The Express.
London, England, 1852-12-13 00:00:00

Leon) SUL/Milt.

Sit A. Cockburnltithailttiiis case he appeared for
the defendant, who was charged with being guilty of a
*erica, 'dander. On the part of the defendant hr had to
state that he had not the slightest intention of speaking the
words eomplained of in any offensive sense. There had
been disputes lo.tween the parties on family matters, and
great irritation had arises. The difference was quite of a
family nature, and without doubt the defendant bad spoken
with more heat than was necessary. The learned gentle-
man trusted the explanation ho then made would be consi-
dered sufficient and satisfactory.
The Attorney-General (with whom was Serjeaut Wil
bins) said the plaintiff would not have felt it necessary to
commence proceedings had it not been that the defendant
was a gentleman of considerable influence in the Greek
nation, and that anything stated by him was calculated to
make a deep impression. The explanation of his learned
friend was perfectly satisfactory, and he (the Attorney-
General) trusted it would lead to a reconciliation between
the parties, who were formerly intimate friend,.
Lard Campbell said that the plaintiff and defendant had
acted very wiwel:, in settling this matter.
A juror was then withdrawn.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAB.—SATCRDAT.
SITTIMo• •T Kin rams 011// JV•TICS 1,11,111
AND • Comm
_ _

(ITC/HILL AND Win v. C&* NW AND ANOTHEIt.
A Woxim Ron Ovga. _

This was an aetTontoreentereiazaggee for injuries sin
tained by Mrs. Staab*ll in coneequenee of being run over
by a cart belonging to the defendants ; the pleas were that
the defendants were not guilty and that the cart was
I not theirs._ . . .

Mr. Sarjeant BON and Kr. Peteradorer appeared for the
plaintiffs; and Mr. fleijaant nee and another learned bar-
rister were for the deteadents. . . . .

The plaintiffs in thin ease are people in humble circuit-
stanees, the busbend Lein( an iron bedstead maker and the
wife a child's shoemaker, and the defendants were iron-
monnen, in Welbeck-street, Cavendish-squase. About
nine o'clock en the evening of the Bth September last, Mrs.
Mitchell went out with her daughter, to purchase some
bison in Tottenhatat•court-road, and was about emceeing the

.
red Chafton-street en her way home, when shtiwas
knocked down by the defendants' cart, which passed over
her 'eels. The consequence was that she was seriously in-
jured, and was coatined to her bed for a month. Lp to
the present time she had continued unable to work at her
business, and the doctor thought she would never the.
roughly recover. Under these eiretunstanees, Mrs. Mit-
chell naked for damages for the injuries dons to her, and
her husband claimed oompensation for ices of her ser-
vices, &e.
According to the plaintiffs' case, the accident was caused
wholly by the negligence of the defendants' servant, who
was driving this cart—which was a large hooded one—very
tat; and, in fact, one of the witnesses said that it was
" lying along" and " going like an engine."
The defendants' ease was that their servant was driving
0•17 three or four miles an hour when Mrs. Mitchell
"few" rapidly into the toed, tan against the cart, and
thus caused the accident. Another ground of defence was,
that the defendants' servant was sot oat at the time of the
accident upon their business, but having done his day's
work and taken the cart home to Welb ck-street, he hed
afterwards taken a person for a ride home, and in return-
ing from this journey the accident happened. This being
so, it was contended that the defendants were not liable.
The Chief Justice left the question of negligence to the
jury, and told them if they found for the plaintiffs, to say
what part of the damages was to be applied to each of them
reapectively.
The jury found for the plaintiffs—dm.
SOL far this wife and 101. for the husband.

401., befog

The Chief Justice reserved the qu. scion, whether the a.-
feadvints were liable by reason of their servant not being et
the time of the accident employed upon their business, for
the opinion of the court, and expressed hie opinion that the
question might be most c,nveniently raised if the verdict
were now entered for the defendants.
Verdict for the defendants accordingly.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.--SATuRDAT
Bicroas IN C 113.. ONINUMINI
IN All JOHN BANTON.—.. PLIANUNINI ON LITIGATION.'

Armor.

hasolvent,;MT-t;al ieM; --------
ThislLla Mason-,tees
Old Kent-road, applied to be discharged from iforeemonge
Lae Gaol.

Mr. Ernest Reed opposed for the detaining creditor, Jas. ,1
Owyer, a eowkeeper. Mr. Sargocd supported.
An action was brought against the insolvent by Owyer,
a near neighbour, for a wilful trespass. The object of the
action was to try a " right of way," which the insolvent
alleged he had exercised for 30 years. Owyer had put up
a fame, which the insolvent knocked down, as it interfered
with his business, and the parties went to law. A verdict
was given foe 61. damages, and the costs were taxed at
2181. 19.. Beaides the costs so incurred by the plaintiff,
the laselvent had been put to considerable expense in de.
the action. He had paid his attorney 301., given
Mos de to collect to %boat the same sum, and now owed
101. to his attorney en account of the action.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips said it was • " blessed action."
It was certainly one of the most costly adieus he had ever
beard of. It appeared that "ten pleas" had been pleaded
to the action in which the triune(' of soma adjoining pro-
perty were interested, and it was expected that they would
pay the costs of the' action. Two points were urged in op-
position, namely, a vexatious defence and incurring a large
debt fur costs when he had no reeeionable expectation of
payment. He held that there could be no vexatious defence,
as the action was not for a " debt." His Honour was of
opi ion that expensive as the action had been, the insolvent
bed shown his bona fides, as he had spent all he possessed
to try the quosta ; he was, therefore, entitled to his dis-
charge, and be hoped Gwyes would not have to pay the
large coots.
The insolvent was discharged.