The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-13 00:00:00

tab, tntelligcnce.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-JAN. 12.

flittinp in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie, and
JoAnne Williams, Willed, and Heating.)

BILLZE O. SOLLOWAY.—"BOLLOWAT'S OINTMENT."
The plaintiff in this case, a foreign gentleman, was a
physician, and he claimed to recover 5001. for procuring the
defendant permission to 'ell and advertise Holloway's
Ointment in Frames and her colonies. The ease was tried in
Middlesex before Lord Chief Justice Erie, when the verdict
was entered nominally for the plaintiff, subject to the
opinion of the full court.
Mr. Bovill now moved for a rule to enter a verdict for
the defendant, or a nonsuit, and stated that the contract
sued upon was contained in certain correspondence. The
defendant promised to pay the 5001. for permission to sell
and advertise the ointment, but disputed that " the per-
mission must be formal end emanate from the minister upon
the report of the Medical Council of Paris ;," and
what the plaintiff obtained was a permission to sell
the " pommade dite Holloway,* which was composed of
white and brown was, turpentine, lard, and some other
articles. Mr. Holloway swore that these were not the con-
stituents of his ointment, and there was no doubt that the
authorities in Perim thought that they were giving permis-
sion for„theleale of a pomade, and not of an ointment for the
cure of ulcers end other things.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the plaintiff requested
Mr. Holloway to send him some of his ointment for analysis
according to the law of France before permission was
granted to sell, and the analysing chemist said that it was
composed of the ingredients which had been mentioned.
Mr. &mill stated that according to the law of Francs
there could be no patent for a secret remedy ; and such
could oily be vended under the sanction of the Minister of
the Interior or a decree of the Emperor. The document
which had been procured was granted conditionally upon
100 franca being paid within a year of its date, and the
the plaintiff's agent had omitted to make the payment, and
the defendant had not made it, for he was not aware of
the gnat ; so that the matter fell to the ground, and the
defendant !had in reality got nothing at all. Under these
circumstances it was submitted that he was not liable to pay
the 500/. If the plaintiff failed to recover upon the agree-
ment, he then claimed to ester a verdict for services
rendered, and the amount had been agreed at 1501. ; but it
was submitted that the plaintiff must succeed upon the
agreement or not at all.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the rule would be
granted, but the learned counsel must not be too sanguine
as to making it absolute.
Bole granted.
101311C8 O. JONEN.—TIII ACCIDENT Is TIDI WATERLOO-10AD.

The plaintiff was the widow and administratris of a per-
son named Robins, who was killed on the 10th of February,
1862, in consequence of a grating in the Waterloo-road
giving way and precipitating him and a number of other
people to the bottom. The present action was against the
owner of the property to recover damages for loss sustained
in the death of the deceased, and at the trial before Mr.
Justice Wiles the verdict wu for the plaintiff for 2dof..
subject to the opinion of the court upon some questions of
law.

Mr. Lush now moved fora role to enter a nonsuit. The
Feting in question was not placed in the public footway,
but between that footwsy and the wall of the house. The
defendant held a lease of the property from the Marquis of
Salisbury, and in 1859 he entered into an agreement with
Mesas. Jeffs, contractors, that upon their putting this and
some other houses into repair, be would grant them a lease
of the houses for 21 years at .160/. a-year. Messrs. Jeffs did
repair to the satisfaction of the surveyor of the "
and on tie 18th August, 18(10, the defendant granted
them a lease, which bound them to keep the premises in
repair. Under these circumstances it was submitted that
the action should have been against Messrs. Jeffs.
Mr. Justice Willes—The contention was that the grat-
ing was in an unsafe state when the defendant let the pre-
mises, and that it continued in that state until the accident,
and that theme facts made the defendant liable. It war
proved that in May, 1859, the surveyor to the Lambeth
vestryl gave the defendant's agents notice that the place was

Mr.Lush—And the defendant's agent having inspected it
thought that this was not so, and the vestry took no further
;21 This being private property, he submitted that the
had no right to be upon it, except for the tou-pree
al going to the houtes, but what in fact occurred was
that a distress had been put in, the broker bad been
subsequently got out, and his attempts to force an eotrance
caused a mob to assemble. lu addition to the points which
he had already mentioned, he submitted that some of the
answers of the jury to questions put by his lordship were
not justified by the evidence.
Rule granted.

IRWIN r. SIR G. GREY, RART.-ALLIORD BREACH OF DLITT

BY Till HOBE BDCIBTILBY.

