The Express.
London, England, 1850-02-28 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 28,

in the matter by the latter, be wea justilitd in claiming
them.

Role
BUNTER IL CRENNWELL.—SRQCSATRATION OF LIVING lIV
CIVIL I'Rt'('Eot' AND ECI'LLAIAbTICAL St:ATI-ACM.
In thi. case a a. qiii stralion bad Iluurd Mifeinot the livir
of the It sloe of Cr, It, St. M,chatl's, in SAnerseti hire, by
authority of a court oi coo moo law, and the veditors of ti ,e
elitreymen were paid the profits of the living under that
writ. Subsequently the clergyman was suspended by the
Ecclesiastical Court, and a writ of seque•tration issued
against his living from that court, on which the Bishop
of Bath sal Wells acted. A rule bad been d
calling on him to show cause why he should not pay
ova a SUM TeCtiVid by him under Cie ethltaiaatial a ipi,s-
tration, which they claimed under the first sequestration.
The court now said that it was not contended that the first
arquistration took away the jurisdiction of the Court
Christian to suspend or of the bishop to issue the second
usquistratior, but that the ecclesiastical goods of the clergy-
man bad so completely mead from him by the first seques-
tration to prevent the second having affect, that there was
nothing for the second gequestrstion to attach. The clues
lion, however, was as to the effect of the suspension by the
ecclesiastical authorities. If the first incumbranctr on the
living malitained his right against the bishop the ineum•
bent would in fact be receiving the profits of the
living when- by the sentence of the spiritual court
they were taken away. the plaintiff's right was suspended
from the date of the second sequestration. Every creditor
having claims on the tech nastiest goods of a elm ymen bad
such a claim on them only as he could be deprived of by the
death or emotion of the incumbent.
Rule discharged.

SIITINOi AT gig Pans—BILIOIR Me. JVSTICK COLE/IDOL LCD
Seem!. Jvvee.

I. . CHAPPELL :-.i7R-111-I.;TAL ITALIAN OPERA,

CoYIN? GARDIN

This was an action for • breach of a contract under the
following circumstances. The insinttff was a gentleman who
resided at Boulogne, and the defendant was a partner in the
house of Cramer, Beale, sad Co., the music sellers, in Rc.
gent-street. The plaitailf, it appeared, was desir-us of
taking all the boxes and stalls at the Royal Italian Opera
which were not included in the subscription for the first per-
formance of " The Prophet" daring last season, and he em-
ployed an agent in L ndon of the name of Merchant to ne.
'vitiate the matter. This person, in cot junction with • Mr.
Lionel Goldsnsid, had an interview with the defendant,
who was stated to be the director of the theatre, and Sala
that he had in hand as much as 3,0001. An &gr..-
ment was then entered into that 6001. shou!A be
paid for the boxes and stalls sill unlet for • night when it
was stated the Queen was expected to tweed the theatre,
and 2001. was paid on account, and subsequently the be
lance was also paid. It was arranged that the letting of the
boxes should be conducted at Cramer and Beale's. 1( was
alleged that the defendant so managed the letting of other
parts of the house tt.at thero was a lops to the plaintiff of
3601. _ . .

The ease was corentencrd on Tuesday, and adjourned at the
close of the day, all the plaintiff's witnesses not having thin
been called. . .

