The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-08-09 00:00:00

(Front nesday's Gazette.)

•
WAR-OFFICE, August 7.—The Queen has been
graciously pleased to signify her intention to con-
fer the decoration of the Victoria Cross on the
undermentioned soldier of her Majesty's army,
whose claim to the same has been submitted for
her Majesty's approval, on account of an act of
bravery performed by him in India, as recorded
against his name, viz. :--
Private Samuel Morley, No. 201, 2nd Battalion, Mili-
tary Train. On the evacuation of Azimgurh by Boer
Singh's army, on the 15th of April, 1858, a squadron of
the Military Train, and half a troop of Horse Artillery,
were sent in pursuit. Upon overtaking them,
and coming into action with their "rear guard,
a squadron of the 3rd Sikh Cavalry (also de-
tached in pursuit) and one troop of the Military Train
were ordered to charge, when Lieutenant Hamilton,
who commanded the Sikhs, was unhorsed, and immedi-
ately surrounded by the enemy, who'commenced cutting
and hacking him while on the ground. Private Samuel
Morley, seeing the predicament that Lieutenant Hamil-
ton was in, although his (Morley's) horse had been shot
from under him, immediately and most gallantly rushed
up, on foot, to his assistance, and in conjunction with
Farrier Murphy, who has already received the Victoria
Cross for the same thing, cut down one of the Sepoys,
and fought over Lieutenant Hamilton's body until fur-
ther assistance came up, and thereby was the means of
saving Lieutenant Hamilton from being killed on the
spot.

TIIE CLAN CAMPBELL IN TILE HOUSE or LORDS.—
On Monday, when Lord Clyde, the pacificator of India,
who has served with distinction in every great battle in
which the British have been engaged since Corunna,
was installed as a peer in the House of Lords, besides
the hero being a Campbell, the Lord Bishop of Bangor,
who read prayers, was a Campbell, the Lord Chancellor,
who presided on the Woolsack, was a Campbell, and
the new peer was introduced by the Duke of Argyle,
now Lord Privy Seal, and Chief of the Clan.—Scotsman.
AN INCIDENT IN AN IRIS)! COURT OF LA.W.—Au
extraordinary scene took place at the Galway assizes
last. week during the progress of the important case of
Father Lavelle against the .Mayo Constitution. After
some warm personal altercation between the learned
counsel, a letter was handed to the presiding judge by
Sergeant Fitzgibbon, upon the perusal of which his
lordship immediately adjourned the court, requesting
the presence of the learned sergeant in chamber. It was
understood that the letter conveyed a challenge from
one of the counsel on the opposite side, supposed to be
Mr. Morris. Great excitement prevailed in court, as a
duel was expected to take place, despite the interference
of the judge.—Dubein Evening News.

COURT OF PASSAGE -YEF•TF.RDAY

(Before EDWARD JAMES, Esq., Q.C., Assessor.)
The business of this court was resumed this morning
at nine o'clock.

VERRTHY SOMEWHERE!
At the opening of the court this morning, Mr-
Deighton said, addressing the Assessor,—l have, in then
. .

case of " Miller v. Peak," which was tried before you.

on tho day before yesterday (Monday), an affidavit, on

which lam instructed to apply for a new trial. It was
an action for the non-delivery of several casks of coffee.
The Assessor—On what grounds—is it upon surprise ?

Mr. Deighton —lt is on surprise in one respect, but it
is something mere—not according to evidence.

The Assessor—Then it is surprise.

Mr. Deighton—We are surprised at the evidence

given by the plaintiff.
The Assessor—That is often the case. (Laughter.)
Mr. Deighton—The affidavit states that the evidence•
given by the plaintiff is now denied by a person of whose.

existence we were not aware at the trial, but we have-
now his affidavit. •

The Assessor—Then it is on the ground of surprise.
Mr. Deighton—So it is—we ask for a new trial, or
for the reduction of the damages to one farthing. It
will be remembered that on the trial the plaintiff swore
that he bad resold the coffee to a Mr. Rovvsin, of Wigan.
We have since found Mr. Rowsin, and be positively
states that he never purchased the coffee from the.
plaintiff, and had made an affidavit to that effect.
The Asses,or, after perusing the atlidavit—Yo4 mai
take a rule for a new trial generally.
Rule accordingly.
AMICABLE NEIGHBOURS.—JINKINSON V. HAINES.—
This was an action on trespass. Mr. Brett was for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Aspinall for the defendant. In this
case Mr. Henry Jenkinson was the plaintiff, and Mr.
George Haines was the defendant. Both the parties
lived next doer to each other in Portland-street,
Everton.

