The Express.
London, England, 1850-01-18 00:00:00

LITBRATURB.

him for the preceding querest. lie amount being dewed by
Lim as deputy prothouut•ry, and Sir H. Campbell received
and acknowledged it. In the bet yea: astern wee made
to the Treasury, sod the comae of the receipt of fees being
that the . them ruthollotell eseeived them all, and then
distributedto the various officers of the court. le this
return the different tee; were placed in different columns,
sec.:rang to their appropriation to the different t.ilicen, and
the fees of the prothono:ary were distinct tfolll these of the
deputy prothonotary. Sometimes the protkosetaty re-
ceived the same fee on a ptheseding as the deputy
prothonotary, and
rothsometimes it was smallerie,
whets the
and some-
times the deputy pmotary got a f
prothonotary got none. This showed that the tees were dis-
tinct. A Mr. Blozans, an attoraey, accompanied by a Mr.
Bellamy, called oa Mr. Hewlett. and showed him two deeds
*mated by Sir Henry Campbell, one revoking Hewlett's
appointment, and another appointing Mr. Bellamy to the
office of deputy prothonotary. Application was made to the
Wawa, d to admit Mr. Bellamy to the tales, sad certain quis-
ling were put to him to test his sailleireg, when, as it
was clear that he blew nothing of the of the *inert,
the judge refused ,o admit him, and apptinted Mr. Hewlett,
following the precedent of 1812. Sir H. Campbell then
brought this action against Mr. Hewlett, to try the title to
the office, and he claimed not only the fees of the prothono
tary, but of the deputy prothonotary, on the ground that he
had revoked the authority of the defendant.
There were two points which were for the decision of that
court ; era, whether the plaintiff could recover because the
eppeintere should have brought the action ; and, secondly,
bases, the action was bruoght to ree Jeer the fees due to
the Deputy Prothonotary, that the affidavits did not dis-
tinctly state thetas awed had been made.
The learned counsel now renewed his application, and
the rule was granted.
111 TSB MATIMB 01 SUS SOUTH DIVON RAILWAY CON-

The Church of England Quarterly Review, for January,
MO. Pail Mr.
A great portion of the contents of this o!d estab-
lished favourite of the clerical public, being theolo-
gical, fall without our province to criticise. Bat we
may say, that we are glad in these times of new-
fangled affectation and cxtravagacce in religious
matters, to find the organs of more sober and prac-
tiecl views maintaining their ground. The political
article of the number is upon the " Mal-admiuistra-
hoe of the whigs ;" a fertile subject, on which it may
easily be inferred, that the dissatisfaction of the
Church of England Quarterly arises from quite other
sources than that which we are perpetually called
on to climes.

CLERICAL.
COSTOCATIOX or TZ.
elect/ the
day to which the coseocation of the deeppro-
regard, the Jerasalesoclunatirr, Westaaiefiter„ was opened
for the purpose of farther proroguing the weesdng of the
synod in eoukrusity with her Majesty's somodesion. His
Gent the Aeohbisitop of Canterbury arr.ved at the Irma-
Isepthember at 12 o'clock. Hi. Grace was accompanied by
his chaplain and mut tiry. Francis Hart Dyke, H.q., her
Majesty's proctor and chief registrar of the pravince of Can-
terbury, by the most rev. prelate's desire, read her Majesty's
warrant for as farther proroeatiou of the convocatioc.
Ti s Arokbahop of Canterbury said, la virtue of the warrant
jus. read, and in obedience to h. r Map sty's commands, the
convocation stood aujouned ti!l Fritts:, the lit of February
nes'.
--------

TA= /MAI. an a..
Rev. T. Blealreoll, to Batley P.C., Leeds, value 1501. ;
patrons, trona%
Rev. R 6 b`Onge, to Wermington C., county of North-
ampton. dio. of Peteeorough.
Rev. R. Lewis, to Clapham C., Surrey, din. of Wiachester.

TAC.•NCITS.
Reddlestoa R., Derbyshire,Lichfield, value 1551.;
petrels, Lord Scarelale ; Boa. and Rev. A. Curzon, dec.
Nortonyux a Terycross, LeicesUrsh're, dio. Peterborough,
value 27d1. ith residence ; patroa, Lord ChanceLor Hon.
and Rev. A. Curse*, dec.
Under Msstership of Chelmsford Grammar School, Eve:,
salary 1001.; mambo in holy orders.