Yesterday the can was resumed, and the remain*
evidence for the plaintiff, which supported the facts a,
already stated, was gone into.
For the defence, it was argued that it wee not true that
the defendant stated that he was the manager of the theatre,
hut, on the catenary, had distinctly stated that he was not.
The plaintiff Lettere was only nominally the plaintiff, and
Marclund was the real speculator, hut wee required as a wit
nese is the case, and therefore Leteirre wee set up
as the plaintiff. The rnly evidence that Marchand was the
agent of Leiser* was a letter which had been put in, which
directed him to undertake the speculation. Hut there were
suspicious circumstances with regard to that letter. The
pest-mark was certainly identical with the date at which it
professed to be written, but it wes only on half a sheet o'
paper, and this might have been torn off come other letter
which bore that pus mark, and the alleged letter of direc•
nom written upon it. Legere was never heard of
in the transaction till he applied to the defendant
foe compensation. At the lime of the project. d
speculation the defendant cautioned Marchand a:ainst
entering into it, and said it would not he pro.
Stable. that it was the close of the season, that there was
no excitement here shoat " Le Prophete," as there was in
Paris, and this was admitted by the plaintiff's own Intone,
Goldemid, who was assisting Marchand in the matter
The defendant also advised Marchand not to take the House
on a non-subscription night on account of the additional
expense, but despite of all this he insisted that the bargain
should go on. All that defendant contracted for was, that
he would get all the diem/aged hoses and stalls, which he
did, and eta price less than Marchand could, and he had
nothing to do with the sale of the tickets. He only
allowed the person appointed by Marchand to sell them to
do so in an empty shop of defeirdant'e, to save the expense
of an office. The production of "Le Prophets" was, more
or len, a failure. It did not draw, and the tickets
wen not sold. It was not true that defendant
sold his own tickets Isecore the plaintiff's. He did nig
sell one box or stall on the day in question. All
that WAS sold in their chop were pit tickets belonging to
their own season subscription. He did not represent that
the Queen was going to the theatre on that night. The fact
was, that there was no demand for boxes or stalls, and the
epiculcion failed, and for this the defendant was Lot re
sponsible. Evidence in support of this cue was called.
Mr. Justice Coleridge told the jury that there was a pre-
liminary question which would dreams of the .ration, namely,
whether Lettere was fictitiously set up as the plain.itf ; for
of that were so there must be a verdict for the defendant,
but that would only be by accusing Marchand otl,
forgery and perjury, of which they were o
jade. The action was for false representations, end
part of the representatims made b the defend-
ant were fall*, that would maintain the actiod,
provided they were material representations. The questions
for them to decide were as foiluwe. Did the defetclant pre-
tend that he was manager of the theatre? If so, was he
such manager in the sense which ewes material as regarded
his conduct ? Did he pretend that he had fewer to let all
tre limes and stalls not then taken, and in the market ?
Had he such power at env limited ton- before the bargain
was complete ? Did he stare eb .t the Queen was comma to
the theatre trfore the bargain was C ? Did he state
that there was a gr. at emend L. r places? and, lastly, cid
he state that those which he delivered were all the b:xee ant
SUM in the market
The jury rationed a verdict for the defendant.
Sir k . Thesiger, Mr. Seijeant Slice, and Mr. Lail were
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Cock3urn and Mr. 134vi1l for the
defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAY.

Smoto ar NiM PAWS •T GTIUMALL.—BICTOUS WU, COOL/
JUSTSCI WILDS AND ♦ SPECIAL JURY.

11I,Laitx O. LIEVINO. •ACTION FOR OUODB SOLD AND
DELITIRID.—PLILL Or IXISANITY DY TUR DEFIRDANT.

