The Express.
London, England, 1857-07-03 00:00:00

L* Intdlfpnct.

EQUITY
Pekes Tioo-C

rB.--.TULY 2.
Sir Jolla Stuart.)

V. ADIIVII.

The plaintiff is Ale salt wee • pintas. of
who, la 1846, had beta* sele with balig=
I Ai* a, Ad the tabs ether detadesta, win Are:.eimblini
house la Albewarebdreat. The *MK lei same o
may la pwbilm le Gmbh hi le de via he borrow*
Abe .tis erzai
tee vegemstal mosey,
hs Mb et sad awed I 0 Us, asid
AVM esearebs, to the abbe for the rails so
hot le ties sari* at MAW The bid berg* beer seta
dial by whisk the liberate ailed lelestdeg swir-
led of Maw to seem •yeet Oh urea), eat the
Mi%bad pi a lege weft If the .feat assesared.
• bel deft bibs the eseiallhe dawned le
be aer=sl a lobbies le lathes the
et the sied lima labor peearibes 3.7=1"
the pleall‘ At ea assume eel perresait by of
whet ineM be tbrlppalie by Wm.
The dellisdaat the d beadier le pert of
the_ ,blll. be oho somewed arm at the bbswealaesig
ihelbed to same saw latissesalwise, ca the gnarl that
li
Ids *beef so meth epees hi prellies.
The thee sow ears ea spa errestesa a:captious takes by
the philiff to the delbiate easwer.
Kr. Doodpatt" as Ite=mid the exceptions ;
Kr. fpm/ was the
The swabs was empad at sine long&
Webb alibi aaalr. Ikaabsee to reply,
The rbadihemiar mid--Ara to eat *set shout the
rule tie • diode* h r empellebh lo mew* • question
that mew Mese bin le • turbid praseutlea, arabeeby at
that MEL The dillesity is as to the appliestisa sr Ihe fola,
whirl h sae of pale Ad abide beis eons oar
the esselimeica at the bed, Ad hes pM it ed vari-
ous thew Ice the ere et " Illssra v. " (4 T. sad
C., b. IN) the terlisa wee as la the et certain
mowleiss weir Si.. ablate ut 96 Ara, e. 14, the maim
seemed by then balm marry hat ighy, wed have besa
Adel* ; sad lb lasidas wee, le ter the *hire'
was bawd to mom; whisk he *salad M de. Lard
Abbra to Aat ear bed AM the tarilture whir
the shift was ast • rams why the dellathrt Asti be
sewed prehet Kneel by a* raweshg.♦
at swain Ire beta suited is ay aid hy weeds
la the nab ease of rib* v. Readyr to two
persona, the L. Odd Iris Jarvis sod Jostles Masi
that It le beech ter the perm beseropeed to stele was
his Oath that he combine, ar los boa advised, or dot h
=abet hie eaawerbgtheirstioawealiteedle edge-
relitlatthewihrbistbeeeleJals==
*het exhisely is sot seablemeted
Tire may be arse la white • 'aim bleed be aimed to
le the ads pAp; tiat Is lay It dews se pepadia, am hi
dews la the -iewarest la Oh ea" Oaf when • amash=
At la his maim, we bet he sdOsed w
oe), it be
eisswer the amebas bet * would Wiest lie to a cilized
promotion, le hall. the pepsidas hr beyond what sue
be Pacified se ea Yfd6le rah et the wart; but 1 see he •
very valuable bosh, "Beet a Evidence," which refers to
" Phil. oa Evidence," p. 488, 10th edition, in which book
the privfiqms of thiamin la this reepat are much dimmed,
Mr. BIM sheet as the meth that it is impoesible to my
that the Masse le the eels Judge, but thst awe risk
anarbai le the eireanstross of the an, *kb whether
ths stelsemd of the wears is to be earaimbe on the sub-
Ia the pees* are, to way bad, erre is not much
s▪ alb ia *elite with question. This defendant ha
to the kill, be hem answered some interrogs-
and then he saya that if he answered any
of the other RIM= to the bill it might subject
bha to • Method9eambsdos sad tom paltiee or punishment,
sad therein he to bower any or either of the other
bilenegababe. The A* laterrogatory is whether the I.
frakest did fade* the piaster to to to him, and whether
heath net Muth meth reeds, hem the plaintiff large and
wit semi timothy without ay legal coaiklention, or for
same etheihretles whisk was Medici or failed. It stem a
=dial he meek to say that a defendant can protect
from eneworbig that interrogatory. lie certainly
esemet do q alms the 38th general ordez of 1841, by which
the delthithat is to he at liberty to decline to answer put of
an laternagatory ; but it is said that to answer this would ke
to moms the first !met of what would cambium the
link of a chain; but what chain IL-a chain of evi-
dence eadbig in what punishment ? What is the
preieliessat apmehmded in this we, which can be
;Luiby slated? The !statute of Anne is repealed.
itueder what other statute is it seggeated that this de-
fendant, by enswering these questions, or any, or any part
of them, would ben bjected to penalties ? I have not heard,
but I ens told, that the 8 and 9 Viet, c. 109, s. 17, provides
that cheating at play is to be puththed se obtaining money on
false pretences; but I cm only say that this does not in the
least degree amen to roe to have my application to this cam
bet if it does, this defendant must do more than be has done.
He must .aver mme parts of there interrogatories. He
may under the firth order of 1811 answer until he comes to
the point of danger, and that state that to wirer that will
subject him to a criminal peessention ; but it is quite plain
that the mqualificd proposition that he may rebus to mime
my gaieties in link eta chain which may lied to a crimi-
nal prosecution is much too broad. Here is • case in which,
vaguely adgenerally, the intendant chooses to state epos
hie oath his lisblllty to prosecution ma a roar for not answer-
ing those questiom which do not appear to be links in the
chain of a criminal prosecution. It swears to me, as sit
present advised, thuds& defendant is bound to answer these
interrogatories. The exceptions meet be snowed with costa

