The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-30 00:00:00

2033 fateUtgence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-TESTEUDAT.

ammo. BANCO torn CADMIUM!, NIL Judea WISIIT. I
MAN, AND AID. Justice.. Caurryus.
e. HOTCoTT —LIABILITY OP SVILETT.
This was an action brought to recover the amount o! a
promissory note to which the defendant, *WI with
another, was a party The defendant pleaded. iliatbe was
liable only as surety, and that his liabilit7 Ind been deter•
mined by the plaintiff having given time to the principal
without the defendant's consent. The jury found a verdict
for the defendant; subsequently a rule was obtained, call-
ing upon the defendant to, saow cause why the verdict
should not be set aside and n verdict entered for the plain-
tiff. This rule was argue, tome days since, and the judg•
meta of the court was now delivered by
Lord Campbell, who sail that the rule must be made
absolute. The plea merely said, after stating the fact, that
the defendant was only liable as surety, " all of which had
always been well known to the plaintiff; " but it did not
set out that the note was given by the defendant or received
by the plaintiff, upon any express agreement that Mr.
Boycott should only be considered as surety. In the
absence of any averment that such an agreement was made,
it must be taken that the defendaht's liability was not
altered by the time given to the other party.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAT.
Strnmes ug Bmico.—Bcrou Cieur Jrnica lumrs AX I MIL Itinica

Their lordships this morning sat formally, and then ad-
journed to meet the other judges in the Court of Error.

AT Nat Paws Ilt LONDo'..—Buroas KZ. JUOTICI
TAIZOVID AND ♦ COMMON Jvi.v.
TIIVIICOIT V. CLARD.—BITZ DT A Doo.

The plaintiff in this cue is a town traveller, and the de-
fendant keeps the Barley Mow, is llorseferry.road, West-
minster. The action was brought to recover damages, in
consequence of the plaintiff haying been bitten by a dug be-
longing to the defendant.
Mr. Serjcant Byles, Mr. Lush, and Mr. Charnock ap-
peared foe the plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeaut Wilkins fur the
defendant. _ _ _ _ _

It appeared that, on the afternoon of Sunday, the 9th of
January la-t, the plaintiff went to the defendant's house to
get a glue of ale. The part of the house he west
to was the "jag department," and almost as soon
as he had entered, the dog bit him on the
back part of the leg. Shortly afterwards be went to the
Middlesex Hospital, where the wound was cauterised, and
on the 14th January he consulted a medical man, who at-
tended him up to the 18th February, and whose charges
amounted to 41. 16s. The animal in question was a small
black curly dog, and only about eight or nine inches high.
As to its character, it was proved that it had on previous
occasions bitten one man's leg, and torn another man's
trowsers. The defendant had always been anxious to settle
this matter, by making the plsinuff some compensation;
but the present action was commenced, and the matter now
cams before the jury for their decision.
The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, found a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages 201.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER-YESTERDAY.
• diret.vos Is Faso'.

The learned judges present were the Lord Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas, the Chief Baron, Mr. Baron Parke,
Mr. Baron Platt, Mr. Baron:Martin, Mr. Justice Creswell,
and Mr. Justice Williams.

