The Express.
London, England, 1864-06-02 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

II :Nitiop at Niai Prise is Iliiikilasex.—(llsiore Mr. Justice
Keating and n Cows Jury.)
?MALI r. HECK LIM WIFE. —BI.O7DZIL
—. •

Thu was u action to recover damages for slander, and
the defendants pleaded that the alleged slander was true.
Mr. 3. 3. Powell, Q.C., and Ye. T. Brown, appeared for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Berjeant Salentine and Mr. Pearce
for the defendant..

The defendant in this ease kept the Oxford and Cam-
bridge Tavern, in Chalk Farm road, bat the billiard and
racket busioese was les off to Mr. Hall, wbo watered into as
agreement with the plaintiff that they should Garry on the
billiard and racket bushier am partners. The plaintiff
and Mr. Hall lived in the tavern, and their
wives visited them oceaaimally. The slander was that
Mrs. Keck stated that she had seen adultery committed by
the plaintiff and Mrs. Hall at the tavern.
. .

The plaintiff wan exam' , e denied on oath that
TedT
there was any truth in the imputation cast upon him.
The law being that no action will lie for verbal slander,
unless the words spoken impute some offence punishable by
law, or unless special damage can be shown, it became
necessary for the plaintiff to show special damage iu
this can. For this purpose it was stated, that in coon-
,,uence of that slander the partnership between the plaintiff
and Mr. Hall was put an end to, and the plaintiff lost the
mat that he would otherwise have made. The agreement,
however, did not mention any term during which the part-
nership should last, and this being so, the question of law
arose, whether any special damage arum from its being ter-
minated.

Yoder these circumstances, s suggestion made by his lord
ship wu adopted, and it was arranged that s juror should a
withdrawn.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittinp in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Bazar' Pollock, and
Herons Mama, &ammoll. nod Channel.)
SCOTT V. PT IH.
- • .

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Miss Scott,
the owner of 20 cottages in the neighbourhood of Sheffield,
against the defendant, Messrs. Firth, to recover damages
for injury done to the property in campaign. of • con-
tinual hammering in an adjoining factory. beloegiog
to them. It was alleged that the walls of the house.
had been cracked by the vibration caused by the defeodant's
machinery. The factory was also complained of as a nui-
sance. The awe was tried before Mr. Justice Blackburn, at
York, when a verdict was found for the defendant, ou the
plea of not guilty. Subsequently, Mr. Macaulay, Q.C.,
obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict should not
be set aside soda sew trial had on the ground that the ver-
dict was against the weight of evidence, sod also cei the
ground of surprise at the trial

Mr. Mauisty, Q.C., Mr. Field, Q.C., and Mr. Waddy
showed against the rule; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., Mr. T. Jooes,
and Mr. Kemple; were heard in support of it.
The Lord Chief Berm was of opinion that the rule should
be made absolute on the ground of surprus. At the
trial a defence was mitered upon which was entirely
unexpected by the plaintiff—via., that the walls became
cracked in consequence of the defective foundation, and of
their being badly built-en allegation which turned out to
be entirely untrue. it wee, no doubt, • misfortnee to set
aside a verdict and grant ano trial, males it was clear
that an injustice had been done ; but an objection on that
ground did not apply to • case where an unexpected defence.
had been set up which proved to be unfounded in fact
Possibly the verdict in this action might have been found
the other way if the truth bad been completely told, and
this line of defence had Dot been entered upon.
Mr. Bares Martin wee always extremely unwilling to
great • new trial on the ground that the jury
had made a mishits*, but this was one of those cases in which
a great deal of prejudice existed and ought to be carefully
watched. A manufacturer purchased land adjoininogg some
houses, erected • factory in which he introduced mrichinery
that mimed • great vibration, and injured the neigh-
bouring property ; and he did all this for hie
own profit. He knew that in the north
of &gland great prejudice existed in them matters, and it
was ddlladt to get a fair Mud, the juries being (aooording to
his experience) determined, if the possibly could, to and
• verdict for the defendant. If, thererwfore, • flee state-
ment was made in respect to an important matter it might
have had • considerable effect upon the jury in giving their
verdict. He thought that upon this ground there ought to
be a new trial. Persons were entitled to eejoy their pro-
perty free from vibration caused by neighbouring premiss,
and be knew of no rule of law which enabled a person
to disturb soothe?, occupation of real property by works
like those complained of here, which he erected entirely for
his own profit and advantage.
Mr. Baron Bramwell and Mr. Baron Cita/men °occurred
in making the rule absolute.
Rule absolute for a new trW.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Melon th• Jude Onikary.)
PODMOU IP. MUTTON.