Mr. Serjeant Bytes and Mr. Horn were counsel for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Coekhurn, Q.C., and Mr. Wordsworth
appeared for the defendant.
This mu an action brought by a looking-glue manufam
turer, picture-frame dealor, and carver and gilder, carrji: g
on badness in Fleet-street and Oxford-street, to recover the
gum of 2951. the balance of an amount alleged to be due
from the defendant to the plaintiff fur repairing and clean-
, ing certain pictures, putting them in fremes, and re-gilding
I some other frames, and for goods supplied, cenebeing chiefly
of pier-glasses, coaerffmtables, gilt bracket', girandal' s, pic-
tures, and a suite of rosew.•ad tuna:tiro, engravings, he. It
appeared that on the 7th August the foreman of ;the plaintiff
named livery Ho. ker was sent for to the defendant at the
London Coffeehouse, Ludgate.hill, when he was hammed
by him that he had some pictures that required putting in
frames, cleaning, and repairing, and rime erher tram.. that
wanted re-gilding. The picture.. were afterwards removed
to the shop of the plaintiff, and the defendant it at peered
had mailed every day two or three times at the plaintiff's
shop up to S durday, the 11th of August, 1819, on which
mentions he had ordered the cliff goods which he wished
to have sent down to Manchester, where he resided, by
Saturday, the 11th. The defendant gave the name and
address of Miles Edward teeming, Erq., Pooley's
Park, near Manchester. The sum of 1101. ds. had been
paid by the defeadaht to the plaintiff on account, is
two cheques, one for 801, and the tithi r for 30/. 4. ,
and besides the pictures and Crimea which the de
(cadent had first sent to the plaintiff's to be repaired,
pictures were also sent for the SAMS purpose on two other
(emulsive. Upon the evening of Saturday the 11th of Au-
gust, 1840, the defendant left London fur Manchester.
where he arrived on the following Sunday morning, and
subsequently on the same day the foreman of the plaintiff also
urrived at Manchtste r, fur the purpose of superintending
the unpacking of that portion of the goods ordered by the
defendant, which bed been sent down. Mr. Hooker, the
foreman, in his evidence now stated that oa his
arrival at Pooley's park, he found that it consisted of several
moderate Maid houses, in one of which the defendant lived.
Upon going to the defendant's house, Ilooker was in-
:ormed that the defendant wee so ill that he could
not be seen, and on the same evening Hooker
had an interview with the brother of the defendant and Mr.
Gibson, the attorney of the defendant's family, and was then
informed by those tenth men that Mr. Miles Edward !Ar-
ming was insane, and that he had come down to Manchester
by the train in the full dress uniform of a poet-captain in the
royal navy. Hooker was then advived to return to London,
and inform the plaintiff of the insanity of the defendant, and
tell him nut to ler d down any. more goods to Manchester or
to proceed with making the suite of rosewood furniture, end
Me. Clibein promised that ho would either write or tea the
plaintiff on true funowine Tuesday, the 14th of Auaus ,1849.
To prove the plaintiff's cane several 'litmus.. were called,
the priucipal sae tiedig Mr. Hooker, the plaiatiff 's fireman,
and he as well as the plaintiff's eh rk and shopman denied
that there was anything particular in the mamer of the de-
I end oat when he was at the plaintiff's shop. A Mr. Simmer,
a carver mil gilder, stated that the plaintiff's di ages were
fair and ressamatfle.

---M;:bOcklttrnl-ben Andrew.' the jury for the defendant,
and contended that the plaintiff had due notice of the insanity
()this elisnt, so as to have prevented him thntlinga greater pot
tion of the goods which consisted of stock out of km shop, but
he had chosen to bend down the gr. ater portion of the de-
fondant's order. With respect to the things actually sent to
Manchester, which consist' d chiefly t pictures, the learns.'
counsel contended that the sum of 1101. 41. paid by the &fen.
dint is the plaintiff was • sufficient payment. In
the course of his address, Mr. Cockburn staid that
it was well known at Mr. Lsvegrovt.'s that the defendant
was Insane, as he bad walked about in the coffes•room at
the London Coffee How In the full dros uniform of a poet
captain in the royal navy. Tha learned comae' also at tted
that the defendant was now In a lunatic asylum.
The first witness called on behalf of the defendant wag
Mr. chafes Gibson, who stated that be was the town
clerk of Salford, and that he was the attorney to the defen-
dant's fanaq, and had endeavoured to arrange the claim o'
the plain= in an amicable manner, but bid 64.4
la doles is. Wien Hooker, the !gelatin ton-

man, saw the witness at Manchester he bad said
iie anught that the defendant must be out of his
wind to order the things he had dime se he perceived hie
h: use was so well furnished. When wisnus saw Mr.
M'Loan 1 L w!on, which he did on the 16th of Augue.
1849, he told him thst on hear.ng of the mond order which
the defendant hod given, Le lad avid that he must he mad
to g.ve such an order, open wi.ich Hs foreman checked him
as the defendant was then in the shop, and be shoe looked
at bins end thought there was somethirg queer in his ap-
pearance.
Mr. Oillott proved that be was a tailor, and that the firm
in which he was a partner, were t ilnrs to the Admiralty.
The defendant cams in August, 1849, to their shop, and
ark. d them to make him a full dress uniform of a post cap-
tain in the royal navy, observing that as he had been a mid-
shipman when a boy, he ought now to be • posvcaptain.
Wan, as declined to make the uniform required, but subse-
quently, on communicating with Mr. Lovegrove, it was
agreed thst, as the defendant was insane, witness should
furnish him with the uniform and two swords, in order to
keep him quiet. Ths goods were sent to Mr. Lovegrove's
and have been sinew returned.

