The Express.
London, England, 1850-12-06 00:00:00

sure to fellow upon the pronto( guilt. It was likewise of the
last temporises that, where parties were examined as wit-
nesses in their own cease, as was the cue to the county
court., tbst they should know that by so doing, If they spoke
rawly, they ex
themselves to ti rill of en indiermene
for perjury. £ great enmeshment was new beings...le in the
admitistration of jamb)• by snowiest plaintiffs sad defendants
to be witnesses in their own caws, end it mu a practice
which perhaps might be extended to other courts wadies the
county coasts. It was, however, impossible to make the
experiment suctearful starts perks wen punished for not
'peaking tie truth. In the present case he (Lord Campbell)
thought that the defendant had been guilty of wilful and
corrupt perjury, but he would pose as mild a minuses upon
her u be could consistently with the proper administration
of jeatin, because tem jury bad recommended bee to mercy.
The sentence was that she be imprienned in the House of
Correction fur the county of Middlesex for twelve calendar
months.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YdaTZIWAT.
Simms us barico.—flew Taw. Parts.
Knott BARDIKO.—LANDLOID, TRNANT,. AND THIRD
PARTINS.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Browne, and Mr. Kingdom showed
cause saltiest a role for • new trial in this
wheni was
tried before Mr. Boron Parke, at Oulldhsll a verdict
missed be the defendants. The plaintiff was a customer of
certain livery:stables in the City, the tenant of which was in
arrest fa mot, and a distress having been put in, the horse
ands* of the plaintiff, tegether with those of other gentle.
men frequenting the yaM, war• include{ In the !seizure,
though they were not enumerated in the inventory, or
otherwise feelnded than under the general phrase
.1111 other property is the said rewire' which may be re-
spired to satisfy the said arrears of rent." In order to
preserve the credit of his house, the tenant made a private
arrangement with his landlord, that during the period pre-
ceding the sale, if ntch • step should be rendered seem.
eery, the property of the customers should be at their
disposal as usual. The landlord knowing that though the
goods might be so taken away they would he returned,
assented to this plan, and in pursuance of it the plaintiff
took out and returned bit horse and gig on two days. Oa a
third, however, he was refused permission to have
be then lemma for the first time that they bad bee Visaed
for the rent! The broke, having refused to give them up,
and having in feet sold them to satisfy the distress, this
wipe was brought, it being contended that the suing,-
meat to which the distrainer was • party, behind the back of
the plaintiff, was an abandonment on his part of the lien ever
thin property, sad that ea be lad not redetrained they bad
become imam:lotted from the law, and their sale wan an ad
fee which the landlord and the broker were liable. It wee
also mutinied that the notice was insufficient for generality.
At the trial, however, Mr. Baron Parke ruled against the '
plaintiff ma both these grounds, and directed a verdict for
the defendants. Seboquently this rule was obtained to
review that ruling, and now
Mr. Bristowe appeared is support of it, erntending that
the plaintiff might have *old his property as soon as be get
pernession of it by the consent of the landlord, and that the
notice was too large and indefinite.
Mr. Baron Parke said the court would take time to eon-
, sie.er the ease, and especially on the question as is the notice.
As to the other there did not seem to be much doubt that
tber• was no ehandonoten: under the circumstances.
Jadgmact decreed.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—Rav Lung Scams.
YMITIIIDAT.
PROCLAMATION or Otm.AwstT.
The following persons wine called open w surrender to
dm suit of their respective creditors :—Nobett Aostruthers,
at the suit of R. Hickman Lane ; Beare Bunt, at the suit
of Edmund R Annie ; Gringo Harley Drummond, snit of
Catheiinis E int Poidevin ; Williom It. Langley, suit of
Thomas Edwards; D. A. Dorsett, suit of Thomas Phillips ;
John denial's Thome, nit of Henry Porter Smith • Ben.
Jamin Men, nit of Cherles Smith Thomas ; Coutes Raper,
emit of the Caleelosian Railway Company; Blphess Van
Zaylia, suit of William Richards ; Jane Cape, suit of J ho
Lob. ; Thomas William Baauclerk, suit of Martin 13:utley ;
Brossalow Thomas Montague Cecil, commonly called Lord
Cecil, suit of Mortis Smiley ; Mask Kerr, suit of J.ilan
Manhewe ; Alexander Gordo* John Bishop, suit of Be..
jamin Spilsbury ; Routh, suit of David Owee ; O.
W. Dyson, suit of G. Nicholson ; TROMIS Key. suit of W.
Sangster ; Warner Tuck, suit of Alfred Mayhew ; sad
Philip How Daniel, suit of the Rev. William owls,.

COMMISSARY COURT OF SURREY.
WEDN/LPDAT.
Errata DI. BA44AtO.

