The Express.
London, England, 1850-03-14 00:00:00

VIII 3 latelitatiltf.

The verdict was neeieed wits a loud deawastration of
applauee, whkh wa with difficult, etteeked. T►e prism. r
was ordered to be immediately dieeharged.

COURT OF BANKRUPITY.—YIISTUDAY.
Boom his. Cowassoonaa ihroat&POOlL
IN IN BLAIN AND PIANC/3 —VANINALL GAIDNNII.
TM. was tee tort illtve meting in the author of these
bankrupts, Hoary Main and Charles Theme Pram, do-
earthed ea et Vas:ball Gardens, wise It will be
reellested that the eanknepts passed their lar imusinstre
oa the 11th of January last, sad that Blala had been a bank-
rupt in 1835 or 1836.
The private balante-shest of Blahs shows measured 'trai-
tors amounting to 2022 ; sorts, resisting of good debte,29sl.
His liabilities amounted to 7611., *arra, a liability of 631.
oa the part of Baton Von Botha.
This estate of C. T. Pears showed debts to s etaell mount,
the seers being stated as nearly racier to pay 20s la the
powsd.
The joist balsam sheet, extending from Marsh. 1849, to
October, 1849. showed the Wowing multi:—To sundry
"Mitre, 2,6191.; joint capital, 4001. ; profits se set forth
.n the Royal Vanshall Gardens amount, 7,3201. ; by pro
petty. 04 Os. Od. ;" Vauzhall Orden earners, 9,6931. ;
parries drawings, 2011 ; losses on property, 4001.
The Bagel Vauxhall Gerdes, ',coast is as allows:—To
gooletrottard and paid for, 3,1861.; goods purchased sad
un • 711 i. ; to Risley, his abate of the rotunda noeipts,
6121 gray gross profits, 7.3191 ; by receipts at the gardens,
derived tress all sources, 11,9391.
The fiat was issued epos the bankrupts' own petition,
upon the 11* of October, 1849.
Mr. Mors, solicitor to the relies's, offered no opposition.
Bill Bower having rotnarked apes the necessity of keep-
ing s esal-ibook, which had not bre done in this case. sad
the experass weeding the profits, suspended the certificate
of • eh bankrupt for al MlNlthe, whin gusted to be of the
third also, and protection ti be grated in the earn while.