Tux YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY

V. THE QUZIM.--IMPORTANT JUDOMINT.
The Chief Justice of the Common Pleas delivered judg-
ment in this case. This was a writ of error from the deci-
sion of the Queen's Bench, upon a demurrer to a
return to a mandamus commanding the plaintiffs
in error to purchase lands, and make and com-
plete the railway between Market Weighton and
Cherry Bruton. Time was takea by the court below
after the argument. Mr. Justice Erle'then gave judgment
in favour of the plaintiffs in error, but Lord Campbell
and Mr. Justice Crompton decided in favour of the de-
fendant in error. This court had carefully examined the
ease and were of opinion that Mr. Justice Erle was cor-
rect, and therefore the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench must be reversed. In 1848 the plaintiffs in error had
•btained an act to make their railway, and the powers of
that act expired before the mandamus was applied for, but
in 1849 they had obtained an act authorising them to aban-
don the line. The defendants in error were landowners on
the line. Several questions arose in the course of the argu-
ment. Did the statute of 1846 east upon the company the
duty of making the railway ? If not, was there • con-
tract which could be enforced by mandamus, and had a
work which was permissive became obligatory by a part
performance ? The question depended upon the construc-
tion to be put on the special act, and the words of the act
showed that it was permissive only. It had been proved
that the works would be beneficial to the public. The com-
pulsory power to take land was limited to three years. The
court thought there was no duty cast upon the company to
make the railway. It had been said that a railway act was
a contract to make the railway, and that the public were
parties to that contract. The railway set., however, were
not contracts; they gave powers, but they were
permissive, and not imperative. Courts of justice
ought not to depart from the plain words of •
statute • they must expound laws, but not make
them. The company might take land if they thought fit.
11 they did, they must make compensation for the land
taken. The court were also of opinion that the mandamus
could not be supported, on the ground that the company
having done • part, were bound to do all. If a company
had the power to snake a bridge over the Thames, and they
only built one arch, the only question would be whether
they might not be indicted for • nuisance in obstructing the
navigation. The plaintiffs in error had made a great por-
tion of their line, and had abandoned the remainder,
because it would not be remunerative. The option was

left to the company. The court felt that great respect was
due to the opinions of Lord Denman and Lord Campbell,
hut they were bound to act upon their own judgment. The
judgment of the court below must therefore be reversed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-YESTEILDAY.

Bcroat rim Ono

CAPTAIN FRANCIS CRAWL'S APINTALIT.
This insolvent, related to Lord Annesley, a captain in the
60th Regiment (Rifles), applied to be discharged from pri-
son. Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dowse opposed for several cre-
ditors, and two appeared in person. Mr. Cooke and Mr.
Sargood supported.
The insolvent owed in the aggregate 4,8721., including
Lord Annesley and other members of his family. His con-
sideration debts in little more thaw two years wore 4,0431.
He gave up property to about 601. He bed been in the 63rd
Regiment of Foot, and was stationed with his regiment in
Dublin, where he contracted some debts. lie was trans-
ferred in January last into the Rifles, and attributed his
insolvency to having been arrested and thereby prevented
from going to India, where he should have had a great
increase in pay, and been able, he considered, to
have paid all his creditors. He had been in India for six
years on a former occasion. His present ply Was Ils. 74.
per day.
Before the insolvent was examined an application was
made for a new special balancenbeet, and after some discus-
sion the case was ordered to proceed.
The insolvent underwent an examination as to the debts
he had incurred, and one of the erediton, who appeared in
person, said he was a wine merchant at Dublin, and bad
supplied him with wine. lie was told he was related to
Lord Annesley.
The Chief Commissioner,

r, after the case had occupied son

time, adjourned it for a week, to see if any arrangemm
could be made with the creditors.

Barons 11..

Law.

IN THZ MILT-TPA or JOHN THOMAS SIPAIN.-LIBEL.

This insolvent, • young man, was opposed by Mr. Cooke
on the part of Mr. Crosbie, a tailor and draper at Stafford ;
and Mr. Sargood supported.
The insolvent was foreman to his father, a tailor in Lon-
don. Some proceedings took place ill the Stafford County
Court, and a report appeared in the Staffordshire Gaulle.
The insolvent took what purported to be a copy to the drat
newspaper-office. He ordered 60 copies of the Sun with
the account in it to be supplied. In the account in the
Sun Mr. Crosbie, who was one of the witnesses, was
stated to be intoxicated. For the libel Mr. Crosbie
brought an action, in which judgment was allowed to go by
default. The matter came before the Sheriffs' Court, and
the jury awarded 501. damages. The costs were 331. The
insolvent kept out of the way, and the costs in the action
had been offered to be paid, but were refused. The insol-
vent having been taken in execution for the damages and '
costs, now applied to bo discharged. The opposition was
for the damages in the action, and it was placed before the
court as a serious complaint.
Mr. Commissioner Law commented on the nature of the
libel, which he considered to be malicious. His Honour
pronounced a judgnient of twelve calendar months for the
damages, from the vesting order made in March.