The Express.
London, England, 1868-08-14 00:00:00

tome., durkg the month of Julie, and that be would
nedertake that his Wiser week' pee the money up.
The lame day one of the messengers in the Bankruptcy
Court was sent up to Moss's house at Oesett. and
after he had been there some time without receiving 'the
money the bankrupt arrived, and held a eonveriatioll with
Moe, who, it now appeared, knew nothing whatever
about the EININe7 which-the *sour had said tint he had
in his peememson. The baahrupt then fetched the
ey from some place where he had had it concealed,
and desired his father to pay it over to the of On
being examined subsequently before the registrar, the
bankrupt admitted the falsity of his denials respecting the
money. and further that it was also untrue about his
father having known anything about the money.
The jury found the prisoner Gielrg, and
The learned Commissioner, in sentenee, said it
was the clearest and mart scandalous case of an attempt
to defraud creditors of their mosey that be had ever
heard.
The prisoner was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment
with hard labour.

24011111ERN CIRCIIIT.—LryzarooL, Ava. 13.
Nisi Paws Counr.—(Before Mr. Justice Hannon.)
BANDBOX v. =3171410N BANKING AND INTROTJUDIT COM-
PANY (Leurran).
In this ewe, Mr. Holker, Q.C.t and Mr. Cottingham
were for the plaintiff, Mary Harrison, a widow, who re-
sides with her brother at Hannon, in Leicestershire ;
Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and Mr. Leresehe far the defendants,
whocarry on buiineesat Bolton. . The action was to re-
cover some title-deeds which the defendants alleged in
their pleadings had been deposited with them as security
for certain advances of money. They also traversed the
property in.the deeds, and pleaded further thakthey did
not detain them. The Plaintiff's case was that the deeds
were deposited with the defendants by her daughter-in-
law under the following circumstances. After e'death
of her husband, Mrs. Harrison saved a sum of money ;
and in August, 1862, she resided with her son, John Har-
rison, at Berlford Leigh, near Manchester, in a cuttage,
whiff with an adjoining one, she purchafied for the sum
of 240/. odd. In the following August her brother's wife
died, and at his request she went to live with her brother
in Leicestershire as his housekeeper. The title-deeds of
her property were left in a hoe at her son's house, and
she instructed him before leaving to receive the rents on
her behalf. In December, 1866, her eon's wife, unknown
to her husband, got into debt with a shopkeeper named
Dean, in the neighbourhood of Bedford Leigh, to the
amount of 121. or 141., and being pressed for payment she
got possession of the deeds, and in company with Mrs.
Dean took them to defendants' bank in Bolton in tho fol-
lowing June, and received an advance upon them of
271. Subsequently further advances were made to
the amount altogether of upwards of 601., the
plaintiff's daughter-in-law and the woman Dean signing
joint promissory notes for the repayment of the money.
Subsequently the plaintiff's son end. his wife quarrelled,
and having received a letter from her son in ecember
last, the plaintiff went to Bedford Leigh, and was in-
formed of what bad taken place. The daughter-in-law
apologised for her conduct, and handed over the docu-
ments she had received from the banking company. The
plaintiff had since that time demanded the deeds, brit de-
fendants refused to deliver them.
The learted counsel contended, ou behalf of defendants,
that the case put forward by plaintiff was not only a very
lamentable one, but that, if true, the person concerned in
pledging the title deeds had been guilty of a very serious
crime. The facts, however, could not be altered, and
the question for the jury to settle was whether John
and Mary Harrison had not received the authority of the
plaintiff to pledge the deeds. The attesting witness to
the deposit being dead, they had only the signature of the
plaintiff s daughter-in-law and one, which the plaintiff
herself had made in court, to judge by.
His Lordship drew attention to the fact that in sup-
port of the plaintiff's case there was the positive evidence
of the plaintiff herself that she had not given authority to
pledge
.the deeds, and the evidence of the witness Dean,
who joined the plaintiff's daughter-in-law in the
promis-
sory note to the bank. He saw nothing to nags ve the
evidence, and thought it would be hopeless to struggle
against a verdict for the plaintiff. He nevertheless con-
sidered it a very proper case to investigate.
Mr. If olker remarked that a great Traub bad been per-
petrated, and those who committed it ought to be severely
punished. _
His Lordship then directed a verdict for the plaintiff to
be entered for the sum of 2401., to be redum.vl to le. on
the deeds being delivered up.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Chief Baron Kelly.)
BRUTAL MANBLAUOTITIR OP

John Jackson (53) wee indicted for killing Lie wife, at
Birkett-bank, near Wigan, on the 22nd of June bud. The
prisoner came home drunk, and found his wife out and
the door locked. When she returned he quarrelled with
her, and kicked her to such an extent, chiefly in the lower
part of her body, that she crawled to an outhouse, and
there died almost immediately.
The learned Judge said that during a long life he had
never heard of a more brutal and remorseless case..