NORFOLK OlRCUlT.—Ael.eallliftY, MARCH 13.
Dances Ins Lows Cam limos
ATT NNNNN D ASeallainATlox.
George Arnold was elisrged with the capital offence of
atteng to murder William Niue, bookseller, Stoney
fttraten the 10th of July. He was ales charred is
the eakesese wish maimldsg and wounding Um Mims.
and with week iseemeek es ke set fire be the premises of
the prosseuter sod Wiz. Oao of the latter bills,
however, was fgswai by the grand jury, sad the other wee
not presented. He pleaded not guilty to the charge of at-
tempting Mr. Nixes's lit, and was defended by Mr.
Power- The prosecution was condoetel by Mr. Prude/.
gesaeQ.C. and Mr. Sanders.
evident* adduced by the promotion went to show
tree Amid, who case was in a respectable station of life,
meented, lee years age, the mien of the prosecutor. He
teamed eediargatie, however, end went to London, his
wife sad remaining in the charge of Mr. Nixon. He
addressed a series of 'dun to Mr. Dime from
time to than being an educated meet, end in
one of the., after demanding mosey, he stated
that be was a of great powers of mind for good or
bed,edeemmheeg terrible mut happen. Mr. Niece de-
stroyed these letters, sad latterly took no nodes of them.
Oa the 10th July Mr. Nixon went to gin some ceders about
his property ; and while standing with Mr. Wells, a plan
tam, prisoner, who had arrived from awn, came up and
fired • 1 isice at him, standing at the time within a few feet
of him. Mr. Nizon was wounded is the neck, and very nor.
rawly moped with his life. A bullet was found &few yards from
the spot immediately afterwards, and medical gentlemen
were called in, who administend the proper remedies. The
primmer went to the house of Mr. Nixon and attempted to
tire the premises, sad proceeded to do other mis
chief, when he was apprkended. He wee asked by
one of the wadies' moo, Surely you did not intend to
kid Mr. Nixon I" He nplaid, I don't know that."
Another witness heard the prisoner before this attempt
threaten the life of Mr. Nixon, or that of
his child, rather thanallow ft to be lea-
der the guardianship of one like the prementee.
When searched, powder and ballets were found is the pow
session of Arnold. The ballet which was kind die set gt
the barrel of the pistol finely, and this might esesnat for
the failure of the shot.
la defence, it was pleaded that the prisoner had attempted
his own life, the marts of which he bore upon him, sad that
he was a man liable to greet encitement. The jury were
warned to he °amid la finding a verdict which millet for-1
fait the life of a tallow creature, and were saked to look epos
the act as an nesse one.
His Lordship commented upon the animates of the plea
of insanity, seeing that no evidence was produced to prove
such a state of mind, although it was eight months since
the deed was committed, and told the jury that it would be
mat dangerous, if not entirely fatal, to the peace of the
country if a plea annuity wen to be rat up, merely upon
the circumstaesses of rash and excitable acts.
The jury found a verdict of Guilty on the first count of
the indictment
finesses was defined.
Elacitn.xon.
Homy Drury, 16, and George Cuirerhouee, 18, were
charged with breaking into the parish church of Great Mis-
undoes, and stealing fifty prayer-books, a number of psalm
and hymn books, and other articles, used in the service of
the church.
Mr. Sandals, for the prosecution, went on to prove that
the chuck wes entered by a window, and nearly all the
bibles, prayer books, &a., taken' and their Donns
torn from them, and scattered in the church-
yard. The prisoners, on the day the robbery was dis-
covered, made their appearance at a public home in the
neighbourhood, bearing three large bundles of the muti-
lated books. They said to the landlady that they found the
books and would leave them with her for a few days, and
that if no owner wee found they would claim them, sad
advertise the lots. The Chief Baron told the learned counsel
that the boys acted in all respects like innocent parties, and
he advised the jury to antait them. This was dons. Then
G little doubt that the church was broken into for the sake
of its 'deer plate ; but the thieves finding DO ouch booty,
maliciously destroyed the books, and left them in the place
where the boys picked them op.
CHADOR OF MADBLAVOUTIR AGAINST AN OTanallaa.
The overseer of the parish of Marsh Gibbon was charged
with having feloniously produced the death of a tick pauper,
George Lockett, on the 10th of January last.
Mr. Mills appeared for the pre 'notion ; Mr. Power de
fended Mr. Jones, the overseer, who is a respectable farmer.
Lengthened evidence was produced to prove that the de•
aimed pauper was conveyed, whilst in a dying state, from
Marsh Gibbon to the union-house at Buckingham, in com-
pany with his daughter, also in a state of sickness. They
were discovered lying in a most filthy cottage belonging to
the University of Oxford, and lying upon a bed which was
described by the witnesses u no better than a dungheap.
The deceased had nothing but a wet shirt about him, and
was perfectly speechless. The medical officer gave an
ceder for Ws immediate removal, as the parish was
in danger of pestilential disease so long se he
remained in that state. Accordingly, a covered cart was
got, and the overseer employed men to convey both father
anil daughter to the union. The deceased was placed in the
cart, after being covered with a large " winding sheet," and
a lot of straw was laid down in it. When the cart had
travelled three miles, the driver looked at his patient, sad
found him quite dead, but when they set out he was alive.
A charge was, therefore, attempted to be fastened upon the
overseer of having ben; guilty of great inhumanity in re-
moving the man in such a state, and without providing ssf-
ficiently for his journey. The winnows, however, admitted
that the situation of the deceased was greatly improved in
point of comfort by his removal from the filthy "dung
heap" to the cart. Upon this " dung heap ' he had
been allowed to lie for many days. The Chief Baron
with great energy stopped the cue. He said it was an ex-
ceedingly grievous Wog to find such neglect in a chriatian
sountry, but the grief which they felt must not be revenged
epos a public officer, who evidently had acted up to his
ceders, and who could not do otherwise than remove the
dying man, it being certified to Mr. Jones that the parish
was in danger of pestilence. His lordship felt that the
prosecution against the overseer was totally unwarrmited.
fhe jury having the same feeling, Mr. Jones was acquitted.
In the souse of the day the grand jury made a presentment
to connexion with this lamentable case, to the effect that
another party named King should be indicted for man-
slaughter, and his lordship observed that the grand jury
were pettedly in plan in what they had done, any their
roosatinant would be attended to.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.-LINCOLN, MAnn 12.
Cl7lllOOl CAS■ or BIGAMY. _

