I can't ere is the case,
you have not yet shown how the sale was t ffteted.
So:kitties Cluck —We positively deny that any sale has yet
taken place.
blr. Beal said that was an assertion he mue's questioned.
Solicitor's Clerk—The plaintiffs were well aware that the
business was in other agents' hands.
Mr. Beal said, even it that were the ease, it had nothing
to de with his claim. He had introduced a purchaser at the
sum agreed upon, and, according to the practice of the trade,
he was entitled to commission whether • sale was effected or
not. Had a higher price been tendered and accepted than
what he was instructed to get, he might have considered
another agent entitled to the 0011101iSliell. In this case it
was not so. The party he had introduc d offered the upset
price, and no one appeared to have tendered a like amount.
His Honour—l think you are not entitled to • commie.
sin. The following letter, which you refer me to in support
of your claim, merely says the defendant is span to an offer ;
it does not imply • contract. Whether you an entitled to
labour and work done is another question :
Gorton, nmr ftherborae, Dorset, March 10, 1830.—Sir—In reply to
yew letter of the 6th, I beg to say that Sorb Dennis Is • &Alert pa-
riah, and that lem open to en ear of 1.1501. till March 17th. As
p,opcesls may be meth fives another queer, It will depend upon
circumstances whether It will be us my power to aooept Eva.
mon WT:thusit. _

that alter the receipt of this letter he wrote
to the defendant announcing the sale.
His Honour—Yes; but on the 19th of March Mr. Wynd-
ham writes to you that negotiations have been entered into
with other panics, and declines your offer.
Mr. Heal—True, your Honour, and we write in answer
that we felt much surprise that he should revoke his pre-
view instructions, and requested to know if the presentation
was sold to any other party. Mr. Wyndham in reply said
it wee not sold.

The learned Judge intimating that no oostract whatever
had been shown,
Mr. Heel referred his Honour to a judgment of Lord D.n-
man's, " Rainy v. Vernon" (9 C. it P., 559,1840).
His Honour observed that the 01111.41 cited was widely dif-
tweet from that now under his soasideration.
Mr. Beal—l am quits ready to bow to sny decision your
Honour may give, bat I would respectfully submit that this
le ea unparslleled case.
The learned Judge—lt ie clear that. ycu have no right to
a commission, but you have a right to the money you ex-
pended for advertisements, for that it appears that has been
toodersd to you. You may elect to be uoneuited or have a
verdict for 11. 16..
The plaintiff wool to have judgment entered for the
11. 165., which will awry prop .rtionablo oats.

Erracrs or FRU MADE.—GREAT DIMINUTION
IN THE NUMB= or BA>tlaoera —The following table
shows the number of bankruptcies announced in the London
Gazette during the lest three months, compared with the
number during the corresponding period of the previous
year:
1849.
re►. 9

IS II

Feb. ..
12 1
......
12
n.
mama I .......
1
.....
12 .......
12 .....
23
22
4141 .....
1
1 ..... .......... .... I
2
28 _
May
14 ......

6. .

..... 16

...
t 3

April i '-...-
_II

Total 417 I
Thus showing a diminution of 162 bakruipldes la throe
months.