The Express.
London, England, 1864-12-12 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-DE('. 10.
_ _

After Term NM Pram Sitting at GoildhalL—(Before Lord
Juatice Oockbara and Common Junes.)

This was the firat day of the sittings. The het contains
21S ceases. $$ are remiineta. cod 140 new mums. (OS are
marked for special juries; 31 are marked as withdrawn or
remanete ; and in 17 there are commissions,

BOULTER R WEIISTEX.

This Wu an action to recover damages from the defendant
on account of the negligent driving of his servant, whereby
the plaintiff's daughter was killed. The defendant pleaded
not guilty.
Mr. Henry James was counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr.
I). Seymour. Q.C., and Mr. Lurton were counsel for the
defendant.

This was an action of a somewhat peculiar character. It
was brought by the father, who for the purposes of this
action had taken out letters of administration to his
daughter, a little girl, between seven and eight yearn of
age, to recover damages for the pecuniary loss of her ger-
Twee, she having been killed through the alleged negligence
of the defendant's servant. The plaintiff carries on busi•
nem io a small way in Old Castle-street, Bethnatgreen, sa
a fancy toy maker, and the child, though young, did many
things in oonnezioo with the trade which the father valued
at between and 6e. a week. On Saturday, the 28th
November, 1863, there was a knock at the door, which the
child went down to answer, and whilst on the steps of
the door her foot slipped, and she fell into the
roadway of the street, which was scarcely wide enough for
two carts to peas at the same time. The defendants ler.
vent was driving along in a pony cart at the rate of be-
tween 10 and 12 miles an hour, and before he could pull up
he struck the child, her head "skidding" the wheel for
some lards. After lingering some time she died. One of
the witnesses called for the plaintiff deposed that if the
cart had been going at a moderate rate he could hove picked
up the child and prevented the accident. The cart struck
the child before the people in the street had time to call
out. _ _

The defence was that the pace the pony was going bad
been exaggerated, because the pony had to stop near where
the accident took place, and it was in fact pulled up within
• yard or two of where the accident occurred, besides that
there was a cart standing in front of the greengrocer's shop,
which was almost Immediately opposite the plaintiff's door,
that rendered it necessary for the defendants boy to drive
with care. He was on his right side, and was our the
kerb to enable him to peas, and the probability was that
the child fell just as the cart earns up, and that it was an
accident of the moonset. The pony was driven by • lad
who was accustomed to drive, and was a careful driver.
There was the usual amount of contradictory evidence with
reference to the pace the pony was going and the care and
caution exercised by the driver. The pooy, it was rid, had
been to Paddiogtoo and back from Bethnal-green, • dis-
tance of 13 miles, sod was too tired to go fast. The pony
was between 11 and 12 bands high, and the cart was only
large enough to bold two persona.
The driver was called, and deposed that he was driving a
steady pace, between five and six miles an hour. lie did
not see the child fall, and he was not aware that he had
driven over her until someone called out. He had been ac-
customed to drive ever since he bad known himself
(laughter)—and that was about 17 years. (Laughter.)
In cross-examination, he said be had the pony very
nearly up to as feat a pace as he could go. He could go
about ten miles an hour. It was a rather foggy night, and
he was driving the same pace he usually drove in the day.
light.
A little boy who was in the cart said he maw it strike the
deceased, and he told the driver of it. He tried to stop
before the accident.

The jury returoed a verdict for the plaintiff, damvges
11. for the fuoeral expenses of the child, but gave nothing
for the pecuniary lass of the child's services.
Upon that baling the plaintiff will have leave to move
the court whether be ceo recover fur that, there being some
doubt about it.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Die. 10.
Sittings at Niai Preis in Lendon.—lkiefore Lord Chief
Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)

UTLEY r. BAKEL -BREACH OP PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
. . .

The plaintiff in thin cue, Fdiabeth Mary ISyby, clamed
damages from the defendant, Wm. Baker, for the breach of
• promise to marry her, and the defendant pleaded denying
his promise to marry, and alleging also that • reasonable
time for the performance of it had not elapsed.
Mr. Giffartrand Mr. Meolschlan appeared for the plain-
tiff. and Mr. Philbrick and Mr. Reynolds for the defendant.
Mr. Giffard, in opening the case, said that he should
show the jury conclusively, from the correspondence which
be would read, that there had been • promise to marry, and
in the sod he bad no doubt that the only question would be
one of damages. The plaintiff was • widow, 37 years of
age, and she had been occasionally employed by gentlemen
as a housekeeper, and, indeed, the acquaintance between
the parties communed then, through defendant, a grocer at
South Norwood, seeing the plaintiff in consequence of his
being in want of • housekeeper. The acquaintance thus
commenced ripened into • close intimacy. The defendant
thought it would be better to have the plaintiff permanently
for himeelf, and be agreed to many her on Ornydon fair day.
(A laugh.) The defendant was • man between 50 and G 0 ears
of age, so Mint be was of meanie age, and he introduced the
plaintiff to his family, and stated that they were very much
Pleased with her. The leaned counsel then read the
etters, which had been written by the defendant to the
plaintiff.
The jury found • verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 2004