This was an action against the Rome Secretary, to recover
damages in consequence of his not haring presented to her
Majesty a petition of right from the plaintiff, who is a
member of the Irish bar, and whose name has been fre-
quently before the public. The damages claimed were no
lea than 100,000/. The trial came on before the Lord
Chief Justice, when Sir O. Grey was called, and be stated
that be bad in fact presented the petition of right, but had
advised her Majesty not to grant the prayer of it ; and upon
this evidence his lordship told the jury that it they believed
Sir G. Grey they must bud for the defendant ; and a ver-
dict wee found for him accordingly.
Mr. Irwin now moved for a rule for a new trial, or for
judgment non obstaate veredicto ; and also for • mandamus
commanding Sir G. Grey to present the petition in accord-
ance with the Petitions of Right Act. He submitted that
his lordship should have directed the jury that it was the
duty of Sir G. Grey to present the petition without accom-
Partying it with the advice not to grant it.
The Lord Chief Justice—The action was for not present-
ing the petition, and Sir G. Grey proved that he did in fact
present it.
Mr. Irwin—Yes, with the advice not to grant it ;
whereas be should have presented it without that advice,
and in accordance with the terms of the Bill of Rights and
Magma Chula.
Mr. Justice Wiles—There were no petitions °fright until
the time of Edward Ist.

Mr. Justine Keating—Gould advice given boot fide by •
minister of the crown be made the subject of an action
Mr. Irwin referred to various authorities to show that
the prayer of a petition of right ought to be granted en
debito justitime. Another point was that some of the special
juror had not been summoned, and this being so, it was
submitted that the defendant had no right to have the jury
completed with tales men. He alao contended that there was
misdirection in his lordship having said that the plaintiff,
after readings letter to Sir Geo. Grey, ought also to put in
the answer to that onutmunicstion.
_ . . .

Mr. Justine Williams said he was of opinion that his
lordship was quite right in directing the jury that if they
were witistied that the petition was presented they must
Met for the defendant ; and he was further of opinion that
if the Attorney-General had stopped Sir George Grey in his
answer, and objected that he ought not to he asked to state
what paled between her Majesty and himself, his lordship
ought to have allowed that objection. As to the *newer of
Sir George Grey being read, his lordship had simply ex-
pressed an opinion as to what was the proper course to be
pursued by the plaintiff ; sod even supposing he had ban
wrong in this opinion, atoll he did not insist as • matter of
law that the plaintiff should produce the answer, and there-
fore there was so misdirection. As to the jury being filled
up with tales men there was clearly nothing in that point.
Mr. Justice Willa perfectly agreed wi h all that had
been said by his learned brother. It was clearly the duty
of Sir G. Grey to give such advice to her Majesty as he
thought neetesary, and it would be perfectly inconsistent
with any government in the country if an action would lie
against him for so doing. Before the time of Edward I.
actions were brought against the crown without any ob-
struction, but since then the course had been to proceed by
petitions of right, and the reason was, that it was thought
to be ioconsisieut with • strong executive that a subject
should be allowed to proceed against the crown without
some check. Nothing could be clearer than that a petition
of right had in all times been subject to the discretion of the
crown to permit it so be proceeded with or not, and the
reason was that otherwise frivolous proceedings might be
carried on, and the public money would be wasted in de-
fending them.
The other judges concurred, and the rule was refused.
Mr. Irwin Naked for leave to appeal, but the court de-
clined to grant his application.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-JAN. 12.

Siitinp in Banco.--(Be(ore Lord Chief Baron Pollock, and
Barons Martin, ChaaneU, and Wilde.)

ATTOIRIY•GZMIIAL V. GARDNER. - BUCCE46IOB DUTY. -

JUDGMF-NT.

Mr. Baron Martin delivered judgment in this case, which
was as information bled by the Attorney-General for suc-
cession duty. By a marriage settlement on the marriage of
LM Marquis and Marchioness of Townsend, in 1807, a sum
of 25,0001. M. per cent. annuities was settled by William
Dunn Gardner, the lady's father, upon certain trustee..
The annuities were afterward■ sold, and in pursuance
of a power contained in the settlement, an estate
called Soham Mere was purchased and conveyed, subject to
the same trusts in the settlement. They were to the
husband and wife successively fur life, and, after the death
of the survivor, for the benefit of the issue of the marriage ;
and should there be uo club! (which warn the case), then in
trust for such persona u the marchioness should by deed
or will appoint, and, in default of appointment, for herself
absolutely. After the marriage the marehionesa, by deed of
the 26th of December, 1808, executed the power vested in
her, nod devise! the Sohem Mere estate after the death of
her husband ►nd herself without issue to such hallo as
her father might appoint, and in default of appointment to
the use of her father and his heirs ■nd onocemors for ever.
On the 10th of November, 1831, William Dunn Gardner
by will devised the estate to the defendant. a stranger in
blood, for life, with remainder to his first and other sone in
tail, and own afterwards died. The marchioneu sur►ived
her husbead, and died in 1858, without having bad a child.
The succession duty CAM into operation in May, 185:1„ and
the Attorney. General claimed duty at the rate of 101. per
east. The defendant contended that be woe not charge-
able with duty a* all ; but that if he vraa, it ought oat, to
be If, per cost.
The wart held that there waa a eueeeleics within the
weaning of the act, and that the lawful rats of duty to be
paid by the wu 101. per east.
J ud gm's' kw the crown accordingly.