NAVAL.
ADMIRALTY, JAN. 17. ArrourniENTS.—Crocodile
Mertes asmstant : J. N. Giles. Glarlin!or—Chirl :
G. 01 wain. Midshipman : C H. Bramwell. Nay cadet:
C. F. U Urquhart. Castor—Midshipman : 8. M. Comber.
Nverb —Naval cadet: J. B. Warren. Prince Reg nt—
lilidibioman: A. Traherne.

PANY.—AZBITZATIOIL
In the last term a rule bad been mown] for by Mr. A. J.
Stephens, calling on the directors ef:this company to stow
cause why the applicant should not be famished by them
with a copy of en award made in the matter of an arbitration
between himself and the company, of which they were the
directory. The applicant was the owner of certain land which
was required for the purpose of the company, and her/ been
taken possession of under the Ititlway Aet. The applicant
claimed compensation to the amount of 6,9281., and his claim
was r,-ferred to arbitration, but :offense's between
the arbitrators, an umpire was appointed by talrtele2
way com-
pany, and that gentleman was attended by counsel, sad
having heard evidence on the part of the claimant, and coun-
sel's observations on the part of the directoes.made an award.
The directors refused to take up this award, and the termini
the act gave the applicant no power to do so, but, summing
that the directors would take up the award, gave an at.pli
seat the right to have a copy of it. Of course, if it wee .not
taken up, no cony could be given, and the applicant was Lit
wittiest a remedy.
The Court refused the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAB.—YESTERDA7.
SUITING& AT Mu PLlTS.—tirroat Mo. JOETWE TALTOIIiIs AND A
Coomos Jr
HARRISON O. WATSON. -INS LONDON AND WESTYINSTIO•

LOAN SOCIITY.
Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr. B. James were counsel for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Miller, with whom was another
learned gentleman, represented the defendant.
From the opening statement of the learned eerjc ant it ap-
peared that the plaintiff was a butcher, cart yin" cn business
in Duke-street. Linala's inn Gelds, and also secretary to the
London and Westminster Loan Society, whose offices were
in the plaintiff's house. The defendant wne a baker, having
two shops, one in Fleet4treet and the other in Holborn. in
the month of July, 1847, the defendant was in a rate of po
cuniary embarrassment, end he applied to the London and
Westminster LA* Society to lend him the sum of 3001.,
which they agreed to d t for two years, at the rate of ten per
cent. interest. As security for the repayment of the money
to the loan scciirty, the plaintiff and toe defendant signed a
joint and weevil ptomaine note, which was handed over to'
a Mr. Wslby, sae of the directors of the loan
society to hold u trustee for the society. The defendant
had paid some small sums to the society, altogether amount-
ing to a sum under 401. The remainder of the debt, how-
ever, subitqueatly became hopelessly in arrest, and the
plaintiff, as the 4r:indent's surety, had teen called upon to
pay the sum of 251. by the loan society, to whom he was still
liebl,, and he therefore brought the present action against
the defendant to recover the amount which Le had paid on