-
Jackson was sentenced to 14 years' penal servitude.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—BniSTOL, ArrouST 13.
Null earna—(Before Baron Channell.)
The court during the last two days has been occupied
with two cases that have created much local interest.
The first, Brown r. Thomas, was in connection with
the sale of a number of mining shares, and with
respect to which some serious charges were made. The
evidence, as the learned judge remarked, was very con-
flicting. The question left to the jury was whether the
defendant disposed of the shares in question, knowing
that the statements he made to the plaintiff were false.
The learned counsel for the defence did not think it
necessary to address the jury, who after a long consulta-
tion returned a verdict for the defendant.
The next case, Brown v. Hawkins and others, was one
of libel, the plaintiff being a Bristol attorney, and the de-
fendante the printers and publishers of the Western
ifo)-ning Newt.
Mr. Prideaux, Q.C., Mr. Cole, Q.C., and Mr. Edlin
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., M.P.,
Mr. Kingdom Q.C., and Mr. Lopes, M.P., for the de-
fendants. The damages were laid at 6,00 W.
The charge was that the plaintiff, at Plymouth, had
sought the fraudulent establishment of a benefit building
society, and had sent out circulars giving names of in-
fluential persons as managing directors without their
authority. The libel appeared in the Western Morning
News, in October, 1866, as follows :
11 • c•trnom
" A prospectus has been printed and circulated of the
Permanent Six per Cent. Investment Society.' This
prospectus contains, amongst others, the name of Mr.
Saunders, the managing proprietor of the Western Morn-
ing !Ctrs. This name less been inserted without any
authority from Mr. Saunders, and a letter in another column
shows that at least three other names have been intro-
duced equally without the knowledge or sanction of the
gentlemen themselves. We should have imagined that
the exposure which has followed similar attempts to use
names without authority for the purpose of obtain-
ing public support which would not otherwise be given,
would have prevented any renewal of the attempt. In
this instance the case appears to be of a peculiarly auda-
cious character. If any one takes the trouble to read the
us he will naturally feel surprised that such a
prospectus lie will naturally feel surprised that such a
document should he issued in connection with the names
that appear upon the opposite page. The prospectus
states that ' This society m restricted by law from invest-
ing any moneys except on mortgage of houses and lands
. . . and it may be confidently affirmed that the secu-
rity to investors is superior to pnvute mortgages, or even
to the Three per cent. comets, though yielding more than
double the interest of console.' The society professes to
issue 'debenture shares bearing six per cent. interest,
payable half-yearly, with the punctuality of the govern-
ment funds: It also professes to receive de-
posits of any amount, bearing interest at five per
cent., which may be withdrawn on giving 14 days' notice.
As this society is restricted by law from investing any
moneys except on mortgage, it is not clear how the do-
venters are to be repaid when they desire to withdraw
their amounts ; but perhaps such manifest difficulties as
these can be easily surmounted by managers who do net
hesitate to use other people's names without their con
sent. It is surprising that money can be obtained from
the public upon such manifestly absurd • ; but it
probably expected that many persons will read the named
of the ' council of management' who do not read the
prospectus, and that the apparent soundness of the one
will compensate for the obvious folly of the other.'
After protracted evidence had been heard,
Mr. Co en first submitted upon 'event grounds,
which he specified, that there was no case to go to the
jury, and the plaintiff must be nonsuited.
Mr. Baron Mennen said he could not say that there
was no evidence for the jury to consider.
Mr. Coleridge then delivered a vary able speech for the
defendants, contending that in the first place the article
complained of was only a fair commentary quite within
the license which the law and the policy of the age
accorded to the newspaper pries ; and secondl that
supposing the bounds of fair legitimate criticism lo have
been passed, the remelts bad been shown even upon the
evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses fully justified by
the facts. The learned counsel analysed the evidence, and
confidently appealed fora verdict for the defendants.
Mr. Baron Munson, in summing up, explained that
commentary was not libellous if within fair
paper
and it would be for the jury to say whether or
not they considered that those kende had been exceeded.
The jury were locked up, end (as we learn by tele-
gram) were discharged at a late hour, being unable to
agree.
This doses the assize.

NORTH WALES ClRCUlT.—Cairants,
Allover 13.
Caws Cover.—(Before Mr. Justio• Smith.)

THE =lnn 110T8 AT nonisanzim.
Isaac Stone*, 24, weaver ; John Ashworth, 20, stripper;
William Shaw 26, moulder ; Corwoliwo Karam, 18,
placer • and John Silky 31, briCiEDISkET, were found
guilty 'of riotously assembling to disturb the publiopeaoe,
at Dukingeld, on the 11th May last. The riots were a con-
tinuation of those at Ashton and Stalybridge, and esch of
the defendants was proved to have taken part in thom.
His lordship, in sentencing them to six months' impel-
sonmeht eacE, Mill he should have been inclined 113 give
them a much more severe punishment but for the 'preps.
dent established in an adjoining county (Imemmehire).

o • , k 1343, "
THZ EXp,