James Gowen was indicted for having married on the Bth
of February, 1848, at Coningsby, during the lifetime of
Maria, his lawful wife, cue Elie. Leary ; and Minis Gowen
was charged on a separate indictment with having married
is October, 1848, during the lifetime of her lawful husband
(the above James Gowen), one John Sleight. Japan Gowen
pleaded guilty, bat Mr. O'Brien, who appeared for the
female prisoner, objected to the certificate of the second
marriage, she having been married at the Methodist chapel
at Herncastle, and there being no evidence to show that the
chapel in question was duly licensed for the solemnisation of
marriages. The objection was neld to be fatal, and the
woman was acquitted.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Your, MARCH 12.

81MCIAL JUST.
LATCOCI v. PICIILLY.—Bazaca ON Padk ten o
MMIRIAOI.

Mr. Berjeaat Wilkins stated the ease. The plaintiff is the
daughter of a respectable tradesman at Sheffield, who is
engaged in the manufacture of horse hair cloth for sofa and
chair seating. In 1843 the defendant was articled to a soli-
citor in Sheffield, and shortly he began to pay some attention
to the plaintiff. Foe some purpose or other it became neces-
sary that he should go to America, and in the course of an
interview with the plaintiff's brother previous to hie doing
so, he requested that he might be permitted to writs to her
during his absence, and to visit and pay his addresses to her
on his return. Thin was communicated to theenfg lad),
t

and she offered no objection. Shortly after this thi n.
was at the house of the plaintiff's father, and the family
having gone out to take a walk to the Botanic Gardens, the
defendant asked to be permitted to walk with the plaintiff
alone, as he wished to make certain statements to
her before he left England for America. He had
that interview with her, and soon afterwards he
sailed for America. On his return at the expiration of six
months he conuneased badness as a eelieitor, and continued
to pay his addressee to this young lady, and in 1844 they be•
came so intimate that she was heeded to the hen, • of the
father of this young man and treated as ote of the family,
end es the person who was to be the defendant's wife. The
plaintiff was about a year younger than the defendant, she
Wins twenty-two and he twenty-three veers of age. Is
1645 the defendant entered into partnership with a gentle-
man mused Sewell, practising at Halstead. Before he went
there he had an interview with the plaintiff's brother, when
he said he had a groat dislike to what he called "scenes,"
and that he did not wish it to be known what his intentions
were, but should the plaintiff's father and mother make in-
quiries he (the brother) should tell them the whole truth—
that he had assured bis lift, in case of his decease, fur
1,0001. or 2,0004., and that in his will he had left
everything to the plaintiff, and, in fact, treated her interests
as though the were already his wife. Whilst at Halstead
the defendant availed himect of an intimacy with the plain-
tiff's relatives residing there, and they showed him every
hospitality and kiadnese. He also, during his stay there,
visited Sheffield, and was received by the plaintiff's family
as one of then. Shortly, however, a dissolution of partner-
ship took place between the defendant and Mr. Sewell, and
the defendant then came Vs Sheffield end began to practise
there, along with a gentleman named Oldham. In 1846 he
left Sbedield, and went into partnership with Mr. Dixon, of
Wakefield, and gradually his affecrion, if he ever had soy, for
the plaintiffoosedaway. The fact was that he had then become
acquainted with a Miss Stutkie, whom he hes sinco twirled.
His conduct sow became so changed, he enbibited such an
utter want of respect for the plaintiff, that her health began
visibly to suffer in consequence. Her brother, under this
state of circumstances, went over to Wakefield to ask the
defendant to come and visit hie sister. He laid before
defendant a picture of her sufferings. How he met Oboe
suff.rlngs the jury would see by his letters. He promised
the brother that he would go to see the plaintiff; bat he
never did Colt her from that day to this, and in the
meantime he married Miss St.rkie. The defendant's
first letter was dated Jannuy 10, 1845, in which he
addressed the plaintiff in these terms : "My own
dear Emily," and be then went on to say that she moat not
' be 'lumen at his beginning in this way his first bowl-tter
to her. IL• wished W begia as he mast W p on. He mu