his baba.
The that witness called was Mr. Henry Clarke, who stated
that in the year 1847 ho was clerk to the plaintiff, who was
the secretary to the London and Westminster Loan Society_
Iti July, 1847, the defenthut applied to the society to lend
him 300!. The signatures to the promissory note now pro
duced were thole of the plai eiffend the defendant. Winton
SAW four cheques paid to the defendant. Two cheque', one
ir 1001., the other for 401, were paid on the 7th of July,
1847, one ter 601. on the 14th July, and one for 471. 14e. Bd.
on the 20 h of July, maki g altogether the sum of
:371 14e. 81 received by the defendant; 601. wee deducted
from the 3001. for interest, and 2/. 61. 4d. for expenses.
Cron-examined by Mr. Miller—The agreement for the
loan was redueed to writing, and witness was the attest-
ing_ witness to it.
The agreement was here put in and read. It stated that
the defendant authorised the Plaintiff to hold the leases con-
nected with his relent a in Fleet-,treat as a security ft r the
repayment of the 3001., and that, if the plaintiff theuld be
sued for having accepted the promissory note, then the de-
fendant would exec ate a mortgage to the plaintiff of the
premises in Fleet street.
Cross ex .mination oentinned—The plaintiff, as tier dary
to the Loan S'rtiety, was paid 3d. a week by each person who
borrowed money, and 6d. on their reentering their LAWS in
the kooks of the *witty and receiving a book of its rut ..
The defendant called at the (face of the society, and wish_d
to borrow 6001. upon the lease of his premises in Fleet-
street. The pleiatiff told him to leave the lease and he
would lay the matte before the directors. When the defen-
dant called Pepin I.e WAS informed that the sum of 3001.
would be lent him. Witnees copied the agreement produced
from a copy which he had in the office. The defendant was
to repel the lean in weekly instalments of six puunus, womb
was afterwards lowered to three pound".
Mr. Pencil, a director of the London and Westmiaster
Loan Society, proved that the plaintiff had paid the society
261. on account of the pronnuery note.
Hr. Miller then proceeded to ad.rtess the jury for the de-
fiant. He said the present action was one of the most :Wel
and at the same time most flimsy in its character that hid
ever been brought into a court of justice, and be thought,
wh..n the jury had heard the whole case, they would not he-
sitate to return a verdict f r the deleudant. The jury wet*
aware until recently notate of interest of above o per eene
was legal. It had, however, been Lund that that law
some cases preand 11 F ray upon the mercantile and corate e'-
cial community, and an alteration was made in the lair, by
weigh it was rendered legal to charge a higher ra•is of inte-
rest en bills of exchange which were to ran within a sexton
time limiteu by the act of parliament. Sy the 2nd and 3rd
of Viet., cap. 37, sec. 1, it was provided that this rule
should not apply to cases where imp land. tenements, or
hereditament', or any estate or interest therein, wee • made
use of as a security. In the present awe these could he no
doubt but that the main security held by the loan society
was the lease of the drtendent's premises, and that the pro-
inisaory note wee merely a colourable transaction, to e nahl,
them, as they though, legally to charge tin per et n'
interest on the transaction, which they could not do ou a
security of the kind refund to in the a, t of parliament
which be had quoted. A witness had been cello! to prove
it at the plaintiff paid the compsny 261., but that was a
mats twee, as there was o doubt but that the mon, y was
retuned to him again. He submitted there ought to be a'
verdict for the dertedant, as it was clear that v.. security
upon which tee company advanced e as one upon which may 5
per cent. interest could be charged. It was said that the
defendant paid only ten per cent. interest for the mon.y
her when it was remembered that he was to pay weekly
61. cc 31, mei that the loan was foe two yeas, tt at made
the interest between two Ltd three hundred per cent. The
learned counsel conducte d a v ry able spot cle by submitting
that the promissory note was not a bona Ale security, but
was only given to cover the illegality of the other par. of
the transaction.
Mr. Justice Tattooed, in summing up, left it to the jury
to say whether they believed the leas* was deptisited with
the plaintiff, and ins writt. n sentiment entered into as a
security, wire= tko lantiff was to hold as the agent of the
Loan Society, or was it merely a private security given to
the plaintiff to secure him for having accepted the Fronde
wry note. If they en wend the fist question in the dile-
manes, they would find their verdict the the defendant.
The jury found a verdict fey the defendai,t, expressing
their opinion that the lease was deposited with the plaintiff,
and the agreement toured into, as the agent of the loan
society.
8re137.111 or TUE COOL/2.
Mr. Justice Tattooed stated that the court would et at
Nisi Moos at Guildhall to-morrow, and If necessary would
sir there again on Monday neat, as some of the ju lees from
the Common Pleas would have to attend the Court 0,
Criminal Appeal, which would sit on Saturday next.

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 18, 1850,

There was nothing is the covenant to Jude/ the shorter of
it. two routes indicated, to be Tesurted to. TM 1,0001. was
a penalty is point of fact, although it was described as
" liquidated damages" in the deed. iteehles the restrictions
in the convenient were mousey to pablie policy, sad alto-
nether invalidated it. This mist was rolled on as grounds
fur arresting the judgment.
The Court bald that the defeniant was not entitled to a
rule on either of the grounds alleged. The stipulation was
revionablet and expressly stated. It was not contrary to
bound,
policy, se a restraint upon trade, and the court felt
bound, therefore, to give effect to the intention of the
parties, as plainly espy:laid in the deed, and to protest the
plaintiff. They ware also of opinion that the learned baron
bad not misdirected tha jury. The mode adopted for mea-
suring the distance was the correct one. As to the motion
to arrest judgment, that question altogether depended on
the feet, whether the covenant was illegal by which the
defendant bound himself not to reside within two miles and
a half of his fanner residence. They were of
opinion that that was a very fair and reasonable copula
tioo. The practice might be worth little oc nothing if
the defendant was to be at liberty to live within such a die-
taries as to interfere with the plaintiff's r7ghts, for which he
had paid a very considerable sum of money. As to the re-
duction of the damages to one shilling it was impossible for
the court to say that the parties who expressly stipulated
they should be 1,0001., might rot have ascertained their pro
bable amount beforehand. It was certain that the damages
eririeg from en infringement of the covenants of the deed
were uncertain and not such as could be ascertained precisely
by calculation. The parties had stipulated what their
amount ought to be, land on that ground there wee no reason
for disturbing the verdict —The rule was refused generally.