BAILI6Y V BATLEY.
This was a divorce sui, by reason of adultery, brought
by Mr. Richard Batley, the younger, against his wife.
Dr. Curti... on behalf of Mr. Batley, was about to open
the case, when
Dr. Dean., who appeared for the wife, maid he felt bound
to abandoa that portion of the case which related to the
commission of the adultery, but upon the evidence
be should pray the court to dismiss Mrs. Batley,
on the ground that her husband had connived at
h.r guilt, and therefore, wee not eataltd to a sentence. Re
(Dr. Deane) contended it wee clearly establiabed by the tes-
timony is the case that the patios had cohabited together
far *trend months previously to the merriest., and that six
days after such 'marriage, Mr. Batley, through the persua-
sion of his father, separated from her; leaving his wile in a
destitute state, and that be afterwards drove ber to the com-
mission of adultery with a person who was employed for the
purpose by himself, or Mr. Batley, senior, or by some other
iss.rson on their behalf, lie suhroitted it was a cue of mali-
cious desertion, and that the husband had been guilty of active
and corrupt connivance to entrap his wile into the paths of
&show-ay.
Dr. Waddilove followed on the game side.
Des. Curti,. and Bayford, on behalf tf Mr. Batley, con-
tended the wife bad never been left destitute, or that her
gt;il; r.ad been connived at in the remotest degree. They
submitted, the cue on the other side failed entirsly.
he Court was of opinion the charge of malicious desire
lien was without foundation, and :hat this was not • case
when the wile was entitled to be dismi.sed on the (ironed
that the hatband bad been guilty of connivance. It was of
opinion the tuJaand was entitled to a separation on the ground
that his wife bad been guilty of adultery.

COURT OF INLAND REVENUE.—YESTILEDAT.
HAtohe TrosolAware= FAO.. C. J. naval's, FAN. Alm
ALIALA v,
THE QUINN C. MALLIBT.—CONVIOTION OF AN EXTRA!.
MITI 10RACCO }Wit:TAMMY, roa 81tuoouro.—

UtIATT riN4LTT.
Henry Mallet, an extensive tobacco manufacturer, of No.
59, Buskin-row, Sr. Luke's, was charred on three informs,
tions with having received into his custody tobacco that had
not parsed through the Custom house ; for receivieg tobacco
that hal been unshipped without paving the legal duty ; and
with receiving the same with intent to defraud her Majesty
of the legal duty chargeable thereon.
Dr. Bateman c.nducted the prosecution; Mr. Lanham
was for the defence.
Mr. George Phillips said that he was a surveying examiner
entre' of excise. He went to the defendant's premises,
mute No. 59, Dunhill row, Bt. Luke's, on the 16do of Aug.
last, with Mr. M'Culloch, another officer. They saw the
defendant there between 1 and 2 in the afternoon of the
above day. They exsotieed the stock of tobact", and found
a quantity of stripped leaf, about 160 lbs., near to the presses,
which appeared as if recently taken from the hogshead me-
pommy to manufacturing. This lot was covered with
canvas, but on oncoverirg it they saw a quantity of " hand"
tobacco lying on the top of the stripped toacco. On this
portion of the tobacco, which weighed about 19 lbs., they
found marks of a canvas wrapper, showing that it had originally
been peeked in it, and that It had bug packed in a
'guars form. It would not have presented those marks or
slim es had it been pecked in a hogshead in a regular and
1 gal manner. fientwaltd tobacco is always packid in can-
es., being first damped to press it close together, and that
circumstance would account for the outer parts of the pack-
age being the impress and marks of enema He, thereupon,
called the def. ndant, and pointed out to him the marks, and
said that he should seize the tobacco as smuggled. He re-
plied that it was not smuggled, but had come into his stock
in the last half-hogshead he received on the 22nd of Febru-
ary. Wi,ness said he knew better than that, for he had had
no" hand" tobacco in his house for several weeks, and cer•
tainly not for the last three visits they had paid to the pre.
mines. They thea seised the tobacco as smuggled, and the
samples produced are can of it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Langhsm—lt might be the pew
ties of small tobacco manufacturers to cover their tobacco
with canvas. On the Bth of August they removed the can-
vas, and the lot of tobacco they scsed was not there then.
licexamined—He had submitted tobacco to a pressure of
30 tons, mad could not produce the marks of canvas on dry
tebecoc;.

Mr. M'Cullooh, offirer,corroborated this evideneo, adding
that this tobacco was not on the primate.' on the three pre-
vious emeasioas when they visited the defendants.
Mr. Thomas Cornell, appraiser to the Custom-hour, said
he had enasiaed the leas. and believed it had boon corn-

Teased is bake el about 251 be. Bales to be legal must be
upwards of 300Ibe. weight.
Mr. Cosizaissioner Benison—How do you arrive at the
*iodates that this tobacco is smuggled ?
Mr. Corsell—By the leaf being bent up at the ends, which
nut be the cam Hacked in large bales.
This wee the ease on the part of the crown.
Mr. Latham took as objection to two of the counts,
which were matters relating to the customs laws, which
this court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine.
Dr. Bateman replied, and the coat overruled the ob-
jection.
Mr. Langhara then addressed the court, and said that he
should be able to products a witness who would prove that
the tobacco seized was a portion of what bad been in the
premiers aioca February last, and was lying where the officers
found It since that time.
John From, warehouseman to the defendant said he
remembered two half hogsheads of tobacco being brought is
about the 27th of February.
The Chairman (Kr. Commissioner Harrison) said that the
court could sot helices that the tobacco in question had been
in the poesessith of the defendant for the time stated. With
regard to the marks on it. the defendant had given no evi-
dence to skew that it had legally come into his racesion;
ond, therefore, they mart give a verdict against him; which wee
(Dr. Bateau not pressing on the three informatioas) in the
penalty of 1001.
Ms. Lanham then said he should appeal against this
desides.
Dr. Bataan mid if the decides was to be appealed
MOON he should oak for Widest on the three Informations
for 40W., or the wows would be deprived of its fair share of
the a
MrP.Tatighem
ghee itsJudessemt. objected to this, as the craft had already
Dr. Dessau odd the and had lilies judgment gonorally;