The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1861-01-24 00:00:00

THE CARELESS 'BUS CONDUCTOR AGAIN.

COURT OF EXCIIEQUER--MESDAY, Jfix. 22.
SEY3tOuR r. GREENWOOD.

This case was tried at the Liverpool spring assizes,
last year, before Mr. Justice Blackburn, when a verdict
was found for the plaintiff, leave being reserved to the•
defendant to move.

Mr. T. Jones moved accordingly and obtained a rule
to set aside the verdict, and enter a nonsuit on the
ground that there was no evidence to go the jury.
The plaintiff was riding at Manchester in an omnibus
belonging to the defendant, when a dispute arose with
the conductor about the fare to be paid. The conductor
seized the plaintiff b}• the collar and a scuffle took place
between them, when the former was pulled out of the
omnibus and thrown to the ground, at the moment when
a Hansom cab was passing, and before the driver could
stop the lower part of the cab had struck the plaintiff on
the head, inflicting a severe scalp wound some inches in
length, and a wheel passed over his foot, from the
effects of which he was rendered insensible, and taken
away in another cab. Since the verdict, the plaintiff
had died.

Mr. Monk, Q.C., and Mr. Wheeler now showed cause
against the rule, and Mr. Jones supported it.
Against the rule it was contended that an improper
mode of doing that which it was the duty of the de—
fendant's servant to do as conductor made the defendants
liable.

In support of the rule it was urged that if the con-
ductor exceeded the authority deputed to hire, or deviated
from it, then no liability attached to the defendant,
unless he had subsequently ratified the act done.
The Court said that the question was whether there
was evidence on which the jury might find that the act
of the servant was one for which the defendant was
reasonably liable ; the conductor was obeying the lawful
commands of his master; but not doing so with wilful
brutality, but doing it with such want mf care as to put
the unfortunate plaintiff in danger. Tie rule to enter
a nonsuit would be discharged.
Rule discharged.

THE LADY AND THE BARRISTER ON A
FISHING EXCURSION.

GRAHAM V. GRARAM AND GRIFFITH.
COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE—YESTERDAY..
Mr. J. 0. Griffits appeared for the petitioner, and Mr_
Douglas Brown for the co-respondent. The respondent
did not appear.
William Graham, the petitioner, was married to the
respondent, formerly Dorothea Holland, in March, 1843,
and lived with her first at Manchester, and then at
Betws-y-Coed, a watering-place in North Wales, for
several years. He held the office of sub-inspector of
factories at Manchester. In the summer of 1859,
having become indebted beyond his means of payment,
he went to Scotland, to take the benefit of the Scotch
insolvency laws. During his absence his wife sent her
daughter to Scotland with a servant, wrote him an
affectionate letter, saying she was going to Le,ndmr to
see her father, and ran away with Mr. James Drum-
mond Griffith, a barrister, who had been staying in
North Wales on a fishing excursion, and had made Mr.
Graham's acquaintance before he went to Scotland. In
August, 1859, her father had received a letter, written
by her from Paris, containing various reproaches against
her husband, and she was afterwards traced to Dinan,
where she was living with Mr. Griffith as his wife.
Mr. D. Brown said that the lady was 40, and the
co-respondent was some years younger, and it was pro-
bable that she had left her husband not so much in con-
sequence of his solicitation as because she was not living
happily.

h is Lordship thought that the supposition that she►
had any ground of complaint against her husband had
been completely negatived by the evidence, and granted
a decree with costs against the co-respondent.