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.--.1n2 2.
SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Janice Elio and Common Juries.)

NINNETT C. JUDD £$D ANOTHNS.-YAWS

Mr. Tindal Atkinson was conned for the plaintiff; Mr.
Serjouit Hayes appeared fur the defendants.
Thi• was an action for fides imprisonment. The defendants
pleaded not guilty.
It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that he is a
lighterinan, and was ocemionally employed by the foreman of
the defendants, Mr. E. Budd and Mr. H. Vivian, who are
ce%pz:ztuelters at elude Itaynard•wharf. On the 12th of
Fe he we. in charge of the Lairque Caroline, and was
ordered y the foreman, Timms, to tarry 300 copper rode ea
board a ship lying in the river. He received the rods about
four o'clock in the afternoon, and then went away few •
couple of hours. The next morning he went to the ship, and
delivered the rode, which turned out to be three short. No-
thing more gamed at the time, and he we. oceasionelly em-
ployed by Timms up to the fah of March, when ha was
arrested in Bleckfriara-road be on °Meer, who was &COMM
pada by Timms, and conveyed to the station. He was 03t
milted fur trial, and detained for five weeks. He wee tried
and acquitted.
Mr. Justice Erie mid that on the pleadings the only Woe
was whether the defendants had calmed the arrest of the
plaintiff.
Mr. E. Dodd, one of the defendants, was then called. He
said he knew nothing of the plaintiff, who was ocesidonally
employed by their regular lighterman, Timms; he was in-
formed of the arrest after it occurred, and he paid the expenses
oldie penetration.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited.

Mr. Scryeant Shee and Mr. Ruo were comma for the
plaintiff; Mr. Skinner appeared for the defendants.
This was an action to recover damage. for alandercom
yowls spoken by the defendant of the platatiff. The parties
are both medical practitioners, and the plaintiff, Mr. Trend,
is a eery young man, who had establiahed himself in 1854, at
Croyland, is Lincolnshire. la Awns, 1866, he wee anxious
to extend his buainess to Eye, in Nortlmuptcsithire, and he
entered into partnership with the defendant. In Ma , 1856,
some differences art a, and the partneeship was on
the terms that the rdendaat should pay the plaintiff 2601.,
the defendant to remain at Croylend and the plaintiff at
Eye, each binding himself not to practise in the town in
which the other raided. It was further *greed that a place
calkd Newbury. hidt-ersy between their respective residences,
should bo opeu to both. In April, 1866, the defendant was in
attendance one Mrs. Broughton, at Newbury, and M e.Young,
of Eye, Ira dso present, when the maceration turned on
the plaintiff. The defendant said, Trend it no doctor;
he cannot properly practise ; he is not qualified. If it wer
seen to he would not be allowed to practise at all. He is a
poor, silly young man. What can he know ?" Thus word,
constituted the slander complained of. The plaintiff stated
he had a certificate u a licentiate of Apothecenes' Hall. He
had attended St. Thomaa's Hospital fur three yam and bad
nweAved acetyl prises. Ile bad also entered aa resident ac-
eaucheur there. . .

