The Express.
London, England, 1863-12-07 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Dec. 5.

After Term sittings at NW Prins, at Weelzoinster.—(Before
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
JACC4ON r. TEI LONDON 0121111A1. 010DBUS CONPANT
(mum).
This was an action for injury sustsioed, both personal and
otherwise. The defendants pleaded rot guilty.
The plaintiff wee a cab proprietor and driver, and the
injuries complained of arose from the alleged negligence of
the defendants' nervants. The defendants, the learned ser-
, Mint said, appeared to be determined to have the monopoly
of the streets, and on the Bth August last, about half-pad
one o'clock, the defendants' bua was desirous of peening in
High Holborn the Citizen, a rival 'bus. The horses were
being driven very fast, and came in contact with the
plain-
tilf'scb, which was upset, the horse injured, and the plain-
tiff wee thrown off the box, The plaintiff was seriously
injured, and he was now suffering from the effects of the
accident.
. . .

The evidence was of the usual contradictory character.
The plaintiff's witnesses described the defendants' 'bus as
going at the rate of 10 miles an hour, the driver making very
free use of the whip, and that the Citizen 'bus was going
the steady pace of six miles an hour. The driver of the
Citizen saki his 'bus was full, and be did not can about
driving fast. His fares were lower then the eieint:2l.
He did not pull his 'bus acmes is front of the
General's. He wu unable to say if the defendants' driver
said to him after the accident that he bad pulled across him,
and be replying he did not know he was behind. The roads
were rather slippery at the time. The conductor said the
defendants' driver was using the whip right and left, and
springing his hones to peso the Citizen. He moved to
the off monkey-beard, and asked the other conductor if bin
driver was going to "crack up " the Citizen. Plaintiff
was still unable to work, and his medial man had continued
in attendence up to the present time.
The defence was that the accident was caused by the.
Citizen in pulling to the right to avoid the stones just as
defendants 'bum was about to pans between the Citizen and
the cab. Thare was no rung, sod the defendants' servants
denied they were going at the pace deeerthed. They were
not going more than seem miles an hour.
The driver of the defendants' 'bus, in answer to a gamine
from Yr. Gifford, mid therein' no competition between the
'buses. The Citizens were lower fares ; and • London
General Omnibus would no won care for a Citizen than he
would for • " wan." (laughter.) He told the Citizen driver
belted does it purposely. The defendants' was • Kilburn.
gate 'bus. He never Begged his hones. They did not re-
quire it, and be only carried • whip for moment, (Laugh-
ter.) He never used • whip to hurt • horse i but the
learned sergeant said that perhaps there might be •
differenoe of opinion between him and the hone
about that (Laughter.) The driver denied that he even
tickled his horses that evening. (Laughter.) He called on
the plaintiff after the accident with the secretary of "our
own little accident club" to give him information or to
give some remuneration to him if needed. The object of
the club was to secure the driver against pecuniary
lessee arising from damage to bores, from collision.
The Lord Chief Justice—Then, in fact, it was an in-
genue against accidents.
The whams said it was not exactly that. To show how
few accidents happened, the manna% frequently received
back from 10s. to 15s. at the end of the year out of the 26e.
of enbecriptsoes paid by them. Both hones wait together
so fares Paddington.
Au outside esagsr corroborated the driver's evidence,
that the Citizen across the defendants' 'bus. It was
in sodden the driver could not pull up so as to prevent the
widget.

