The Express.
London, England, 1863-11-06 00:00:00

RIDDLE P. THE NORTH ILUITNLN RAILWAY CONPANT.

This was; an action for oompeasation under Lord Camp-
bell's set, the plaintiff's husband having been killed on the
defendants' llns. The action was tried at Carlisle, before
Mr. Justice Mellor, when the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages 8001.
Mr. Mellish, Q.C., moved for a rule to set aside the
verdict, or eater it for the defendants, on the ground of the
defendants' non-liability, or for a nonsuit oc leave reserved,
or for a new trial, on the ground that the damages were
exesneve.

The court granted a rule for reduciag the amount of the
damps.

/IAZZLWOOD It WITS.

This wu an action for the conversion and detention of •
II& play called Upsick Down. The action wee tried bofore
Mr. Rum ChumH. at Hartford, when • verdict was re-
turned for the plaintiff, no person appearing for the defen-
dant.

Butler Rigby moved for a role for • new trial upon
affidavits. Captain Rhos was it appeared, in the country
when he wm served with the writ, and instructed a country
attorney to defend the Ma*, who wrote to his London
spat, and Captain Rhys being under the impression that
two attorneys were acting for him countermanded the in-
stillations to the country, atbarney, sad the result was he
had no one to appear far him. There waa also a defence to
the action on its merits, the MB. having been returned.
The Court panted • rule.
vim ttawUDOL
. . _

Mr. Beton Pigott look ti;Oefisolallegienoe os his els
yeti= to the back as ose of the Boma of the Exchequer.

ILIpLT
.9. 8111 WART.

This was ea action for libel in the publication of a chal-
lenge. It will be recollected that Captain Stewarts wife
left him when at St. Helens, sad came to this country to be
confined, with his ecassat. Salinequently some estnuige-
meat of feeling took place between them, and she put
herself under the protection of General Clammy, a friend
of her family, she residing with Xhipi and him
family at his country met. Padin in the
county of Down, Ireland. Tbe defendant., finding
she was there, determined upon forcibly taking her away to
live with him ; and it au referenoe to his onoducs in
that matter that Captain Ramsay interfered, u • friend of
General Chaney's family, sad at the gesowars request. The
defendanehiSg .ieved at the plaintiff's conduct, sent
line • sad sfterwards published it throughout the
aunty of be was • magistrate.
Mr. Bedard Shoe (with whom au Mr. J. Morgan
Howard) mid the action was triad at Westminster before
the Lard Mist Jostles, when the Jury returned • verdict
for the plaintiff damages, 3501. He moved for a new
trial, cm the pound of the damages being excessive. The
leaned serjesat said the libel was the writing of a mili-
tary sun under excitement. and smarting under the
craduat be had reesived from Mr. llamas 7, who interfered
and took the defendant% wife sway from Ceseral Chesney 's
hones to hi own (plaintiff s) midwife at the time when
than was every lonsibllity of making their differences,
and their living amicably
The Chief Justice said be should.have been inclined
to think with the learned serjeant, bad it not been for the
violence of the mooed letter, which called the plaintiff a
poltroon and threatening to bonewldp him.
Mr. Serjeant She said these parties had lived affection-
Ltasileustogether for some years, and °veal§ Stewart was
to get hi wife to return and spin live with him.
The Lord Chief Justice said that was so; but the lady
apps ed to bus onertivadve tztorbid dislike to her husband,

Ihrjaant filese—lrs• ; she bad bad a very bad con-
finem and she bad a disisilinsaioe *gain to become a
poreber. ent, The wadies' man bad advised ber living apart for
earns time, and ft was in sousegnamai of some advice that
stie
her reesive
ed. d frees a Lady trifled that abs declined to go back
linsba

Tho Ohief Justice odd the defendant had celled the
W:• sward and a poltroon, and had endeavoured to
im to debt a duel. His language was very severs,
and tie jury so doubt gave such heavy damages to mark
tisk muse of hie conduct.
Mr. flsrj•nt dime said the plaintiff had nitrated no real
damp. Tbs plaintiff had cleared his 000 duct from any
and • imam amount of damages would be

The Lard Met Judie* said be thought the damages were
toe unteh, bat it wee a question entirely for the jury.
fierjeentShee mid the defendant was not in a 'motion
tops, heavy
The court gratZtrule, to come on as a motion.
This brew the Itit el the first four days of term a number
of modens were dispsed of, and ruler granted for new trials
in mess that were devoid of general public interest.

