The Express.
London, England, 1864-04-22 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-ArAIL 21.

Sittings at Nisi Prim.—(Bstore Mr. Justice Cromptou and
a Coatroom Jury.)
DUKE V. TEN LONDON AND SOUTH IrEBTDRN BANNING
COL PA NT.
_ _

This wu an action brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman
residing at Richmond, against the company, to rcoover the
sum of 501.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., sod Mr. M.Natnats were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Powell, Q.C., and Mr. Harrison for
the defendants.

It appeared that in 1562 Mews. Kintrea and Clench, two'
promoters of the ,00mpany, called at the plaintiff, house,
and asked him to obtain the services of a Mr. Muni;
who war a friend of hi,, residing et Southampton, as a
director of the company. The plaintiff said it would cost
him money going to Southampton, sod Hintze& and Clench
both mimed that he should be paid 501. for his expenses.
Upon that the plaintiff went to Southampton, and
ob-
tarned the cosseat of his friend. When he retnroed be
applied for the 5W., when be was advised by KinMea and
Clench to take it in shares instead of money. He con-
sented to that, and Klutzes paid 501. into the bank.
No allotment was made, however, and the plaintiff then
applied for a return of the 501. A letter was received by
him in answer, Mating that a chigoe had beau made out in
his favour for 501., and banded to Kintree, who had given
the defendant bankers a receipt for it. The plaintiff de-
nied that he ever gave Hintze& any authority to receive the
money for him.
. . . .

The; defence was that it was considered th►t Mr. Moores
name as a director would be worth 51/1., which was stated
to the plaintiff, but no such sum was held out to him as a
recompense for getting it. The plaintiff and his friends,
however, went to Southampton, and the expenses amounted
to no less than 181. It was true that Mr. Mentes name
was obtained, but it was shortly afterwards withdrawn. The
501. was promised on the ground that Mr. Mentz would
became a Dana fide director, whereas his name was ca.ly just
obtained, and then withdrawn.
The ogee bated a considerable time, sad
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the defeodant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—APRIL 21.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Juetios Ede, and
Justices Willem, Byte', and Keating.)
LOVEGROVE V. THE BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMPANY.—ACCIDENT
The plaintiff in this case was a labourer who had been
for some years employed by the defeidants, sod whilst
pushing a truck along a temporary railway to a ballast-hole
at East Croydou he received an injury, in respect of which
be now churned damages. At the trial before the Lord
Chia Baron the plaintiff was nonsuited, insomuch as the
company were not liable in respect of the injury, became it
was sustained through the neglwrice of a fellow•labourer
of tbs plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant Parry now moved for a rule for • new trial,
and stated that there was evidence that the temporary line
was improperly laid. and that this contributed to the acci-
dent. The line was constricted under the superintendence
of a person who was in a much higher positioe then the
plaintiff, and who °mild Dot he called a fellow-labourer
within the meaning of the rule of law.
Rule granted.
GALLAGHER V. PIPER.—FALL FROM A RC A ITOLD.

The plaintiff in this case bad been employed to builds
scaffold igloo the site of the East India House. and
while so engaged be fell from it and severely hurt himself.
His sued his employers for damagee, contending that
there was a deficient supply of timber, and that this pre-
vented him from putting up guard-boards., which would
have stopped him from falling over. The jury found that
there was a defective supply of timber, but that the defend.
ant did not know of it, though his foremen and his manager
did, and that there was no negligence on the part of the
plaintiff.
Mr. Giffard now moved for • rule to enter a verdict for
the defendant upon the ground that there was no evidence
to fin him with liability. The plaintiff had undertaken a
dangerous employment, and he most himself suffer the
ordinary risks incident to that employment.
Rule granted.
LAEOLE V. ELLISON AND ANOTHEIL—IIINNING THE
BLOCKADE AT CHAELEBTON.