TTIE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 14, 1850.

anzlous for the snivel of the period when he should be able
to call her his own, and cor.gratulated her that hie uncle w. s
rather fa favour of his marrylni than otherwise, as soca as
to could afford to da so. He locked forward to the time

when they should enjoy tech ether's society, end, all west
on as he expect el, be hoped the plaintiff would sees have as
much to du se sister Patty, who had already got married.
It was foolish to run on in this strain (the de
readmit maid), but be could not refrain from speaking
of that la which his entire happiness was centred, and from
expressing what was constantly upon his mind. He hoped
she would write to him in the same free and unreserved
author, and that if he bad not bean sufilciently explicit in
hie decelerations to her, she would tell him of it He alluded
to the feet that he had urged her to give hint • kiss when he
left her, and observed that he had serious fears that he should
net behave so well when they met spin. (Laughter.) It
we gratifying to him to be assured that she was so great •
fausrits with the inmates of his father's house, and that
dry wale prepared to love her for her owa merits, es well as
• asnmeat of her Intended relation to him. In conclusion
he urged that his letters should not be seen by any per-
ms bat those for whom they wet. intended. In another letter
the defendant appealed to the plaintifi 's love to forgive all
mistakes, pledged his own love in return, and subscribed him-
self, " Yours, most affectionately," To this letter there was
• postscript, in which be apologised for mistakes, which he
attributed to his eyes b. lag heavy on account of being up all
**previous night, and he expressed a wish that he could see
how bright were the eyes of the plaintiff. In January,
1845, he wrote again : "My dear Emily, thank you a them-1
, send times, my darling, for the letter I have received
from you this morning. A few lines from you an
quite cheering." He then alluded to some business
matters, and proceeded to express a wish that he might have
the plaintiff at that time to be his housekeeper, but he sup-
posed he must submit to the dictates of prudence. At the
close of this letter, he said, "I hope you will take care el
yousself, as you know you are not quite your own now."
(Laughter.) In the next letter he was glad to hear that the
plaintiff was in much better spirits, and soured her that
next to seeing her, his greatest pleasure was in hearing from
her, and knowing that she was well. This wee the manner
in which the defendant obtained the confidence of this
young lady, whose character was unsullied and irreproach-
able, as the defendant clearly showed himself, else he would
not have written to her in these terms ; and he referred to
this to show that the defendant bad no just or righteous
ironed for deserting the plaintiff. Is another of his letters
the defendant told the plaintiff that he ha I felt, as he was
coming from church, how happy he should be, if she and
himself could have been together at that time,
and compared their thoughts in full confidence of
each other. What sentiments, the learned serjesnt asked,
did the jury think such statements es these were salculated
to excite? On the 26th of January, the defendant wrote
gain to this effect, "My dearest Emily, although I cannot
see you so often as I used to do, I can however write to you,
and that is some comfort ;" and he then went on to say that
be " loved her better every day." On February 'dud he
alluded to an interview he bad had with some person, who
had told him he had " seen a lady who would soon settle
down in that part of the country," meaning the plaintiff,
and then be said, " I am going to London, will you
give me that kiss 1 I shall not be satisfied till
I get it. (Laughter.) I can't tell you too oftea
how much I love you." Oa the 7th of February,
1845, be acknowledged in • letter how kindly all the plain-
till's relatives had treated him, particularising an aunt of
her's, " who had given him some good fresh butter to take
home with him." (Laughter.) On the 2nd of March he
sell, "In again addressing you, my darling, hem this place,
I can't 'eget our meeting last week. Believe, my dearest,
my whole happiness is bound up in your love. My only
consolation is the hope that one day we shall be tufted to
part no more in this world. Your happiness forms a princi-
pal part of all my hopes and wishes. I trust that you will
always writs and think of me as your best and dearest
friend." Oa the 16th of March, @peals of • wedding, be
says, " You see what work a wedding makes in a lamely. I
do not care how soon I make the same stir in your house. I
au more dissatisfied every day with m solitary condition.
Yoe will recollect there is as old saying, •It Is
not well for man to live alone,' and most heartily
can I respond to it." (Laughter.) In conclusion
he alluded to the furnishing of his house, observing to the
plaintiff, " The chief and long-wished-for ornament is your
own dear self." (Laughter.) On the 31st of March he
wrote, among other things. " You must burn all my lintels
before you go home." Why should she burn all his letters
before she went home ? If the defendant looked upon his
oen letters as he dared say his lordship would, and es a,
great many other people would, then there would be good
reason why he should wish them to be burnt; but when the
jury saw such misgivings on the part of a gentleman who
professed to us • stncere lover, he thought they would be of
opinion that it was not for any very honourable purpose that
he ebbed this young lady to destroy his letters. Tee next
letter was that of the 13th of April, in which the defendant
said, " I still regard myself as a martyr, unties I hear from
you every day or two. You see what • baby I
am." (Renewed laughter.) On the 20th of April, al-
luding to the composition of his letters, be said,
"You may not admire my brilliant qualities, but you must
not love me the less." A week afterwards part of his emu
munication was to this effect, " Really, my darling, if I were
icclined to feel angry with you, I should be so now, for your
supposing Rest I do not value your letters, much as yea
underrate them." Other letters followed iu a similar strain
down to the 25th of May, when the defendant wrote, " I