On cross----eiamination he said that he had never held him-
self out aa a member of the Royal College of Surgeons. Hs
had applied some time since for the Oleo of registrar of births
for the Croyland district. I. the circular he drew up be
described himself as surgeon, de. He did not NC the cir-
culars filter they wore printed, and if the letters M.R.C.S.
were placed after his name, it was without his authority he
hod matriculated At the London University, but had mit
taken him degree; he had described himself in a certificate
for the removal of a lunatic as a graduate and M.D. In the
" London Medical Directory" he Sal described As a
M.R.C.S. of 1854. When be gave that description be had
made up his mind to peas the college, hut was afterwards
prevented : ha never repreeanted to the defendant that he tem
a M.R.C.B.

iI4IM-eewas given that the words charged in the dais-
mita bad lam epellea, cad that the defendant had elm said
Had Iles *kat Imo as "impostor and a swindler."
Mr. Little stated that he had been in the habit of em-
ploying the plaintiff, bat he eared to do to on heating that
be wee not properly quaffed. He would employ him again
if he was proved to be a doctor.
Mr. flimener addressed the jury far the defendant. He de-
moniacal the ambeelty of the plaintiff in bluely holding him-
self out as • maim of the Royal Collage of fargeons, and
stated that aller the pertaerehip wee dissolved the defendant
wets le the maw be sake agonies, sod ea Merging that
the phial, hod am shire to the title, he exposed him when
the oemisa alasil. The wade he had wed relined solely
to etiolate" et the o'llllllo bo eaasidered a eangeoa and •
gram.. at So valvular. The defeadist stated that he
was a swaseart et the Whip at firagesaa cad that at their
geed beerriew the Midi pedaled the Medical pl
mad poided eat lie aim ea a batar=
Apia= wee at his ildher'e. Ia the aeaverastioa at Mr.
iraeibilate be oil, I as net amprieed Kr. Thud has
impaled on yea, as be *weed laimit ea we as a amates."
Ile bad meadard the het ea ether ocoadoaa cheer-
ostler veil moldy directed to it, sad be saver said that
the laintiff was me .
C. a. Tadao. woo
led printed the rimier timed by the

plaintiff, asking for the aka of registrar, stated that the
ropy wee furnished by Mr. Trend, and that the Was
M.R.C.B. were in it.
Thu jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 7M.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-JvLY 2.
SECOND COURT.

(Mims it Nisi

Mrz Baron Mania sad •

.CommonJorfii

Mr. Knowles and Mr. Jones were for the plaintiff; and
Mr.
Thep
ghee and Mr. Cleseby for the defendant.
intiK the owner of the Coronet, claimed • tabus
Ile la 13e. on • , Wend Into with him by the
ddliadint, a Liverpool to lirMg home • cargo boot
St. Memlngo. in the W. 1118 tharterparty wee
gnaws es If the ergo wan coin, but there wee • mei.
that *Mir yea to be paid • fall sad fair ixoportion for say
r erisreinea The eh* registered for ITO tone. and
ill ~lra tor of oodles, broaOt only 16.1 toes cg
maalegany lagwooL Defendant claimed to make a de.
geetion. tan lnd boa the freight, the amount would
Iwo been 1,0136. eel gdintlant had paid 9601. 71. The
plaintiff claimed for dm Wince, on the ground that the cargo
was full and
The can, ..ohrtht the Seat on the paper, occupied the
court until half-peet 3 o'clock, when the jury found their
verdict for the plaintiff—damps 641. 13e.