The Express.
London, England, 1855-01-25 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-JAN. 24.

MONS DI

LORD CAISPIIIILL. AND TIM MS COLL.

lUDOX, WIANTIAAN LCD fisourion.
Tlll WAIN O. TEM POSTKABTZI4OEI4IIIIAL.

Mr. Monk, on behalf of the respondents, said that he un-
derstood it was not the intention of the other side to argue
this case now, for reasons which his learned friend would

captain.
Mr. Poulden, in the absence of the Attorney-General,
said the question in this case was as to the rateability of the
Post-oßce of Manchester, but that his learned friend the
Attorney-General was of opinion that the cast, as it at pre-
sent stood, did not sufficiently state the facts with a View to,
have the opinion of that court. It was therefore considered ,
advisable that the present rate should be paid, and an ap-
peal should on some future occasion be made against it,
with the object of having the facts brought beforo the court
for its decision. He had now to ask the opinion of the
court as to the costs.
Lord Campbell—The court cannot interfere about the
eats. It wee generally understood that the side which
withdrew paid the costs, the victorious party receiving
them. It must also be clearly understood that the court
had given no opinion on this cue sa to the rateability of
the Post-office of Manchester ; it is entirely an arrangement
between the parties.
VIZ QUINN V. FREILZ.—RAILITLY T/LATRLLINO.
This was a prosecution instituted by the Eastern Union
Railway Company against George Edward Fran, under
the following circumstances :—lt appeared that the de-
fendant took a ticket from Colchester to Norwich, for which
he paid five shillings,but having arrived at Dies, which
was an intermediate tation, and abort of the distance for
which he had taken his ticket, but to which the fare was
seven shillings, he quitted the carriage. A prosecution was
then instituted, and the question arose whether, under the
bye-laws of the company, a traveller was entitled to travel
by the railway, and having taken a ticket to a certain
station, get out at a place at a less distance from his place of
starting without being liable for a criminal offence.
Mr. Bramwell appeared on behalf of the company, and
Sir Fitzroy Kelly contra.
Lord Campbell was of opinion that the conviction in this
case should be quashed. He would abstain from giving any
opinion as to the power of the company by which they
might claim a larger fare for a shorter distance than that
for which the ticket was taken. The court had simply to
determine whether the defendat,t had violated the bye-
laws of the company. He thought there had been no viola-1
lion of those bye-laws, and any question which the com-
pany might wish to raise on those bye laws could not be
raised on such a conviction, and in his opinion it mast be
quashed.
The other learned members of the court having eon-
Marred,
The conviction was quashed.

BAIL COURT.—JAN. 24.
As Mr. Justice Erle wu in London to-day, no judge sat
in this court, although the bar was in attendance.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.Lor. 24.

POI IP DANCO.—INPOPI CHUAN MAMAS IS&VMS, MM. UPTICK PAOLA,
XL AURIGA ellallWlLL. AND 311. JUSTICI WILLIAM&
SMART V. HARDINO.—THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

The plaintiff in this action had agreed to sell a milk walk
to the defendant for 801., and one part of the agreement
was, that he should yield up possession of the premises
whets be carried on his business, and permit the defendant
to occupy them. At the trial before Mr. Justice Cresswell
in London, it was objected that as this agreement referred',
to the premises where the business was carried on, it ought
to have been in writing in accordance with the Statute of
Frauds, which states that any contract in reference to an
interest in land must be in writing, while the
agreement in question was only a verbal one.
His lordship, however, left the cue to the jury,
and a verdict was found for about 301., the
amount claimed subject to the opinion of the court, upon
the validity of the agreement. A rule was accordingly ob-
tained to enter a nonsuit, and this rule to-day came on for
argument.
Mr. Temple, Q.C., appeared to show cause against it
being made absolute; and Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr.Mor-
gin Lloyd, supported the rule.
The Chief Justice said it appeared to him that as this
agreement contained a clause that the premises should be
yielded up to the purchaser, it referred to an interest in
land, and that as this agreement was not in writing it could
not be enforced. Under these circumstances he was of
opinion that a nonsuitshould be entered.
Rule absolute.
.mutes a? ales PILICI ra MIDDLIgLI.—BITOIZ MA. num aim=

AND • CONYON JUST.

BEALL O. TRM OAL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE AND LOAM
CODIPANY.••••WRONOBUL DISMISSAL OP ♦ SIRVANT.

This was an action to recover money due for services yen- ,
dared, and also damages for having been improperly dis-
missed from the defendants' service.
Mr. Huddlestone and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeaat She. was for the defendant'.
The plaintiff was now manager of the Manchester Mer-
chant and Tradesman's Mutual Insurance Society, and in
January, 1854, he was engaged by the manager of the Oak
Insurance Company to travel in the West of England for
three months, to induce people to take shares and policies
and to appoint agents, and for this he was to be paid at the
rata of 1601. per year, a guinea a day for expellees, and com-
mission upon business done. Part of the agreement was
that he should make a daily report of his proceedings to the
manager. The plaintiff started on his j_ourney and went to
various towns, and ultimately reached Bristol, where some
letters paused between him and the company, and be was
informed that he must consider his agreement at an end, as
he had not seat up his reports. The plaintiff's ease was that
he had been prevented doing so by as attack of lumbago,
but he came up to London and saw the manager, and his
engagement was renewed on the same terms as before. lle
went to Bristol a second time, and some correspondence took
place, from which it appeared that the manager understood
that his renewed engagement was upon the terms that he
should have no salary but be paid by commission only.
The plaintiff disagreed upon this point, and he accordingly
brought the present action.
Witnesses were examined on both sides; and the defen-
dant's ease was that the plaintiff bad not told any shares,
' nor caused any policies to be taken up, and that he had
' been properly tismiseed for having neglected to send his
' daily report. That after that he had been re-engaged
L upon commission only, and without salary, and therefore
L was not entitled to succeed in his suit.
f The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 611. 12s.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-JA2g. 24.

ITZDFOS lit