really am coming down soon, and I will then give you some-
thing far more satisfactory than a letter—on Saturday or
Sunday next; I am afraid I shall behave very ill." (A
laugh.) On the tad of July he spoke of going back to •
cheerless home; but he knew that the plaintifl sometimes
thought of him, and he looked forward to the day when he
should be blessed with her constant presence. He hoped she
still lived and thought of him, as she wished him to do of
her. " I shall be very impatient," he added, " for the en;
of the year:" and in the event of certain results as to his
business, he said, " I shall employ myself in making preps-
rations for you, my love." On the 9th of July he
spoke of arrangements for " the event," and of h's
trying to face all dangers some time next year,
if his business turned out as he expected. He
alluded to • journey to Sedbary, observed bow he should
be "in his glory to be driving the plaintiff out then
beautiful evenings," and concluded, "Don't you think you
had better burn my silly letters now that you have no desk
to put them in." There was another letter on the 19,:h of
July, and then one on the 27th, in which the defendant
said, " I trust you continue to rely as much as ever on my
love fur you." And now the jury would find that this gen-
tleman, having thus entreated the lady to maintain her con•
fider.ce in his affection, being about to leave Halstead, where
her friends and relatives, who were likely to be of advantage
to him, resided, began to cool down in thou attentions to
the plaintiff which he had hitherto evinced. 7be first letter
that was written in this altered style was dated August 26,
and in it he spoke of his uncomfortable situation, of his fear
of being driven into • Chancery suit, and he mentioned the
fact that he had been three days oaths moors, and yet he had
no time to call upon any oats or anywhere. (Laughter.)
On the 31st August there was another letter about his owu
affairs; and the next he would turn to was dated January
12, 1846, in which be again referred to the kiss—he wished
for one, as his lips were very sore. (Laughter.) He hoped
he should see the plaintiff before loop, and then he should
procure the only effectual remedy. He asked in his letter—
"l am very adly ; am I not 1 " Everybody, the leveed
serjeant was sure, would say yes to that. (Renewed laugh
ter.) He went on to say—" Tell me exac how much you
love me." Now, how was it to be measure?
Mr. Granger—By scruples.
Mr. &skean' Wilkins—My learned friend suggests by scru-
ples; but I should say not, for the defendant is the mat
unscrupulous man I ever met with in my life.
(Laughter) In June, 1846, the defendant wrote another
letter to the plaintiff, in which he confined his remarks to a
very few lines, stating that he had not had the chance to
write to her sooner, as he was engaged with some deeds that
must be attended to. The learn. d terjeant proceeded to
read quotations from subsequent letters, in which the de-
fendant offered excuses fcr not visiting the plaintiff, and he
then pointed out bcw the plaintiff gradually became appre-
hensive that there was something wrong, and, in the end,
the fact of her brother going over to Wakefield to see the
defendant. In conclusion the learned minion called upon
the jury to vindicate the rights of human nature, and to
draw from the pockets of this men such an amount of
money as would teach him and others that they are not to
trifle with the happiness of any portion of our species.
Mr. Henry Leycock, the brother of the plaintiff, was the
only witness called in support of the case.
Mr. Martin then addressed the jury for the defendant.
He would ask the jury woother or not his learned friend
was justified in an action brought in 1849, a few week+ after
this young man had married his present wife, and after the
intercourse between the families had ceased for nearly two
yeses. During that time no proceeding of any sort had been
taken—but the moment he marries another *imam, down
comes this action, and down comes Mr. Serjesnt Wilkins,'
who was instructed to use the expressions he had done with
respect to the defendant. He did sot believe that it was the
action of the young lady at all, for if this had been
a real, true, bona fide action, brought to recover
damages in respect of his alleged breach of pro-
mise of marriage, they would have bad that action
brought ere this; but it was now brought for the purpose of
making unhappy the marriage of the defendant with his I
Foment wife ; and for the purpose of wreaking the vn•
seance of the plaintiff upon his client; and it was his opinion
that but for this marriage the action would never have been
brought. Tres learned counsel then noticed the strong eei-
theta which Mr. Berjeant Wilkins had used with respect to
the defendant's conduct in this matter, observing that if
those epithets were deserved, or could properly or see-
rattly apply, then the plaintiff ought to go down on bar
knees and thank Clod that she had escaped him, and not
allow her advocate to ask damages at their hands. (Laugh-
ter.) He believed the plaintiff had acted throughout with
perfect propriety of conduct ; but, owing to some circum-
stance, the defendant had colleted to have that
affection he formerly possessed foe her ; and he
would ask the jury whether • men who may have loved •
win= once, tenderly and dearly, and who bad aloud to
have the same feelings towards her, was that man to commit
the greatest injustice any man can do, by marrying her
under such circumstances 1 It was the duty of the AI. mt.
ant, as a moral and religious man, when those 'dee ions
had been changed, not to marry this woman. After Teter-
ring to the law as applicable to such oases, the learned cote-
eel submitted, from the weeding of two letters, one written
by the &leaden', and the other by the plaintiff in reply,that
there must be en end of this eau, as th'y amounted to •
mutual rgreenient to put an end to the obligation. These
were the letters of the 31st of May and of the 2oct of June.
Relying, as he did, upon the point he had taken, be put it
to his learned friend whether be would allow the csso to. go
further, as he (Mr. Martin) did not ask for • verdict 'genteel
this lady ; and be would much rather that this matter should
drop at mos.
Kr. Berjeant Wilkins reseed to comply, and submitted