SHERIFFS COURT.—Y6BTERDAY.
Herons Ma. thenzarperrr
BORNI V. WILCOX AND ANOTNEII —FAIAI UP/160MM
This was a writ of inquiry to assess the damages in at.
action for false imprisoment, the defendant having suffered
judgment to go by default.
Mr. Harry appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Prentis in
mitigation of damages.
Toe learned counsel, in stating the cam to the jury,
said that the plaintiff was an old man. 77 years of age,
end during • long residence of 60 years at Stoke
Hammond. near Leighton Buzzard, in Buckinekansabire,
he had maintained an unblemished reputation. He followed
the occupation of a horse dealer, and was in the habit of
attending country fairs, end on the 17th of May last he
attended Binbury (sir, where he met the defendant Wil-
cox, who was a substantial farmer in Ozfordshire. The
plaintiff bought a horse from the defendant for 61., and they
went to the Plough public-house, in order to settle the bar-
pin ; plaintiff paid the money and the defendant left the
house, but had not been long absent when he returned with
the constable of the parish and gave both the plaintiff and
his son into custody ; and not satisfied with keeping them
cnnfined in a room, Letts, the constable, by the defendant
Wilcox directions, resorted to the most unnecessary vio-
lence, having handcuffed the old man and his eon together,
end compelled them to sleep in that position all night.
They both frequently requested Wilcox and Letts to tell
'hem what °Same they had committed, but neither Lett*
nor Wilcox would do so, until they took them before
a magistrate, who resided three miles from the Plough.
They arrived there about twelve o'clock next day, after being
twenty hours in custody, and when the mogiatrate heard the
charge he told the detendents t. they were fools for their
pains," and ordered the plaintiff and his son to be discharged
tram custody. This, the learned counsel submitted, was a
very aggravated case, and he begged the jury would take
into their serious consideration the Peeped age of the plain-
tff and the total absence of any justification on the part of
the defendant, who not only put the law in motion upon an
anf-unded charge against the plaintiff, but added to it insult
and precast violence, which in any case was totally unne-
cessary. Ile therefore called upon the jury to mark their
sense of the injury inflicted upon the plaintiff by awarding
him such ample damages as would compensate in some mea-
sure for the false and unfounded imputations upon his cha-
racter and reputation.
Jonathan Horne, the plaintiff's son, was examined, and
his evidence in chief clearly proved the above facts.
In crapezaminatien by Mr. Prentis, he stated that the
horse which his father bought of Wilcox was sold by his bro-
ther, John Horne, a few days before fr 121 to the di (cad-
ent. He denied most positively that fie knew the horse was
glandered, or that • " plug fell out of his nose" on the day
his brother sold him to Wilcox, and whilst be was taking
him home.
Mr. Peentis then prcceeded to address the jury in mitiga-
tion of damages, in the course of which he contended that
the plaintiff and his sons had conspired together for the pur-
nom!, of cheating the defendant. He purchased the horse of
Lint Horns for 12e, end the father bought him back for 61,
one-half what he bad paid. He did not attempt to justify
the defendant., although Lett., in law, had some justifica-
tion ; but, as he had nerknted to take advaatsge of his
ptivilege of being a constable, he must now abide the cones-
quencs, and take an equal share of the damage awarded,
with the defendant Wilcox. Wilcox had decidedly com-
mitted an error is law. The selling a glandered horse was
an offence punishable in criminal courts, and instead of giv-
ing them into custody he should have applied to a justice of
the peace for • warrant for their apprehension.
The learned Under-Sheriff, in summing up, said that the
only question for the jury was the amount of damage the
plaintiff was entitled to. It was clear the defendants bad
done wrong, and they both admitted that fact, therefore,
they were both equally liable. It was an offence, and a
very serious one, to poop a glandered lapse for sale in a
put.lic piece. It was dangerous, nut only to horses, but also
to human beings, and the criminal law of the land t ro-
tided a suitable punishment fur such an offence, but there
was no direct evidence that the animal was Wandered. Nei-
ther the plaintiff aor the defendants had thought proper to
'might: it the jury on the point, therefore, it must go for
a biog. They did not, however, sit there to proeccute the
defendant, but to deal out such amount of damage as the
plsinCflought reasonably to have for the injury inflicted
They were told that Wile:: was • substantial farmer but
'here was no pr of that he was. It would, therefore,
be well to dismiss that from their minds, and only take.
into consideration such facts as were pr.ved before them.
A Jurymen asked what amount of damages the ',Lana
claimed.
The learned Under-sheriff told him that it did not matter
what the amount was that he claimed. The sum inserted
in the pleadiags was a mete matter of form. There was,
however, no harm iu telling the gentlemen of the jury the
rem claimed—it w-s 3C01; but they must not estimate the
Isintiff 's character at his own valuation.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 151.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—VESTERDAY.

