The Express.
London, England, 1862-04-16 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUKR..—Arun. 15.

The judges in this court were Lord Chief Baron Pollock,
sad Baran Bramwell, Martin, and Wilde. Mr. Hindmanh
sad Mr. Bode, basica been appointed Queen's counsel IMO
ogled, with the usual fornmelities, within the bar.

LEIWOWIII v. INTNAN.—DIBNIONAL OP AN AGSXT.
Mr. T. Joao; moved in this case, which was tried at the
last Liverpool Maims before Mr. Justice Mellor, for • rale to
show cause why the nousuit should not be set guide sad •
new trial had. It was an action upon • contract for the
employment of the plaintiff as traveller and scent of the
defendants, who are dealers in sperm oil, carrying on busi-
ness in London. The plaintiff wawa traveller for another firm
in Liverpool, from whom be received an introduction to the
de:endants, and he entered into negotiations with the de-
fendants, which resulted in their sending him &letter stating
that they would engage him an their agent and allow • com-
mission on the orders he received, provided hegave satisfactory
tees for £5OO. They inclosed • list of persons on whom
rwmasnnot toes'', and added that he WM to lose no time in see-
big those be could influence. Some delay took Owe ia
his procuring security, but be continued from 213th Jima to
16th August to act as the defendants' anent, and got them
several orders as well as promises of forty or fifty more.
On the latter day they dilmiesed him without notice, but
said they would be glad to receive his instructions to carry
out the orders he bad sent. The learned counsel said there
was no evidence of • costanat having been entered into for
say specific time, but he relied upon a oostract from year
to year, which he coateseled was the general engagement.
The Lord Chief Beron—lf you employ an attorney are
you bound to employ him for • year!
Yr. T. Jimes—That is • different cos, as an attorney is
only retained to conduct • particular came. I don't mean to
say that this is • case in which the plaintiff binds himself
to devote himself entirely to the service of the defendants.
Yr. DIMON Wilik-111116 admission removes the case from
the servant clam
Mr. T. Jesse—That is the point for your lordship's oonsi-
deration. If you hold that what has been laid down in
refereme to servants owed pordbly apply to my other
osenpailon. my argument of mesa Ms to the ground.

The Lord Chief Baron—A man cannot be a servant to
two distinct pemous at the same time.
Mr. Jones—Two dankest mantas may each engage him
to dispose of articles in which they deal.
Mr. Heron Wilde—Then he bermes an agent. I think
this case comes within the decision of the Court of Criminal
Appeals, in which it was held that such a person is not a
servant, and therefore not indictable for a felony.
Mr. Jones said he thought there was evidence to go to
the jury upon the contract.
Mr. Baron Wilds—My notion is that an agent is never
employed for any specified length of tints. Have.you any
authority to cite that a man employed as an agent is al-
ga/IV:or &year if nothing to the contrary is said!
Lord Chief Baron—We are all of opinion that there
is not the slightest ground for the rule. It is an employ-
inept that is to last only as long as both parties please.
Rule refused.
WILLIAMS V. OWIN.—ASS.I.OLT.
Mr. V. Williams moved for a rule to set side the verdict
and for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was
against the weight of evidence. It wee= action for aieralt
tried before Mr. Justice Keating at the last assizes at Bela,
and in which the jury found a verdict for the defendant.
The defendant pleaded that he was first aseaulted by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff was a publican, and the defendant
a farmer, and on the day of the alleged amanlt they had
both been to the consecration of &church. After the cere-
mony they bad some refreshment, and took more thin was
good for them, but they both managed to walk home a dia.
tans of 15 miles.W hen they got near the plaintiff's reeideoce
the defendant began to abuse, threaten, and swear at the
plaintiff, and at last struck him two violent blows with a stick.
The plaintiff lost two pinta of blood, and was laid up for
two or three week'.
The Lord Chief Baron said that, as the learned judge who
tried the case reported that there was sufficient evidence
to support the verdict for the defendant, and that he was
not himself dissatisfied with it, the court could not grant a
rule.
Rule refused.