f

that then, was 'lathing ht the point which Mr. Martin had
1 taken.

Mr. Dern Alderson did rot think that the letters in gen-
tian amounted to a mutual agreement to put an end to the
obligation. The latter of the 31st of May was an intinsaiion
of the determination of the defendant to break off the con-
nrzion ; end the letter of the 2nd of June, from the plain-
tiff, was a mere latter of aequieeeenee on her pert to do so
if he insisted upon it. A bargain =sane, I will do so and so
if you will, bat he intended to rule that there was no such
bargain in this ease.
Mr. &Otani Wilkins put in another letter, after which
Mr. Martin calla

Prclmlay, deter of the defendant, who proved
that Mier the deity, ty of a letter from Mts. Laycock to Mrs.
Pickslay on the 2,.d of Jane, all connection between the
families ceased. In mom-examination the who're stated
that Miss Staskie's father, now died, was a surgeon at
Wok, field, that she was his youngest daughter, and witness
letliaved the defendant received uothing with her when he
married bee.

Mr S-rjeaut Wilkins having been heard in reply,
His Lnrdship tautened up, remarking that the issue the
jury bad to try was whether, before the breach of the con-
tract, the peruse mutually dissolved the a,sreentent.
Tne jury retire d, and were absent about ten minutes. On
their return into court,
Mr. Barna Alderson said—Do you find there was a dims-
lotion of the contract?

The Foreman—No, my lord.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages. 4001.
We understand the damages were laid in the declaration
at 6,0001. &much interest wu tacks(' in this use, that all
the sesta and avenues of the court were densely crowded
throughout the day.