The Express.
London, England, 1861-01-22 00:00:00

COURT OF FaCHRQUKR.—Jaat. 21.

itittinp at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Berea Bramwell and
COMMON Juries.)
DAVID /*. NICHOL4ON.—NONET LENT.

The plaintiff in thin action, Henry John David, sued the
defendant, William Nicholaon, to recover 291. 5.. 3d., mo.
ney lent.
The defendant pleaded never indebted, and that be had
aatiafaed the claim.

Mr. Henry James wes counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Set-
ilent Parry and Mr. M'Namara represented the defendant.
It appeared that both the parties are students of Gray'.-
inn. The plaintiff resides at 3, Vesulam-beildinp, Hray's-
inn, and the defendant at St. Georp'•road, Brighton. de-
' cording to the awe for the plaintiff he wet horn in London,
but has resided for the greater portion of hie life in America.
Five or six years since, being desimus to go to the English
bar, be returned to this country and entered
himself at Uray's-inn. He there met the defendant,
and ultimately an arrangement was come to between
the parties under which the plaintiff went to board and
lodge at the defendant's house, at Fdgin•roarl, Notting-hill,
paying 1/. lOi. a week. The plaintiff was in the habit of
lending several sums of money, varying from 21. to 20i., to
the defendant on his I 0 Wm. The ease for the plaintiff
was, that although all former Icons had been satisfied by
the bill the items forming the present claim had subse-
quently accrued. This was denied by the defendant, and in
fact wet the real issue between the parties.
The plaintiff was called to prove his cam, and was ex-
amined at considerable length with respect to his monetary
tremactions with the defeedaat.
Cross-examined by Mr. Illerisent Parry—ln July Mr.
MCIIOIOOI2 called on me. He did not say that be wished all
transactions between as to asses. He said I had spoken
slinviagly of him to • Hrs. Homes • that I lied mid he had
only a few hundreds a year, and mis always in difficulties.
U I did say so, it was true. I sad fee a settlement of oar
aocounta He said he valid sell and pay next weak. I
did not tell him, on my honour, that all the I 0 U's I am
suing on had been destroyed. He did not wish a cloak and
arm chair which he had lent me to be set off splint the
account. I have passed by the ears of Kellar. I lived at
Kennington•ereeornt. I employed a medical gentleman to
attend a lady there in her confinement. She died there.
Elbe had a child, which is still living.
Mr. Serjamat Parry—Was that lady the Hon. Mary Joao,
*Am te Lord Ranelagh ?

WI—?o.
Mr. llerjonnt Parry—Were you ever known u Kellar in
Sr..
Wilmes—Never.

Mr. berieant Parry—Were you married to Lord Hans-
legh's niter in Amerna'
lifileiese—l was married to her at New York, on the
3ed at March, 18611, at the Rev. Mr. Williamson's church.
I was married to her ea Henry John David. I registered
the death of the lady, who died at Kensington-crescent, and
also the birth of the child.

Yr. lierkaant Parry—Do you know a lady named Caro-
line Vma bellll ?
Witnes•-11rwow a person you allude to u Caroline Van
_ _

irTSerjeant Parry—Were you married to her
Witness-1 was noL
Kr. Perjennt Parma Did she follow you to this country
with four °rave children

witinx children, if you please.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Darr Darawell—Brother Parry, is the number d
chiklrea arterial! (Leakier.)
Mr. derMent Parry—Did you not call yourself Dr. David,
and live at wanim,

Witnow—l as spite entitled to do so, sa I received the
Desk, of Philosophy. I Olive/ represented myself
decree
of
patrician.
Mr.a llseleant Parryphysician
—What not an to the Ere.
prone of the Brazibi ? (Laughter.)
Whams— No.
Mr. Serisant Parry—Have you been to the Brazile—to
Rio Janeiro?
Wilson—Yea
Mr. Perjoant Parry—.end you swear you did not repro-
solo4.= as physician to the Empress of the Brazils
I do. I was in England three years before I
knew the defaideriL I had an office in Buckingham.street,
etread. I lent money therm I held myself out as ready
to woke incontinent& I never was charged with fraud in
America I sever was charged with defrauding a Mee.
Rose at New York. I was arrested on a charge of forging a
bill el LOOM on Mr. Kean of New York. I was taken
frees the similarity of my name for a person neeasd Dowd
Of Abrahams, and when I proved who I was,
iMr. Hall, the
milirikterriltork.. No true leiilleht:arr charge.
age lean tt Mr.
s.
there. I preens. it was Mr. Keene who wade e
of forgery against me. met him at Morley's ki=
Charing-eras, in lain, and we had scene daapagne
together. I wee to be found anywhere for two
Crafterwards; but two months after I had left
country for the benefit of my wife's health and
my own he made the charge against_ ,me bat he never
dared to repeat it. Iha vii sever been a Presbyterian minis-
ter. I knew the Reverend Mr. Van Doren, the father of
Caroline.

16.fferfeset Parry—The lady you spoke of !
Witamie—No, the lady you spoke rifianghter.)
N,. Serjeant Parry— Well, welted' of her.
Re-examined—l took the ammo of at Kensington-
crescent, because that was the mime of the lady who resided
there. She was known by that muse before I went to re-
side there. I obtained my deem at the University of
Gottenburg.
A letter from the defendant's wife, who was then et
Brighton, was then put in. The writer Acknowledged the
receipt of half of a U. note from the plaintiff, and ex-
pressed a wish that be would take charge of and educate
one of her boys, who should not be a burthen to him.
Proofs of the payment of certain cheques haring been
given, the plaintiff's case cloned.
The case for the defence war that the bill of exchange
for W., dated May 3, had not in reality been given until
after the last of the items claimed by the plaintiff, dated
Jmee 28, had been due, and that the bill, ia point of fact.

The document was put in. It was a copy of the registry
of deaths for Kensin,gton town of the death, on the 19th
October, 1859, at Kensington-crescent, of Mary Oaken's,
aged :04, wife of Henry Dukella, gentleman.
Further evidence having been adduced an support of the
defendant's case,
The learned counsel on both sides addressed the jury,
whoa his lordship summed up.
The jury thou retired, and after an absence of three
hours came into court and stated there was no possibility of
their agreeing.
They were accordingly discharged without coming to a
verdict.