The Express.
London, England, 1862-07-03 00:00:00

tab) iltutiltgenct.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—JuLY 2.
SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor and a Special Jury.)

HARRISON S. THE UNIVIRSAL IIAR= INSOFAR CZ

0011 PANT.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance, dared 2nd
July, 1860, for 2,0001., on the ship Kensington, from the
Chinch& Islands, Peru, for England. The case commenced
on Tuesday, ►nd occupied the whole of Wednesday. The
defendant. relied on an alleged custom, that underwriters
are not liable to pay for damage sustained below the water
line of a vessel, unless such damage be caused by grounding
or collision. The fact. of the ease were devoid of interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—JuLy 2.
Sittings at Nisi Prim in Londoc—(Briore Lord Chief
Justin" Erie and a Special Jary.)
DAVEY v. POIBLIMON.
- . . .

the
In this case, in which e jury were locked up last night
to consider their verdict, they were ultimately disolisiged
without being able to agree in opinion. They stated, after
they had been looked up for an hour or two, that they
were divided in the proportion of 10 to 2 ; and it was said
that this state of things continued until their discharge.

OTUROZ 0. COLZMAN.-IJ3IIM.

This was an action to recover damps for libel, and the
defendant, in addition to " Not guilty," pleaded that the
alleged libel was true.

Bovill, Mr. Lush, and Mr. Milward appeared for this
plaintiff ; and Mr. Serjeant Hill, Mr. Collier, and Mr.
Needham, for the defendant.
The plaintiff was formerly • merchant in the City. but
had retired from business, and was now living at Northfiee4;
and the defendant WHIM shipowner; and both parties had b,en
shareholders in the West Hartlepool Harbour and Railway
Company,the former for slugs amount,and the latter farlool.
In February. 1/459, the directors of the company, in conse-
quence of certain attacks which had been made upon them,
requested the appointment by the shareholders of • com-
mittee of assistance to look into their affairs ; and of this
committee the plaintiff was nominated chairman. The
committee investigated the matter at great length, and made
their report in the following Deoember ; and stated, among
other things, that there bad been errors in judgment upon
the part of the directors ; and further, that they had ex-
ceeded by about 500,000/. the sum authorised by parliament.
In 1861, the defendant issued a pamphlet entitled, 'Reve-
lations in Parliament ; or, the true state of the West Hartle-
pool flarbour and Railway Company's capital amount," which
pamphlet wee the libel in question. The plaintiff's counsel
referred to various passages in this publication, but he prin.
cipally oomplained of statements in it that the report of the
committee, of which the plaintiff was chairman, was •
fallacious and fictitious document ; and that it was accom-
panied by • private report, which the directors, with the
plaintiff's concurrence, concealed from the shareholders.
He also added that the defendant had, after the commence-
ment of the action, published • second edition of his
pamphlet, containing all the offensive passages, with a
preface, in which he dared the plaintiff to go to lr w.
Mr. Sturge stated that be had about 50,0001. invested in
the company on account of himself and his family ; and he
added that there was nothing fictitious or fallacious in the
report of the committee, and only one report was made.
The report was not even accompanied by a letter—it was
simply handed to the directors.
The witness was cross-examined at some length in
reference to the statements in the report, and as to ti's
Wain of the company ; and his evidence was not concluded
when the court ruse.

The further hearing was adjourned nntil to-morrow.
COURT OF RXCHKQURR.—JuLy 2.

Sittiap at NW Prins at Gaildhall.—(Batan Mr. Baron
Martia sad a Spatial Jury.)

JEFTEBT V. NANTON.-DUTCD2IIB AND TN= CHARGES.
Thu was an aotiou to roams 3111, 155., the amount of a
butcher's bill.

Mr. Hawkins and Mr. T. Joao were counsel for the
plaintiff • and Mr. fierjtant Ballantine and Mr. H. Jll9Oll
appeared for the defendant.
Mr. T. Jona, in opening the case, in the absence of Mr.
Hawkins, said the plaintiff was a butcher, carrying on husi•
nee in the neighbourhood of Regent-street, and the de-
fendant, as catinghouse.keeper in the same locality. The
defendant had dealt with the plaintiff for ter. or eleven years,
and Le bill for meat amounted to about 301. a week. The
N.ceent claim was for meat supplied between July and
ovember, 1860, and the defendant refused to pay
it on the ground of fraud by the plaintiff. Unfortunately
the plaintiff was suffering from disease of the
heart, and could nut be called, but he had been examined
before the master, and the two young ladies who had acted
as cashier in the plaintiff's shop at the time the goods were
supplied were now in Australia.
Mr. Baron Martin mid it appeared that there was a set
off oo the part of the defendant to the amount of between
5,0004 and 6,0001.
Mr. Jones said that the dispute evidently arose from what
was called " trimming" the meat, a custom which he was
ready to admit was a bad one.
Richard Fenhazo, who had been for many years in the
plaintiff's employ, proved the delivery of the meat, and the
practice with regard to weighing and entering it in the
des -ariootam
ined—Trimmings were pieces of bone cut from
legs and shoulders of mutton, and parte which were fly-
blown or stale. They were sometimes put into the wale
and weighed with the joint, but not always sent to the cue.
tomer. He recollected in October last the defendant
coming to the shop and having his meat weighed. It had
been entered as weighing 1001bs., but it turned out to be
10I6e. short of that. Could not my how the mistake oc-
curred, as the meat was weighed, not by himself, but by
Hathaway, the foreman. The defendant complained of
the overcharge, but did not cease to be a customer until
six weeks afterwards.

John Hathaway, the forman, said be had been ten years
in the phintiff's servioe. Trimmings were portions of the
bone or any Ming stale or uoaightly, and were of no use to
any one. When he cut them off he guard thou weight,
and accounted for them, but not always. They ought to
go to the euateiner.
Come-examieed—The mistake of the 10Ite. arose from the
trimmings. Never heard the plaintiff say. " What a fool
Charlie wm to glee Mr. Mar All the ticket of the weight of
the tessla" or myth* to that affect. H. merely said that