The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-16 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCREQURR.—Nov. 15.

Sittings in Baneo.—(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock and
Barons Bramwell. Channel), and Pigott.)

NICHOLSON V. THE LANCA.SHIBE AND TORUHIEZ RAILWAY
COI/PANT. - POWER OP AIIZEDMENT AB TO HAYMAN!

CLAWED.

This wean action to recover dame" which were laid In '
the declaration at 2,0001., for bodily injuriessuathined by an
accident on the defeedante railway. It was tried at Man-
cheater before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, when thiejz
found a verdict for the plaintiff for 3,001 E. The i
judge thought that was Dot too large an amount, and altered
the sum stated in the record to 3,0001., and the verdict was
entered for that amount of damages. Subsequently the
court granted aide, on the application of Mr. Edward J
Q. C., to show cause why the damages should Dot be deaesed
to 2,0001.. on the ground that the judge had no power to
enlarge the damages after the jury had given their verdict.
Mr. Temple, Q.C., on the part of the plaintiff, now showed'
cause against the rule. He said that the plaintiff continued
to grow was and worse up to the time of the trial, wham
he was so ill that he could not be brought into court except
on a stretcher, and was unable to give any evidence.
Mr. Baron Pigott laid the Lord Chief Judie* had reported
that the damages were not too math.
Mr. Temple said the injuries developed themselves more
after the delivery of the declaration, and therefore a ari-
malty arose subsequently to that time for a larger amount
of damages. The question then was, whether under the
Common Law Proceedun Act of 1852, the judge had power
to make this amendment in the declaration, and this
turned upon the Worrier words is the 222nd section :
" It shall be lawful for the superior courts of common law
end every judge thereof, and any judge sitting at nisi prim,
at all times, to amend all defects and errors in any proceed-
ing
in civil caisson, whether there was anything in writing'
to amend by or not, and whether the defect or actor be that
of the party applying to amend or not."
The leaned counsel contended that under this section,
which gave the judge power "at all times to amend all
defects," the Lord Chief Justice was right in making the
amendment he did in this as., This power of amend-
ment was given to the judge in order that the
real question at Jane between the parties should
be presented to the jury ; and here cep reel
question was the amount of &images. Their lardshicmis:
that according to the usual custom the amount of
laid in the declaration was not opened to the. jury.
Mr. Berm Channell—The damages were always stated in
opening the pleadthp when I was called to the bar, sod I
have royale done it over and over again.
Mr. Baron Pigott—l have heard it done, and I have
always thought it wrong.
Mr. Temple—At all events it is not the practice now, and
it was not done in this inateoce. I remember complaining
of an inexperienced junior on the Northern Circuit for
haring mentioned the claimed when opening the
pleadings. The question of s therefore, ems to the
jury as if the amount of dameges had been left blank. In
altering the damages from 2,0001. to 3,0001. the honed
judge did not introduce any new issue in the record, nor
present any new issue to the jury.
The Lord Chief Baron said he recollected in an action for
criminal convereatioo—it was • very bad nee—Lord Ellen-
borough saying to the jury—" Geothonen, look at the re-
cord and give your verdict ;" and they did look at the record
and gave • verdict for the whole damages claimed.
Mr. Baron Channel' said there woe a case in which he was
counsel where the judge told the jury he thought they
ought to find the whole damages stated in the record, aod
they. did so. Upon the ground of that strong expression of
opinion he moved the court above to est aside the verdict,
but they refused a rule.
Mr. Baron Pigott said that in • cue in the Divorce
Conn the late Judge Ordiaary, when sitting with other
judges, said he thought the jury should give all the damages
claimed on the record. The jury, before retiring, asked
what the amount of damages were laid at. The Judge
Ordinary said 10,0001., but that they were not to take that
es the measure of their damages.
The Lord Chief Baroo—When the plaintiff had put •
limit to his claim why should the damages be increased by
the jury!
Mr. Temple—The damages were Lid at a time when the
full extent of the injuries were Dot ascertained.
Mr. Milward and Mr. &tykes were alai, heard against the
rula.

fir. Edward James, Q.C., in support of the rule, said
this court bad already decided this question in • case which
he believed had not been reported, as it could not be found.
In that case the jury found more damages than were stated
in the declaratioo, and their lordships held that they could
not do so, and that the judge bad no power to allow it.
Mr. Brett, Q C., as 'miens mute; said he had a strong
recollection of losing in court when their lordships so held.
Mr. Baron Pigott—Did the jot*, amend in that instals:o?
Mr. Brett replied in the affirmative.
Mr. James said his attention was called to the case from
the circumstance of his having followed the decision of
their lordships when a similar question came before him as
judge of the Passage Court, at Liverpoci.
The court took time to consider their judgment.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Nov. 15.
(lidos the Judge Ordinary.)
• --

LI THE GOODS OE HANNAH TITENJUL, OTHiIIWISE HOUTON.
In 18(Y) Henry Tucker married the deemed, who,
nine years afterwards, sloped with a man named Doutoo.
In March last she died in France, leaving property, the
foundation of which had been what she had take. from her
husband. Mr. Tucker had sought to obtain pcsassaioo of
it. but the French court. insisted on his first producing
letters of administration under the seal of this court. Us-
fortunately, however, the deceased had left no property in
England ; but it was suggested by Dr. Spinks that the ap-
plicant might have a limited grant for the purpose of
enabling him to substantiate his right.
SirJ. P. Wild* said the court had no jurisdiction where
there were no goods for it to administer. At the same time.
the French court would be acting usressosably if it impose
conditions on the applicant which it wee simply impossible
for him to fulfil.

WILLS 0. WELLS AID CO Tait (FALMLT CALLED WELLS).
Ia thiamin, which was the suit of • father against hie
sou sod his sou's wife for ► declaration of nullity of their
marriage oo the ground of • false publication of banns,
Dr. Warobey moved that the husband be ordered to pay
the coats, he being in pan debate with the other respondent,
sod haring, in fact, led her to coosent to the wrongful act.
The Queen's Advocate appeared for Mr. Wells, jun,