Barone Till CIII) I COIIIIIIMIONEk
IN THI ILATTRIS OP JOHN BROWN.—SCILDING SPECU-
LATIONS.
This insolvent, a builder, applied to be discharged.
It appeared that he had been dircbarged uudi r the act
in he year 1840. and was a bankrupt in 1815, when he ob.
Warn. his certificate. . .

The Chief Commissioner asked him how he now came to
owe suet, a mars ot dates as appeared on his schedule. They
were 12 5601.—The ihsolvent said he had been engaged in
buil:ing sptcnovions nt Wslliegton-street and Hardwick-
street, lime-road. Islington.
' It appeared that he had tAten lend for building purposes,
and erected hews. He had inserted all his crediton in the
schedule, whether seeuro d or otherwise.
The vs, was adjourned to serse a creditor, subjeet to
which the insolvent to be discharged.

THE POLICE COURT&
MARLBOROUG II STREET.
CHAIOE 07 TAKING ILLEGAL POSSEqRION..—JOSeph
Whiteside, Henry l'rosser,James May, andlVilhans Hughes,
'our labouring men, were brought before Mr. Binge ass,
there'd with having forcibly and illegally taken possession
of the White Bear Hotel, Piccadilly.
Mr. Beckett, a solicitor, said it would be necessary to
make a short statement to show the character of the offence
the defendants bad committed. Some time ago the lease of
the White Bear Hotel was purchased by a person named
Jones. The new lessee put in a manager named Jackson,
who up to the present time carried on the business of the
hotel. Jones made alterations in the house, and was obliged
to borrow money. The Law Life-olliee lent 1,0001. on the
lean, ta, and Jackson became security for the amount.
Jones became embarrassed, and could not repay the 1,0001.
and consequently the Law Life office put in a bill of tale and
took posses ion. Jones was out of the way, and could nowhere
i be found. Mrs. J ones, however, bad that day made her appear-
ance with the defendants at the bar, turned the occupiers and
lodgers oat of the hotel, and taken possession of it. Toe
defendants wen given into custody and brought to that
to. art to answer for their conduct. Mrs. Jones bad lock.d
her-telt in one of the rooms, and refused to open the door.
'the defendants said they had be n authorised by Mrs.
Jones to act as her servants.
Mr. Bieghemexplaned to the defendants the impropriety
of the course which they bad a'opted, and required that
they should promise not to go near the house again.
The defendants gave the to quired promise, and on eriftr-*
leg into their own recogniare a were liberated.
THAMES.
DARtNO Taiseese.—George Evans and Henry Sterols
were 'Lally examined, charged with stealing a chimney-
gl. es. value 7 'purees, and a carpet, value 21, from the
dwelling-honor, No. 16, Nelson-street, Stepney. Between 6
:.n 7 o'clock is the evenivg of the 4*h iost. the person veto
resides next doer sae a person piping Jew:, No. 16, whic%
woe but newly taken by a Mrs. Jarvis. Shortly afterwards
she raw a person come out with what appeared to be a large
carpet, in which he folded something and 4;ok it away. She
told her lon to bring a constable, who returned with Pyc,
11l K. They heard two persons whispering inside, and in a
!Me time the she tier poi ener (Evans) opened the door and
pasted out. rye put his foot inside the door, so es to k, tp it
op n, and asked three times what they were doing there.
Evans at length r. plied, "That is ro bininees of yours," and
then calling to the person inside, said. " Idr. Greene, here is a
constable wants to know what we are doing here on
sour premises." Pye, who was not to be so easily taken in,
i* sent d on knowing more of the matter, and directed Mrs.
N. shun to bring a light, o.i which the parties inside made
towards the kitchen pursued by the constable, who heard
teem throw something in the direction of tee fireplace.
When the light came lie found the prisoners in the apart-
ment, and immediately conveyed them to the station-house.
On sub cqueinly returning to Nelson street, he found on the
kitchen Sear, near the fireplace, a skeleton key which opened
the street-door from within and without, and mother
skeleton key fel out of the stove when it was raked on the
t suing Sunday. The chimney glass and carpet were im
'sedately mined. The house was slept in every night for
the security of the furniture by a person who did not think
that thieves would attempt an entrance at ma early an hour.
Tie prisoners, who made no defence, wen hilly con-
tained for Wel.