Mr. James I.,entneg, a brother of the defendant, proved
that the defendant was a worsted manufacturer, and witness
was a partner in the firm. The name of the firm was John
Learning and Company, and the defendant was the traveller
of the firm. He was now in a lunatic asylum. The defendant
was in pretty good circumstances, and lived in a very good
house at Manchester, and had saved money, which he had
inv. sted in the fir m. The defendant had a wife and seven
child,' n. We should state that the reason this witness was
examined as to the pectiniary positron of the defendant was,
tweaus, a plea had been put upon the record that the goods
supplied were sot n' y things fur the defendant's com-
fort or that of hie family, considering his condition and
Wats.

Mr. Serjeant Byles here said that he should not dispu'e
the ins tnity of the defendant at the time he gave the orders
to the plaintiff. In the opening of the WO the learned ser-
leant had stated that although the demand of the plaintiff
was for 2951. 18s, allowing far the 1101.45., and that the
question with respect to the suite of rcrewood was not a
matter before the jury, the plaintiff was walling, if all the
goods were restored him which had been delivered and
those which had not been delivered, bet got ready and
o .mpansation made for any goo,ls injured, to confine his
claim to the sum of 621. 14c, which he contended he was
entithd to alter givinv credit for 1101. 41. for the work done
to the defendant's pictures and the trainee.
Miss Maria Leteming, a deeghter of the defendant;
Mr. Capes, an suctioneer, at Manchester; Mr. Abraham, a
carver and gilder, in Bentnn street, Bend street ; and Mr.
Gavel', a carver and gilder, in Itedcreas.street, were called.
ith a view of showing that the cleaning done to the de-
fendant's pictsrra had been done in an inferior manner, and
that the galling pot 01 to the frames wee of the worst
di scription. Mr. Abraham characterised the gilding as
worthless, and sad that fir what the plaintiff' had dune to
the pictures and frames SOl. "mild be ample remuneration.
Mr. Serjeant hilts haviog replied,
The Lord Chiet Justice summed up, and left three quest
Lions to the jury, first, whether or not the defendant was
insanesanest the time of the tranawien in question ; secondly,
did the plaintiff, either himself or by his foreman, know that
ott ; and thirdly, were the goodietat plied t upposing the de-
fendant's house required any articles of the sort to be put in
it—articles of such a kind as were compatible with his con-
dition and estate.

The jury retired at twenty-five minute, past five, end at
half-past sin o'clock came into court with the following
Tt rdict : _ _

" Thut the defendant wee insane at the time of the trans.

action in question, but that the plaintiff did not himself, or
by his foreman, know that tact when the goods were ordered.
That the goods were not things compatible with the estate
and condi,ion of the defendant, awl it he were going to
furnish a house, would not be proper articles for him to buy.
With regard to whether the plointill wasentitled toanything
tor the work dose in respect of the defendant's pictures and
(roasts, the jury said that, as all the goods were to be re.
turned, they were of opinion that for the work done to the
pictures and frames 601. was sutticier.t payment, and that the
defendant, haying paid 1101. 4a , that was 501. too much.

TILE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY v. BRETT
AND LITTLE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE EXPRESS.

850.

