The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-07 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. S.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
and Justices Wightman, Blackburn, and Mellor.)
DIMSDALE r. THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST

RAILWAY.

Mr. Bovill, Q.C., said this was an action tried before the
Lord Chief Justice at the last Guildhall sittings, when the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s. He
moved to set the verdict aside and enter it for the defen-
&iota, pursuant to leave reserved. The action was for the
non-delivery of • portmanteau and its contents. The plain-
tiff's wife had been staying at Brighton, and went to the
Brighton station with her luggage, and took a third
class ticket for London. A porter, seeing a dog
in her muff, insisted on her paying the carriage,
but she was unable to do so, having no small
change in her purse, and as the train was about to start the
porter paid the 2s. 2d., and detained the portmanteau in
pledge for the amount, saying it would be sent on as a parcel
by the next train. That was done, and some days after
the plaintiff sent &Ltd with his employer', card lon which the
plaintiff said he wrote his name in pencil, but this was denied
by the company) for the portmanteau; but somehow or other
it could nat be found ; the company alleging that the
application was in the name of Howard and not Dimadale,
which was denied by the plaintiff. However, some days after-
wards the company sent the portmanteau to the plaintiff,
with lid. delivery to pay, which he declined, said it was taken
away, and ultimately the company refused to give it
up until 3s. lid. was paid, including a charge for ware-
housing. The plaintiff tendered the 2s. 2d., and as the com-
pany would not take it he issued a writ for the value of the
portniantean and its contents.
The Lord Chief Justice doubted if the company had any
right to make the extra charge. It was not a parcel for-
warded by a customer to be left or not fetched in proper
time, but &Aloha held in pledge until a lien on them had
been paid.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., said be appeared on the other
and complained that the damages were too small. The
articles contained in this portmanteau were proved to be
worth 25/. As the verdict at present stood it materially
affected the costs.

Mr. BOT/illsaidthe articles were offered to the plaintiff
without any charge after the writ was issued, but be refused
to accept them until the trial.
The Lord Chief Justice asked Mr. Coleridge if he wished
to have a rule absolute for a new trial.

Mr. Coleridge said be did not. He only wanted to in-
crease the amount of damages.
Mr. Bevill mid he should like it. (Laughter.)
The Lord ChiefJustiee said he thought it was better to
let the matter remain as it was.

Application refused.
BUTCHER V. THE GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY.

Mr. Hoggins, Q.C., said this was an action tried before the
Lord Chief Justice at the last Westminster sittings, when
the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. He now
moved for a rule for a new trial on the ground that the ver-
dict was against the evidence. The action was to recover
compensation in damages for injuries received through the
alleged negligence of the defendants' servants. The plaintiff
was a passenger on board one of the defendants' steamboaM
from Yarmouth to London. When opposite Woolwich the
steamer came into collision with a collier moored in the
river, and hence the accident complained of.
The Lord Chief Justice said he should have been better
pleased if the jury had given the plaintiff small damages,
but, under the circumstances, he was not disposed to disturb
the verdict. The plaintiff fraudulently withheld, on the
trial, that his head had been crushed between two cart
wheels about twelve months before, and that at the time of
the second accident he had not recovered from the first
accident.

Mr. Hogging said he mentioned it in the opening.
The Lord Chief Justice said he did so but slightly, and
said the plaintiff bad recovered from it.
Mr. Hogging urged that the medical testimony was in his
favour.

The and Chief Justice said that at fint be, end be be-
lieved all in court, thought the plaintiff in giving evidence
in the box was shamming ; but when the medical testimony
came they were of a different opinion. The jury were
staggered when they heard of the first accident on
the cross-examination, and the plaintiff bad paid
the penalty for fraudulently withholding it from
the jury. There was evidence to show that the
plaintiff suffered very much from the fint accident,
and that be was compensated with 901. There was also evi-
dence to show that the plaintiff was suffering from that ac-
cident when he went to Yarmouth, and during the time he
was there (though no doubt better), although he said in the
box that he was "never jollier" and better than when at
Yarmouth. The cbllision was a very slight one, and the
pla;ntiff was the only passenger who fell down or had felt
any inconvenience from it. He (the learned judge) could
understand that to a man in the plaintiff's state it had the
effect of aggravating his sufferings, and if he had gone to
the jury on that point he had no doubt the jury would have
given him some compensation. He bad, however, adopted
another course, and must abide by the consequences,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. 6.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie, and
Justices Williams, Kyles, and Keating.)

SIMMONS AND ANOTHER V. HUMBLE AND OTHERS.-CON-