BAIL COURT.—Nov. 5.
Sittings at Nisi Prime at Wastminater.—(Sefore Mr. Julies
Croupier' sad a Daemon Jury.)
um V. BIEWZDICT.
This was as interpleader issue.
Mr. H. James was counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. M.
Chambers. Q.C., end Mr. Mathew for the defendant.
The plaintiff man snotioseer, and it appeared that in
November, 1862, • Mr. Armitage called upon him and stated
he was an artist of ominous, and woe then engaged on a
very large picture, " The Viaion of St. John," and uked to
be aecommodated with • loan of 2001. upon the security of
his *tares. He said he was painting pictures for persons of
importaaos, mid plaintiff believed him to be (which was not
the ease) Mr. Armitage, R.A. Plaintiff told him he knew
nothing about *tam, but be would cell and look at them.
He did so, and saw " The Vision of St. John," sketches,
cartoons, ha PWntiff said the contingencies made it •
great risk to advance so lugs a sum, on which Mr.
Armitage said be would give the plaintiff a bonus of 2001.
teethe kin of 2001. The tonna were agreed to, and the
plaintiff's clerk drew up a bill of sale, dated led Decem-
tier, 1862, far 4001., upon an sasignment of the pictures, car-
tacos, ha., the pictures, however, remaining in Armitage's
Plaintiff advanced 206/. In April,
for
Rage
tq::lrfeanallabgiLbn:if.f‘t/ Seatigiau
refused, job:if:7.l°ft puma femur;
of the emit., but afterwards advanced 751. on Armitage
giving him an acknowledgment for 5001. The picture we.
exhibited at the Gallery of Illostration the expenses
of the exhibition, amounting to 984, being paid
by the plaintiff. Armitage took the receipts, but
few persona went to me the picture. It was re-
moved the Gallery of Illustration, without
the plaintiff's knowledge, but he afterwards found it at 191,
Pimadilly. Amino assigned the copyright to the plain-
tiff, and be obtained poesy of it under • judge's order.
He had cot been any part of his advances.
The plaintiff was subjected to • severe moinaxamination
by Mr. M. Chamten. He stated that the rate of interest
on which be lent mosey depended oa the risk. He gave
him the mosey before the bill of sale was executed. He
wee to give him money on amount of the 2001. as the
picture progressed. " Lot and his two daughters" was one
of the pictures he took as security, and he now had it in
his possession. He proposed to put • roan is possession,
but at Armitage's request be put • boy in possession.
Armitage said it would sot expose him so much, and the
boy would look like • page. Armitage was to pay the boy
10s. par week. Plaintiff told the boy to make himself goo,'
rally useful.
The defame was that it was not a bong Me transaction
between the plaintiff sad Armitage, but a fraud. The
deed coatsined a false recital that the plaintiff had ad-
vanced 4001. The date of the deed bad bun altered from
the 26th November to the let December; and if it was
assented on the 26th November it had not been registered
in proper time. The intention win to save the pictures
hose Armitage's tiredikwe ; and the putting the boy i pos.
orlon sad peeing him off as • page was • part of the
freed, se as to lead the crediton to believe that Armitage
was well off. Annitsge had occupied a part of the defend-
ant's home ; tad on his being sued by the defendant and
judgment obtained, the bill of sale was brought forward to
prevent the seizure of the Inderee.
Mr. Armitage was called—He &rimed that he was an
artist, residing at Hammersmith. The plaintiff agreed to
mist him with 2001., to be Unwed by WI. instalments.
He was to pay 2001. for the aeccaunedatioa. He objected
to the bill of sale reciting that the advance was 4001., but
teltotiff ex planed that it yea • mere matter of form. He
the tint cheque for 601. after the deed was signed ea
the 26th of November. He had to make frequent applies.-
tiara to the plaintiff for the balance of the money. He
celled on the 19th of December, but was unable to see the
plaintiff. Bishop, his clerk, said he had got iato a "serape
in aeglarting to stamp the bill of sale within 21 clays, and
he Fused withers very moth to pat his Initials to an