Sin,—As the verdict of the jury in the case of the
" Electric Tel. grab Company o. Brett and Little' was not
correctly reported, and, as it is of much importance to this
company that the proceedings shr.uld appear in a correct
f rm before the public, I beg to send you the each mil slip,
which is a corrected report, and to request you will oblige
me and remedy the error by giving it an early insertion in
your columns —I am, sir, &:.„ W. Forkuuristeit, Secretary.
Electric Telegrayh Company, Luthbure, London, Feb. 27.
" It appears by the minute signed by the coons,' on both
sides, that co all but one of the 20 issues a yr rdict was taken
for the plaintiffs by arrangement bet seen the parties; and
that on the remaining issue, that of 'not guil.y,' which re-
' toted to the iniringsrment, the verdict was to be entered ac-
cording to the answers of the jury to the questions pie. to
them by the learned Chief Justice. The jury having gig. n
th ir answers accordingly, his lordshiy thereupon directed
the verdict to be revered for the plaintiffs on tie done et
' sot guilty ' also ; thus giving the plaintiffs a verdict upon
the whole case, with leave to the del.ndants to apply to the
court."

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME.CIRCUIT.7-HERTroaD, FEB. 27.

Mr. Jostlce Mauls tat this 1111,1TItillff the Crown Court.
The cOender contains the names of 45 prltesen, bat most
of the offences en et the ordinary cleseciption.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—CoustE, FEB. 26.
PitIVA COVIIT.
Henna MR. BMW, An, A COIIIIO3I Ilia.
SEUCCTION.-ROCTLEDGE r CALTBUT.

Mr. Temple on behalf of the Ida ..tilt, claimed compen-
sation from the defendant for tin lies of his daughter's
services. Mr. Calvin was a coop ctable farmer; plain.
tiff was a'ao in the same position of life, sill acted u
steward to Mr. Fivreett, of Scalehv Castle, near Carlisle.
He had eight children; the girl whom the detenilant had
seduced was the filth c►ild, who, at the cenclusiqn of Cie
learned gentleman's address, was called as a witness.
Mabel Routledge.-1 was twenty-one years old last
August. I have known G. news Calvert since childhood,
and he las paid his addresses to me for about four years.
Ile constantly visited my father's house down to Fehr,' iry,
IMO, when he wag married. Previously I had fr. rptent in-
tercourse with him, and on the 29.1 a of August I had a
little boy. I caw, to Carlisle to he confined. I could not
work hi consequence of my Blocs..
Criies-exansiced by Mr. Serj• ant Murphy—l remained ►t
my unels's till after my confinement. My sister Mary has
had a child ; she is nut married. My sister Bella has had a
child; she is not married ; she does not live at name. My
sitter Mary was confined iv home. Mrs. Nixon is my eldest
sister ; she had a child three month. titer she was married.
The ititercoune b. tween &trident and mprlf took place in
my father's kitchen, about 12 o'clock at night, whilst my
father and malhcr were in hd. They di I not know Calvert
was in the house. I let him in when they were gone to
bed, and that with the misfit wee of my menisci sister. My
other sister knew of the eircunntance. 1 received 11. for
midwife's expenses from Calvert. I went out t service at
Mrs. Laidlases. I Lien knew ter, persons named Mows
and Smith. They. were neighbours, and sometimes
dropped in late at night. Mr. an 1 Mite. Laidlaw went
twice to bed and left us up together. 1 knew a
man named Dixon for many fears. I nu ver was with him
in any plan. 1 bore ,had no other sweetheirts but Mr.
Calvert. I can't any either Mona o: Smith ever put :heir
arms round my waist and kis eel me. I have hat no lover
since my lint misfartune. My lather is a mare farm servant.
I don't know what be gets a week.

By Mr. Temple—llly father turned me away became I
was with child.

James Fawcet, Eq., Scaleby Camle-1 pay
about Me. or 16e. a week. He is bored u oustuer of the
farm. He lives in the farm boom Trot free.

Mabel Routledge ro examined by the Jud4e—Two of my
sit ere bed children without bring married ; my tether
not turn then. away ; be tioec'ell marriase. Tno fa her of
Mary's sweetheart would no: h.t him marry her.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
. . .

