The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-27 00:00:00

LW) Intellteence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,SATuiDAY.
Ramses tar Lava
Dos D. Mimeo v. Dimwit.
Mr. Ogle moved foe • rale to show tease why the sea tit,
which had been entered in this ease, should not be est side.
sad • &UP trial had. The fedi it; of which the ease bad
whoa were somewhat aserims. At an •netios, one of the
matters dimmed of wee a leasehold interest. The as..
teaser, with a view to tie ash keeping of the
loser, put it into • desk, which be locked op.
The desk was afterwards disposed of, no one at
the time, esoept the auctioneer, being aware of
what it oontsited. The auctioneer was afterwards so
hem that he did not take particular notice of the velem
removed from the auction room. The desk in question was
removed, sine, which time the lease had not been heard of.
The action was brought to determine the ngh•s of the va-
rioes parties interested in the natter. At the trial before
Lord Campbell the chief witness for the plaintiff, the
metioneer, was not present, and • wank was entered. Re
(Mr. Ogle) now applied for a rule to ant the nonauit aside on
the ground that the absence of the auctioneer was purely seri-
dental, being an/Umtata' to the detention of • steamer an
the river, by which he was coming to London.
Lord Campbell observed that he had waited a masidenble
time for the miming witness.
Mr. Ogle remarked that every indulgence had been shown
by his lordship at the trial to the plaintiff, and that his pre-
sent •plane/vlen was as • matter of form, the absence of so
material a witness to tbe plaintiff having been purely ace-
&KUL—Rale treated.

BAIL COURT.—SATORDAT.
tkrrows IP PA3100.-6170111 Ma. Rims Enz.

COL= c

This war an aetlen RnwtNt by the plaintiff, a carman re-
ceiving 20a. a.week, against the defendant, for criminal con
venation with the plaintiff's wife. It appeared that the
plaintiff, as well se being a carman, had a cigar shop at Wal-
worth, which was attanded to by his wife, a young woman
19 years of age. She was left there slime, the plaintiff leav-
ing home at six in the morning and not returning till a very
late hour at night ; and in the month of January last the
plaintiff tuned his wife out of doors, and she became charge-
slate to the parish. He was then noun .ned to show cause
why he refused to minket his wife, lie attended the sum-
mons, and set up a plea of adultery on the
adof the wife. This plea, however, was not
mitted, and the plaintiff was ordered to con-
tribute towards the support of his wife. The
plaintiff's master seeing this in the newspaper immediately
discharged him. Some time after tt is the present action was
brought ; judgment was suffered to go by default, and an
inquhition was issued, and the matter came before the
Under Sheriff, when an act of adultery was proved to have
taken place on the 22nd of February. The plaintiff's muter
WAS called to show that he had discharged the plaintiff from
his service. It was then submitted by the defendant's
consul that this discharge having taken place Wore the
22nd of February, the evidence regarding it could not be
received, no it wool i have an improper effect Ipma the minds
of the jury. The Under Sheriff, however, admitted the
evidence, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff, with 2001.
damages,
Sergeant Allen now moved to set aside that inqui-
sition, on the ground that the evidence es to the disabuse
had been improperly @baited.

Rule ponied:
Ix TIM MATTER or HILL AND ANOTHBiI.
Some HON tines an application bad been made against
these parties, whe are attorneys, requiring them to refund a
considerable sum of money which it was alleged hod bun
deposited with them in order that it might be placed out
upon security ; but it woe stated tl at upon inquiry it wu
&wavered th►t one party had lent the money to the other,
land that it had not heen placed out upon security. It was
then referred to the Master to inquire whether any and'
what sum ought to be refunded by these attomies.
The Muter found that they ought to refund to the par-
ties who had entrusted them with the money the rum of
2,8951. Se.
Mr. Crowder now moved for arule, calling upon Hill and
his partner to Maw cause why they should nn• be a'rutk off
the rolls of the mart, they not having repaid this sum, and
not being able to produce security upon which it was placed.
Rule granted.
SI7II74SAT Sot rt 111.14
RAT IP. YOUDALI. . .

The Wien was broseht to recover the amount which the
plaintiff alleged was due to him fee two horses. which the
defendant had purchased of him ; but after many witnesses
had here flanked on both side.,
Mr. James said %Ant much of the evidence bad c me upon
bin by surprise, acd ttat es raising his best discretion, he
should consent to a nonsuit
•.. . . .

The judge and the jury mud their Linda wore made up
the smatter.

PFafiiiiinoneuited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—SATuumi.
Not rair..7llrrotr Mr. .1 s WILLIAMS 101 Cowpox Jras.

Ptsiiv r buimmma —Cam. Von.
This was an action hrooght W a coach painter against a
a reran named Bladder, who lived ap-in his propirty, to
recover cmapesaation in damages for criminal conversation
with his wife.