The plaintiff in this case was • shipowner, and the de-
fendant bad agreed to supply 250 tons of goad. so be car-
ried in the plaintiff's vessel to the Bermedee sod thence to
Charleston, the freight to be 151. a too. The action was to
recover damage* upon the ground that the defendant had
not supplied the goods to be carried, and at the trial helms
Mr. Justice Willes, at Liverpool, the jury found for the
plaintiff for 1,8754
Mr. T. Jaws now moved for a rule for a new trial upon
the craned that the verdict was against the weight of evi-
dence, and that the damages were anomie*. Teen was a
plea upon the record that the whole transaction was void,
inasmu:h as the parties had entered into an illegal contract
to violate the law of nations by running the blockade ; and
he submitted that the learned judge had Dot properly di-
rected the jury in reference to this plea.
Mr. Justice Willm—l directed the jury that to make the
contract void upon that grimed the blockade must be effec-
tive, and sot a mere paper blockade. I told them also that
the plea was • good one.
Mr. Jones--Of course it must be taken that the law
forbade such a contract Wog entered into, and that the
phis, if proved, would be an answer to the action. Now he
undertook to show that the parties contemplated doing an
illegal set, and the fact of the blockade being effective was
shown to some extent by this, that the plaintiff's vessel bad
been raptured whilst attempting to get into Charleston.
Mr. Justice Wilke—Then was plenty of evidence of
blockade. but it was such as no jury in the kingdom would
act upon when an efficient blockade was to be proved.
Mr. Jones—The correspondence showed that the parties
believed that they were contracting to do an illegal act.
The plaintiff wrote that he had been advised that an agree-
ment to break • blockade reoogaised by the government
was illepl, and egaio, " I ask whether you would have
hesitated to take your profits because they were illegal?'
Now, as to the amount of dehisces, he contended that they
were exceseive, and the whole amount of the freight upon
the defeedant's tonnage would have been 3,1251., but the
tonnage not having been supplied, the plaintiff filled up the
apace with his own goods, sod it was admitted that the
plaintiff could only charge the defendant with the difference
between the 3,1251. and the amount of freight which would
have been charged in regent of the cargo which be himself
shipped in the space. The learned judge, however, seemed
to think that the plaintiff might recover the whole amount.
The Lord Chief Justice —And the jury have charged the
plaintiff '1,2501. in eoseequeaos of his having lost the cargo
he shipped, sod yet you are not satiated.
Mr. Jones—My client is not, my lord.
Mr. Justice Willes—l thought your argument the most
eneasesful I had ever heard, for it certainly gained your client
1,2301.
Mr. Jones—After that I can say no more.
Rule refused.
NUNN= N. HALL AND ANOTHHIL —DISPUTED EIGHT TO El

Mr. Edward James, Q.Q, maid that this csie also was
tried at Liverpool, before Mr. Justice flhor, when a verdict
wentered for the plaintiff by arrangement. The action
war to recover 6/. which had been received by the defend-
ants in the character of churcswvdm. at Pnwoott, near
Manchester ; and the question was w the defeodants
were the kgal churchwardens.
The curt granted a rule, but suggested, as the circum-
stances were somewhat onmplicated, they should be stated
in the form of a special nee.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Aram 21.
(Won the Judas Ordinary.)
WILLIAMS r. HUIT AND OTHERS.

This was a will ewe. The plaintiff. the widow of David
Williams. late of the Trainer Arnie Hotel, Tredagar, who
died on the 30th Joly, 1863, propounded am sole executrix
and universal legatee • will made on let August, 1858.
The defenditnts, the nephews and nieces and next of kin of
the deceased, pleaded that the document was not his will,
undue execution, incapacity, and undue ieflasoce. The
issues were tried at the last Monmouth assizes before Mr.
Baron Pigott, when the jury found • verdict for the plain-
tiff, thus astablinhing the validity of the will.
Mr. Gray, Q.C. (with whom was Dr. Tristram and Mr.
Dowdeswell), on the part of the defendants, now moved for
a rola nisi for a new trial, or for an order that the defen-
dants might be allowed their coats out of the estate.
The Solicitor-General (with whom was Mr. Henry James)
moved that probate of the will be granted, and that the
defendants be condemned in costa.

The argTanenia,;;;;l;le:ted the whole day, had not con-
cluded when the court rceu

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Aran. 21.
(Beton Yr. Commissioner Fans.)
IN RI 0110301 CARTWRIGHT smsarrui.
The bankrupt was • merckaat, of lioorgsts-street, sloe
having a house at Sidney, to partnership with J acob
The failure occurred in Await last. The amounts, pre-
pared by Marra Johnson and Co., show the following am-
siderable items:—To unsecured creditors of the London
house, 52.7411. ; ditto of the Sidney home, 15,564!. ;
ondi-
ton bokling security, 22,0631. ; miking a total liability of
upwards of 90,000 f. The meets are estimated at 45,0001.,
of which 42,6251. 1 represented by property of the Sidney
boom, now being realised antler powers sent out from this
oonntry. There is also propert7 held by the secured area-
ton of the yaks of 30,300!.
This was the sitting for examination and discharge. It
MI stated that about 20,0001. bad already been realised,
and the aiwimmes asked for an adjournment of two months,