The Express.
London, England, 1868-09-17 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, SEPTEIng

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--CrthS DAY.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Dame Yr. 00/11111111113011,f Ho(royd.)
(Int, thief man were in his Amalie,* paper this morn-
ing. two Acing ileation, by bankrupts for their• dis-
charge from custody, which his honour grantel In the
caw of (Hardee Mills, late of 6, Dockhead, Bermondsey,
onntralor and clerk to Messrs. Teasie and Martin, glaze
and bottle manufartnrees. it appeared that the bankrupt
hail been halite on hills for the accommodation of his em-
ployer., but no creditor attending to oppoee, the desired
older for release was made.

Mr. Rogirtraz Brougham proaided at a number of sit-
tingn for proofs and choir" of assignere wader new bank-
rupteiLA. The proorodinga presented no feature of in-
ten.t.

POLICE COURTS.-atIV3 DAY.)

THROWTXO WOKS/ AT A lIAISWAT runt.
/:m, r,. Neadoirmher. aged 14, sa errsad-boy, of 24,
Coldhath-inoare, elmteawell. wan charged wit 3 throw-
ing *tome Oel the Mrtropolitaa Railway, nauseam-
road.

The defendant was seen standing in the Iritreingdon.
road, and throwing stones on to the railway. At the
spot where the defendant was throwing, some large
donee were found. Frequent oemplaim are made by
the drivers. stokers, and guards of the danger they incur
by stones being thrown at the • trains.
The defendant who denied that he had thrown any
donee, was ordered to pay a fine of 40a, or in default to
be imprisoned in the !louse of Correction for one calendar
month, the magistrate remarking that if that did not
ehea the evil he shouldhave to send some of the offenders
for tiia4 '
ran twentourr Or A 0017XX-W017•11 mimeses wren err=

• • CABMAN.
In this ease, which Wax reported is the Xrpreas of
Thursday last, and which arose oat of an elopement by
the wife of a coffee-house keeper, Mr. Thomas HubbaK
of Buckingham-place York-road, Islington, with a cab.
man named William 'Barash, BeistreasAviss,' the latter was
ag
a
in
charged withes. worth stealing dresses, a gold watch, and
er AM.
The wife appeared in oourt, and did not evince the least
shame.
The. prosecutor stated that since the remand he had
missed a great many articles, and hie wife had even taken
away his children's things. The watch and seals she
fetched out of pawn the day before she made of with the
prisoner. She also oolleded the runt from the lodgers,
and took that away.
In answer to Mr. Lewis, he said that his wife had
threatened to leave him before she did so. They had been
" nagging" all the week, because he had ascertained that
she was too intimate with the prisoner. He hit her with
his hack band on the Thursday previous to her elopement
with the prisoner, because she bad been out drinking with
the prisoner and some women, and when she came back
and be spoke to her, she said that she could get a better
man than him any day. Slie called him filthy names, and
that made him strike her.

Mr. Lewis, for the defence, contended that no case had
been made out, and said that if the goods of a husband
were taken with the consent or privity of the wife it is
not a larceny. Before this case was made out it must be
clown that theprisoner's intention was to ►ssist in a
felony. lie cited came in support of this view.
Mr. Cooke said he thought he ought not to be asked to
give his declaim) until the whole case was completed.
Mr. Lewis then called the wife.

Mrs. Alice Hubbard, on being sworn, said—l am the
wife of the prosecutor. I have been married to him
twelve years, last August. I left my husband's residence
last Saturday week. We could not agree, because he
went to foot woe. dog fights, and rat matches. Before I
left I told him I should leave. I told him so several
times. I took away my things at the time of my
leaving. I had a watch, but the prisoner did not
know I had one. The prisoner did not before assisting
to put the box on the cab see any of the articles it con-
tained. It was at my request that be put them on tho
cab. Up to that time no familiarity had taken place ba-
tween us. I did not see him on the Saturday or the Sun-
day after leaving my husband's home. I was going to
my home in the country on the Monday following, when I
met the prisoner in the Gray's-inn-road. Up to the
Monday night nothing wrong bad taken place be-
tween me and the prisoner. (The prisoner and the/fitness
laughed at each other, and seemed to think the matter a
good joke.) The prisoner has not from first to last inter-
meddled with the things I removed, and has never seen
them. There was a reward of It offered for the appre-
hension of the prisoner. Seeing that, I and the prisoner
went to my husband's shop in a cab, and my husband gave
the prisoner into custody.
Hr. Cooke said that there were many cases on the point,
but the result he had arrived at in this was that this did
not amount to a larceny. What weighed strongly in his
mind was that there was no evidence that the box con-
tained anything but the wearing apparel of the
prosecutor's wife. Justice Coleridge had held that if an
adulterer assisted a wife to remove her wearing apparel,
that was a larceny, but that decision had been upset, and
it was now held and acted on by all the courts that if a
wife elopes with an adulterer, it is no larceny in the adul-
terer to mask her in carrying away her wearing apparel
only. This case breaks down because it was not shown
that the prisoner knew what was in the box. The pri-
soner wax discharged.
The wife of tho prosecutor, as the prisoner was leaving
the dock, rushed and caught hold of his arm and kissed
him. IS Len they got into the streets they were hissed.