fir:fejr. eantlifuriliinurbmitte4 to the c tort that there
was no ease to go before the jury ; there was no foundation
for an action for densities. The mere debauching of a child
did not entitle the parent to compensation.
The Judge—l will reserve that pint—that you may wove
to enter a aonsuit on the ground that there .a no C. 1.0 foe
th?reerrearned Serjeant then addressed the jury for the de-
fence. It was an action seduction brought by Mr. Moore,
the attorney, which the jury were now trying, and an action
for breach of premiss of marring., which would no doubt
he sued in forms pauper's would, in all probatolity, f .how.
He stigmatised the cause as an attorne)'c action, and said the
damages would go into the attorney'e pocket ; for whatever
was a warded would be a.worlsed by the COY' S.
The judgo haring Willy summed up. and trimmed the
conduct of the attorney in having thus evidently dragged
into court circumstances which ought WA 1.1 have been
br ueht before the public rya.,
The jury roiled, but shorly afterwards returned with a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages. Is.
Feu 21.
Depose
.1.4 x. BANOS Roo re.

URILTS V. MILTON —SI•VcIAL JURY LCOMI.MNSATION
UNOKII, LORD CAIII.HILL's Acr.

This was an action .y the widow of ihotn e thieve, •
until guard, to recover compensation, under L ir.l
Ant, for the loss sustained by her and her r.wo ch•lorco, in
COlllll queues of the death 11 her husband, he having been
kilted on the night of the Bth of August, 1318, by tho
upsetting of a gig which earns in contact with a help of
worm, dangerously placed by the rouf.ideat Wien liritge,
near Wigton. The defendant is bridge surveyor, and w
defended at the expense of the county. The cause wee tried
at the last Cumberland Summer Assists, 1)4 ire Mr. tilleieJ
Wightman, who, on the %Intend of the non lisbility
of the yor, under the form of the plead-
ings, Gamed • uonsnit to he entered, with liberty
to the plaintiff to move to set the noneuit aide, •hoving
first token the amount of damps the jury woul.l have
given provided they had returned a verdict for the laintiff,
and the sum thus hypnth, tictlly named was 3001 p; two-
third. to the widow and one third to her daughter, less •
shilling each to the drceued's fa.her and moths r, told extra
costs. the plaintiff having cued in forms pouperis.
When the question was brought before the Court of
Emilio quer, Mr. Temple moved to set aside the noneu4, and
raised various objections to the ruling of Mr. Justice
Wightman. Atter taking time to eonsider, the court
ranted • new trial, gad the cause now game on for shearing
with new pleadings and additional evidence, the plaintiff
agate Wag to forma pooping. An attempt had bola mods

nn her part to change the venue to South Lancashire, but
it did not sneered.

Six spcial jurors only answered to eeir names, and a
tales was raj ed.
. . _

Them:es Was then re-tried, and after a lengthened hi P.., i.e j,
the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff —delineate,
31.0/. 2..; !bat is, 1.301 for the wid Ma to ,All}
divided between the two children, and subject to r ra cents,
and Is. each to father and mother, who wore mauled in the
first count. On the second count a verdict was recorded for
the defendant. The entire costs will amount to about 7001.
In the first trial each piny paid their own costs. Very
little of the damps will go into the hands of widow or
children.

THE POLICE COURTS.
GUILDHALL.
Atx.sorrirsiniarat. ASSAULT.—JosepA Solomon surren-
dered himself to ans.er the charge of committing a rape
upon the person of Fanny Ilerneworth, his father's servant.
Mr. Clarkson, the barrister, with Mr. Lewis, the solicitor,
appeared to defend Solomon..
The girl Harnswortli, who was in attendance, came for-
ward, and after exhibiting much reluctance to be sworn, de-
posed that the evidence which she gave on her first exami-
nation, and which was again read over to her, was all true.
Some testimony in corroboration of the girl's statement
having been hes-d, counsel for the prosecution propmed to
bring torwerd proof that money had been given to her to
keep out of the way, but as there promised to be some diffi-
culty In bringing the charge home to any person, he aban-
doned his intention, and he called on the alderman to com-
mit Solomons on the charge of violation.
Mr. Clarkson contended at considerable length that tke
ease was one of seduction merely.
Aldermen Farebrother said he should like to take some
time to consider the whole subject, and he should remand
the prisoner until Saturday, taking the same hail as before,
namely, himself in 2001, and two sureties in 1001. each.
In the course of the afternoon approved bail was forth-
coming, and the prisoner left the court.