The Express.
London, England, 1868-01-11 00:00:00

I R

LA.W INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)
EQUITY 1:10URT.
(Before Vice-Ohancellor Sir R. Malin.)
HARRIS V. lIMAC AND 011111111.
This wAs a motion to•
restrain the defeadasts frem
a,irg in • newspaper called the African
~rpoter and Advocate published at Sierra Loose,
advertisement warning all persons that the
Wittig( had been disudued from the office of agent to
liquidators in the winding up of the Arsflis•
',Wriggler, and further stating that he was at
date, December 7, in Whitecrou-strect prison. The
that
4. intitf denied the right to dismiss him, and asserted
C‘aras not in prison when the advertisement appeared,
while the defendant adhered to the pun üblished statement.
lir. taus; and Mr. Jones Bateman appeared for the
C..lll:itt ; and Mr. Hardy and Mr. Wickens for the
i roe the defendants undertaking not to insert OT &nth°.
the teinsertion of any ad_vertisement asserting. that the
lintl been dismiased, or had no connexion with
ibe defendants or the company, and not to repeat the state-
,r.t that he was in prison, no order was made upon the
,ajon, and the question of oasts was reserved.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
sittings in Banco.—(Bef ore Justices Blackburn, Mellor,
and Lush.)
This vas the first day of Hilary Term. Their lordships
•oeis their seats on the bench shortly after 10 o'clock.
711 E QUEEN r. R. BROWN AND OTHER&
Mr. Mcßae Moir moved for a rule nisi for a mandamus
~tho• upon the commissioners of the Central Criminal
I '...art°to make up the record in this case. The Attorney
neral bad granted biz fiat for a writ of error, and a record
Lai been made up, but not the proper record. Brown, with
oh,rx, were tried for larceny in stealing and receiving
silk. Objection wn, taken that the counts for receiving
had not heir, proved. as they did not allege the p
was the same as that stolen. The Recorder retired witl
the of user of the court to consider the point, and on his
nturn said the primmers must be acquitted, and the
deputy clerk, in :tlr. Avery's absence, entered the verdict
detfinny. The Recorder then directed the prieenen to be
ained in custody, and a fresh indictment was preferred
azdn4 them and found. On the second trial they pleaded
acquit, and on the production of the mini:de-
l...l:: it was found that the entry of the verdict of not
i;ty Lad been altered. Mr. Avery three weeks after (on
couviction coming o his knowledge) havin recorded
tb, facts Low the acquittal took place, and upon that the
roart declined to receive the plea, and the pnamiers were
3, found guilty, and sentenced to penal servitude. The
1 ikconier had refused to strike out the interpola-
n as .d return the record of not guilty merely.
The court held there was no pretence for this applies-
ti.o, and refused the rule.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
T 1.6 was the first day of Hilary Term. The court sat
• es jtcr 10 o'clock, the learned judges being the Lord
Damn and Serous Sorkin, Channell, and Pigott.
HOARE V. TALLOCK.
M.. Kemp moved for • rule calling upon the dr
to show canes why the plaintiff should not
At liberty to take out of court • sum of
„Lich had been deposited by the defendant in lieu
• The action was brought against the defendant for
promise of marriage, and the defendant having
o i 7 tei a note totheplaintiff,stating he was goingout of the
he was arrested upon a writ of espial, but Übe-
, ...! paying into court SW. and 101. for costs. The
• was tried before the Under Sheriff, and a verdict
...ma for the plaintiff for 150/. Judgment was signed
pith December last. The plaintiff now wished to
the al/. in part satisfaction of that awn.
Ti Lora (list Barra—Take a rule.

thile nisi.
r. BISHOPS CASTLE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mu. Channel!, on behalf of Mr. Dawson, secretary of the
ele.iring committee,moved for a rule to show cause
scirc facial should not issue against Mr. Plowden, a
, ireholdes of the railway company, in respect of the
..N.eunt unpaid upon his shares. On the 22nd February
~t, jed4;inent was obtained against the company
awl a writ of fi. fa. was issued on the follow-
The sheriff of Montgomeryshire, where
v•eepany carried on business, wrote that all the
,ctv of the company bad been sold a month before.
t.irieu•persons were sent there and to the adjoining county
t. sre if there was anything belonging to the company
. p.m which a levy could be made, end they reported that
:...thing could be found. The under-sheriff also said that
the sorting Linda of the company bad already been
imp.
The court granted a rule, and also a similar rule against
:umber shareholder of the company.

ARCHES COURT.
(Before Sir R. J. Phillimore.)
411RTIN V. MACRONOcIII2.—THE ST. ALBAN's RITUAL (*As!.
The hearing of this case was resumed this morning,
when
Mr. Prideaux proceeded with his address on the part of
tho defendant. lie submitted that these articles did
oome within any of the acts of Uniformity,
*Lich provided that no clergyman should wilfully
obstinately nee any rite or ceremony which was not in
aceordince with the use of the church of England. Mr.
31.iekonochic, if he had deviated from the use of the Church
~f England, bad nut done so wilfully and obstinately,
ii; :much as be had cowed several of the practices
iwiiplained of before the commencement of the
Ile also contended that there was a dia.
ni p-incy in the articles so fax as regarded the
chalice. The offence was using water with the
but in the Articles it was using water anti mixing it
*ali the wine during the time of the communion. This
,it was an attempt to eta ike secretly at some established
laudable doctrine of the church of England,
it might be of the whole church of Christ. The
*hole argument on the other side was that the church
.1 England was not a branch of the ono catho.
h.. church of Christ, but that it was a church
I Add idled by act of parliament. That wag the argument
*I :ch these oppused to them in the church of Rome urged
oc:mist them, and if it were true, the sooner the church
Eterlatul ennobled to pieces the better. What was the
of the Prayer-book "The Book of Common Prayer
• I Administration of the Rites and Ceremonies of the
according to the use of the Church of England."
.iliject of the statute was not to introduce any rites
s' were foreign to the one holy catholic church ; that
*I at was lucent was the rites of the church, and not of
:c church of England, was perfectly clear.
karne.l counsel was proceeding with his address
u our report left.]