REUISTRATIONB.---(Tills Detr)

Laicism
This morning a number of loctger claims Amok
out on Monday were restored to the list of voters. Among
them was the son of one of the overseers of the Camber.
well division, who was also one of the churchwardens of
the parish, whose name had been expunged from the list
for want of particularity in the form. Mr. Lyon, to-de
asked that has son's name might be put on again. Rs
himself was • member of the Stook Exchange, and re-
sided in St. Mary's-terrace, Queen's-road, Peckham. HL
son had the exclusive right to one of the rooms in his
house.

Le Breton, the Revising Barrister—Yon wrote •
letter to the paper •bout your son's name being drunk
out?

Hr. Lyons acid he did. Ile thought he was justified is
doing so.
The Bernina Berrister—That may
thinkr opinion—it
is not mine. Dean amend your debar in the dank
and your son's name will stand. I I have gives
every indulgent, is awry 1:= Tzlizralsor
The name el the Beer. of sa
Nary Maestros, Ounlierrall, bad been Wreck eat is the
absence of the fluidise aims ad the landlady.
The Bening Barrister—l have 001111) to the decision
that if any defect in the notice of the claim eau be med.
I will amend it. This lam aware is shat
aw 7
barristers would not do ; and I am perhaps le the
full length of my tether ; but the value oomipaties
proved admit the claim.
Yr. B. Taylor, solicitor, applied on behalf of Mrs. Yen-
ning, who claimed, as • lodger to be placed on the list
of voter. He was proceeding 'to state his views on the
when
rThe Barr. Barrister (inter:opting) seig—l cannot
admit this claim. Bray worsen by the condom law hi
England is disqualified from voting.
Claim disellowed.
The acorn& of the Camberwell OVIIII•801 for registra-
Won emoluitidelpo 12W., werepeased tad signed
by the Revti Banister, as were those for Newiagton,
for nw.
The Revising Barrister paid a high compliment to the
overseers of both parishes for the manner in which the so.
counts were made out, and for the moderation of the
charges.

• •
ofiCileV•
The revision e for the city of West-
minster was resumed this before Mr. Nassau
Senior, in the Lords Justices' Court, Westminster Hall.
Mr. Moon, Mr. Matteson, Mr. Gilbert, and Mr. Norman,
again appeared for the liberala ; and Mr. Nokes, Captain
Armstrong, and Mr. Malcolm, for tke conservatives.

WIXOM CLAMS.
At the opening of the court the Revising Barrister,
referring to a discussion which took place yesterday as to
the kind of evidence required to substantiate a lodger's
claims, said be had this morning seen one of the revising
barristers who bad been in conference with two others,
and therefore he might say that he had obtained the
opinion of the three. He foundthathehed hitherto adopted
a much more stringent rule respecting the necessary
corroboration and the declaration of lodgers than had been
adopted in other courts; therefore for the future he would
lay down this rule—that he would in :all cases take the
evidence of the attesting witness to the lodger's declaration
without further question ; but not in came where a man
attended at a public-house as an agent to get up claims.
He should not require the personal attendance of the
claimant.
The rernanef caeca in St. Clement's Dance were pro-
ceeded with, the claims being allowed on the produc-
tion of the declaration in all cases in which no objection was
made, and where there was the evidence of the attesting
witness being taken and regarded as sufficient. In one
ease, however, the witness on cross-examination stating
that be would not swear whether the signature, which
was by a mark, was not affixed by the wife, the claim
was disallowed.