The pleadings stated that Haines had broken

and entered an enclosure in Everton, belonging to Jen-
kinson, and erected a building thereon, to which the
former had replied that he was not guilty, and that
the close into which he had trespassed was not Jenkin-
sOn's close. The facts of this case are exceedingly
simple. The parties at litigation were next door
neighbours, and had been on friendly terms. There
was a wall between the two premises, which wall the
plaintiff called a party wall—half being built upon his
premises, and half on the other. Thus the plaintiff
was entitled to one half, and the defendant to the other,
of this wall. Bat the defendant had taken possession
of the whole of the wall, by building some premises
upon it, which had caused the present estrangement of
friendship, and this action. Before the final witness
was examined, the Assessor directed the jury to nonsuit
the plaintiff upon a legal technical objection, which was
accordingly done.
ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES.—FLINN v. TILLY-
ILA.N.—This was an action to recover compensation for
personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff through the
negligence and carelessness of the defendant. Mr. Brett
was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Aspinall for the defendant.
The facts of the case were not disputed, the only question
in dispute being as to the amount of damages. The
plaintiff is coachman to Mr. Charles Pemberton,
solictor, and the defendant is a master painter, both of
this to,ol. On the 20th of April last the former was
driving master's phaeton up Bold-street, when a very
heavy ladder, the property of the defendant, upon which
some of his w0..-kmen were employed in painting the
Savings' Bank, fell
.upon the plaintiff, and, accord' g to
the surgeon, he had received such
the evidence of Mr. Gib,
injuries that it would ba very long time, if ever,
.."
before he recovered. In fa,nt, before the injuries he
was a strong, hale man, the father of sixteen
children, but since he had bewail) debilitated and so
nervous that he could scarcely stand b)" himself. For
the defence it was attempted to be grown That compen-
sation had been offered, but that an extortion,:te sum
was required, as the plaintiff was the servant oar. a
solicitor. This point was however repudiated. The
Assessor thought that if interviews between solicitors.
when compensation could not be agieed upon, were to
be raked up, in such cases as this, there would be very
little justice obtained by applicants. The learned.
Assessor, in very strong terms, censured the instructions
the counsel for the defendant had received, in attempting
to insinuate that those who had instructed the plaintiff
had been led to bring this action for the purpose of
fattening upon an innocent and injured man. The jury,
after a brief consideration, gave a verdict for the plain-
tiff—damages £3O. After the verdict had been returned,
the learned Assessor said he could not for one moment
suppose that either the counsel, or the solicitor who had
instructed him for the defendant, could possibly have
been aware of the evidence given by Mr. Cox, surgeon,
who had been called for the defendant, and who had
fully confirmed the statement of the other medical gen-
tleman of the lamentable condition in which_ the plaintiff
had been placed by the injuries he had received.
This concluded the business of the court.

LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT.—YEsIEms.v

(Before Mr. RAFFLES.)
A BLACKGUARD.

A well-dressed man, apparently about 28 years of age, who,
gave the name of William Donnell. and who was described AS.
a butler in 3 gentleman's family at St. Helens, was charged for
acting most improperly and indecently in front of the schools•
of Notre Dame Convent, Mount-pleasant. Mr. Cobb appeared
for the prisoner. Police-officer 772, who was in plain clothes,
stated that he watched the prisoner the previous day, and saw
him act in the most scandalous manner, which he described.
He was cross-examined by Mr. Cobb. who tried to show that
he might have made a mistake, but he persisted in his state-
ment. The prisoner was sent to jail for three months.