TheThiry returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
2001.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Dsc. 5.
SECOND COURT.
Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Julio,
Bytes and • Special Jury.)
THE DOWAGER LADS BLANTYRR V. THE 85. JAMES'S HOTEL
CONPANT.—LOBB OF JEWILB IN AZ HOTEL.
The plaintiff is this claimed to recover the value of some
jewels, and also to recover an amount of money, which she
had lost whiles a guest at the St. James's Hotel. The de-
(indents denied their liability, upon the ground that the
plaintiff had given no notice to the manager of the hotel
that she had with her the property in question, and that she
did not take proper are of it.
The plaintiff a counsel stated that lady Blantyre having
come up to London for the mum in April last, went with
her daughter, Mrs. Fanned, the wife of the M.P. for
Devong art, to the St. James's Hotel, at the corner of
Berkeley-square. The hotel was then not quite finished,
but they agreed to take apartments in it when they should
be fit to be occupied. In pursuance of this arrangement
they co the Bth May took possession of the apartments,
which consisted of a drawing-room, two bedrooms, a drew-
ing-room, and a dining.room oo the second floor. 'Mm
rooms were en suite, with a door in each leading from one
room into another. There was also a door leading from the
passage labs each of the rooms. One b:droom was occupied
by Lads Blantyre, and the other bedroom was occupied by
Mr. and Mrs. Feuand. About seven o'clock on the 19th
May, lady Blantyre dressed for dinner; sod bad occa-
sion to make use. of her dressing-ease, in which,
amongst miler things. were her jewels and
money. There was 57/. in money, and the jewels were
worth 500/. or 6001., and consisted of a large diamond brooch
worth 3201., a pair of diamond buckles for bracelets worth
611., a hoop diamond ring worth 301., an emerald mid dia.
mood half.hoop ring 301., a diamond ring with a ruby in
the centre 35L, a half-hoop river of small brillants 101., a
ring containieg three dimmed@ and a pearl 101., an onyx,
pearl. soddiamoedring 131., and an Indiaobandean with ruby
eyes 181. The jewellery was thee safe in the dressi t-cue,
which was locked and Oiud oo the drawers in the
where it usually stood. Her ladyship retired to her br 1-
roem between eleven and twelve at night, and she did not
lock the doors, but placed a chair aghast that door which
opened upon the outer passage. She rose next morning at
half.past eight, and welt to breakfast at ten. She returned
at eleven, and upon looking into her dreuieg-cess she
found that her jewels and money were gooe. The dressing
ease bad not the appearance of having been forced, and Lady
Blantyre had the key. with some others, in her pocket. She
immediately informed Mr. Farmed of her Ices, and he com-
municated with Mrs. Fraocatelli, the wife of the manger
of the hotel, and afterwards the matter was placed in the
hands of the police, but no clue'swas obtained to the robbery,
and it still remained a mystery. Only one of the stolen
notes had been traced as having Leen paid into the Bank. In
eonelosion it was aummitted that the defendants were clearly
liable, as Lady Blantyre bad taken as much care of her pro-
perty as if she had been in her own house ; and the law de-
clared that an innkeeper was liable for any loss which • guest
stiffened while staying in has house. It was true that last
session an act was passed limiting the liability of an inn-
keeper or hotel-keeper for lowa by • guest whilst
staying in the boau unless notice were gives to him accord.
tog to the provisions of the statute. The robbery io ques-
tion, however, took place previous to the passing of the
statute.
Lady Blantyre and Mr. J. M. Ferraod gave evidence in
support of the shove statement, and the servants of both
were also examined, on as to give them the opportunity
of saving that they keew nothing of the robbery. Evidence
was also given of the value of the jewels.
Mr. Bovill 'then addressed the jury, contending that the
defendants were not lia'ole, inasmuch as they Lad placed •
notice in every room in the hotel which stated " The com-
pany do not hold themselves responsible for property left
in the hotel unless placed in the special charge of the
manager ;" andforther, became the property had been lost
in consequence of lady Blantyre not having taken sufficient
Mr. Justice Bytes, after some evidence had been given,
summed up, and directed the jury that from the time of
the llemans an innkeeper had been liable for the property
of his guest ; but in this ease it was desirable that the jury
should soy whether Lady Blantyre bad been guilty of neg-
ligence in not reading the notice ; the not locking her door ;
or in not giving the property into the hands of the manager.
The jury answered all these questions in favour of the
plaintiff, and fixed their verdict for her—damages 584!.
COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Dre. &
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CLAYTON f. DAVID.—RIMCIAL JOST.
At the clone( the widow* oe Saturday,
The case was adjourned till Wednesday next.

Crry OP LONDON HoortTAL FOR Daum or
TER Caw, VID/01111 PAIL—Th. umber of patients r •
nosed at this issiitation during but week was 1,154, a
which 202 were raw eases.

HoanntsTsciiss is choioe and strong, moderate
in leek sod wbeleeens to sok These solventogeo have smeared
Ike Ms Teo a gesecol preference. It Is sold la pockets by us.
sesesa—isesedimmeasj