The Express. — 1862-05-12 (London, England)

THE- EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING,  the court to proceed under the circumstances to par judgment on the two defendants before the court. Mr. Justice Crompton said that under a writ of prostration the prosecution could not get the costa. Mr. Chambers said they might be got from the treasurf, if the court would intimate that they intended to pass each a fine upon Mr. Train as would oover them. It Mr. Train would accept the terms offered he (Mr. Chambers) was willing to abandon the proceedings against the vestrymen. Mr. Justice Crompton said it appeared to him to merge into a question of costs. Mr. C•hambere said he understood that in addition to the bond given by Mr. Train on permission given to him to lay down the tramway, he had deposited 1,0001. for the vestrymen's costs. _  The constable answered that be appeared to have been drinking deeply, bet the effect of the ducking sobered him. Mr. Edwin, the chief clerk, assured his trip that from what be had heard of the prisoner he believed be had no intention of committing suicide. Mr. Burnham discharged him, and hoped it would act as a caution to bim to keep sober for the future. Had it not been for the constable and others be might have lost his life.  Mr. Luis, Q.C., who watched the proceedings for the vestry, said that was for reinstating the road. After some further discussion between the bench and the learned counsel, The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion that the court ought not to pronounce judgment in the present state of the case. It was a matter of discretion for the court, and he thought they ought to hesitate before making a precedent. Some of the defendants were in the position that it rested for the court to say whether the verdict should be that of guilty or not guilty should be entered against them. It would therefore be very inconvenient that the court should proceed to pass judgment against the two defendants before them, more especially as in the event of a new trial being granted on the part of the vestrymen, the defendants, Train and Hathway, would be entitled to participate in it. The power, however, was in the hands of the prosecution, by entering a none prosequi with reference to the vestrymen, but they declined to do so, as was obvious—the question of costa intervening. The court declined to make the precedent asked for, and, therefore, unless the prosecution entered a tolls presaged against the other defendants the case must stand over till the diaposal of the rule. Mr. Justice Crompton said he thought the court might have to pass sentence on the defendants, but he th t it better not to do so, considering the difficulties that might arise in consequence. The other learned judges concurred. • Application refused. The Lord Chief Justice said!that in the event of the case coming again before them, and they were called upon to pronounce judgment, that if it was brought to their knowledge that the nuisance had not been abated and aocidenta bad occurred in the interval, the court would take it into their serious consideration with reference to the sentence to be imposed. What had passed was to be without prejudice in any application to be made next term to take the rule out of the new trial paper for immediate discussion.