Dr. Spinks and Mr. Pritchard for the plaintiff ; Mr. Had-
illeston, Q.C., and Mr. Lopez for the defendant
This was • suit to revoke the letter of administration
which had been taken out is the goods of Emily Georgians
Whatton. The plaintiff, a comae of the deesseed, pro-
pounded the draft of • will dated Jamaery, 1863. and
:Trued that the original had been destroyed rises the death
cf the testatrix. The defendant, her brother, the admisis
trator, denied that the will Weyer been made, and averred
that if it had been executed it had been revoked.
By the will in question the testatrix, who in her lifetime
was • spinster, residing at Liverpool, had left a legacy of
Mtg. to her solicitor, Mr. Pritt, of the firm of Plitt and
A wilco, and bad divided the residue between the
litigants. Mr. Pritt had Dever taken steps to enforce his
rights ; and at the request of Mr. Podmore had resommed
the executorship. He had also surrendered to him 9001. of
1,1 lenscl-
Proof of the making of the will was pvin. end
withers were called to show that deceased had ex-
preesed her adherence to the Matt ument dolma to the
time of death in 185'... The plaintiff, who was a mariner,
did not return to England until lately, and he bad lost so
time in commencing the suit The property had may
realised 470/. The defendant, a gentleman at Birmingham,
was examined, and be admitted having destroyed some
papers relative to the deceased ; but be denied that amongst
them was any will or draft of a testatory character.
Mr. Huddleston submitted that the presumption of the
law in such • cam was that the will which had remained in
the custody of the testatrix down to her death had boom
destroyed by her.
Dr. Spinks, contra, contended that the will had remained
unrevoked.
The Court took time to consider its judgment.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner H011.07d.)
LY RC WM. KIMBLILLIT.
The bankrupt was deecribed as • share-dealer and strive-
ter, of Old Broad-street. He was formerly a member of
tte firm of Kimberley and Pops, solicitors. This was the
adjourned sitting for examination and discharge.
Ile amount due to tuesseared creditors is 10,1331. •
to creditors holding emearity, I,oooi. • hanilities,
3921. Assets : Good debtors, 1,0501. ; interest
io the late firm of Kimberley and Pope, 1,4951. ;
property held as security 9001. The bankrupt states his ex-
penditure at 1,0001. • year for the two years preceding the
baakruntcy.
Mr. Magee, for the assignees, expressed their satisfaotiou
with the accounts. and consented to the bankrupt passing
lus examination, the order of discharge standing over.
Mr. Lawrence, for the bankrupt, did not object to that
Caine,s especially as the accounts dos to the late firm of
Kimberley and Pope, which coastituted a great portion of
the &mete, were not yet made out.
Mr. Sole, for creditors. cenrerred•
The order of discharge was adjourned for a mouth.

api Asa 11141/.....
The lAtkrilet, described as a oJollllolllild clerk out of
rtPlovnient. of Cburch•strest, old Kentrroad, applied for
to order of discharge. Debts 166/. ; no smote.
yr. Aldridge appeared for the official amigos* ; Mr.
ender; opposed for a creditor, on the• grouted that
the bankrupt had vexatiously defended an action, and had
attracted debts without probable means of payment.
Hit Honour suspended the order for six months, but
Pre protection, the bankrupt having been a month ha
Prison.

IN MI BIALE AND 11680P—DIVIDZWD.
This was an old bankruptcy, the failure having excirred
I, 1459. The bankrupts were navy agents, of Surrey-street,
Ntrand, and also carried on the business of brass founders,
Poplar. Their liabilities were very considerable, between
4..41.1/. and 50,000!. Some dividends have been paid, and
rt wla now reported that there is 1,3001. is the haads et the
(Anal designee. The amount of the dividend will be as-
coasted in the usual way.