The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-30 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

The first case called on was that of " Wbyte e. Calder."
The gentlemen in the liatof special jurors for that cause were
fined Om non-attendance 101. each. In the nest cause, re-
ported below, but four special jurors were in attendance ;
and ',those who did not attend, eleven were fined 101. eacb,
and two 61. each. To one of the eleven, on hie appearance
subsequently, one half the fine was remitted.
EVANS V. LAISSON.—LIBIL.—TRE NELSON SWORD.—
Sir F. Thesieer, Q.C., and Mr. noggins, appeared for the
plaintiff, who might to recover damages for a libel alleged to
have been published in the Times newspaper, on the 4th of
December, 1818. The publication complained of was in the
form of a letter addressed to the editor of the Times, and
purportingto be writtecn:rlai Sir Harris Nicolas. which asserted
that a sword sold by the ntiff to the late Lord Saye and
Bel., as and for the sus of Lord Nelson, placed on his coffin
when kis body lay in state, was spurious; and that an attempt
W Min made to rapport im authenticity by a forgery. The
sum of 1001. was given for the sword by Lord Saye and Sele,
and it was subsequently presented to Greenwich Hospital by
Ide lordship. The defendant pleaded the general issue only ;
and by the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnersee it
was ascertained that the sum of 11. only had been paid for
the sword by the plaintiff to Mrs. Smith, the widow
of the late Alderman Smith, in whose possession the
eoat worn by Lord Nelson at Trafalgar bad been until its
purchase by Prince Albert, for presentation to Greenwich
Hospital. That two letters from the plaintiff in answer to
the alleged libel had been inserted in the Times after the
4th of December and before action brought ; and that the
plaintiff, afterwards and after some correspondence with the
attorney for the defendant bad taken place, had suddenly
brought this action in default of compliance with a peremp-
tory demand for an immediate published apology from the
writer of the letter complained of. It appeared also that the
sword brought from Greenwich Respite was in court,
and that Mrs. Smith, a letter from whom the letter com-
plained of asserted to have been forged in support of the
genuineness of the sword, was present ; but the sword was
not produced, nor the lady called. Mr. Humfrey, Q.C.,
with whom was Mr. Peacock, for the defendant, contended
that the letter complained of was only a fair commentary on
the evidence, intrinsic and extrinsic, adduced to support the
authenticity of the sword, and that if it was libellous at all
it was not a libel on the plaintiff. In one part of the letter
it was said that on its being proved to the plaintiff that Lord
Nelson had not worn any sword at Trafalgar, he had said
that this was the one which, if he had worn any sword on
that day, he would have worn. So, said the learned counsel,
when the porter of Magdalene college, Oxford, was told that
the sword which he was showing as that with which Balsam
smote his ass could not be genuine because Balsam had only
wished for a sword to smite the ass with, he answered that
the sword he was showing was that for which Balsam
had wished. It was perfectly impossible for the jut,'
to say from the evidence produced that the letter
could be fairly interpreted as conveying the imputation
ascribed to it by the inuendo, that the plaintiff had eefrauded
Lord Saye and Sale: —Lord Bemuse, in summing up, said
he had very great difficulty in finding that the letter com-
plained of bore the meaning which the declaration attributed
to it. He also thought that there had been a precipitancy
in bringing the correspondence to a close, and commencing
the action, which suggested that the attorney for the plaintiff
had beea glad of an opportunity of bringing an action.—
The jury, after a very brief deliberation, returned a verdict
for the defendant.
GILBERT O. LEWIS.—SLANDER.—This SW an action for
slander spoken by the defendant of the plaintiff. The
defendant pleaded the general issue. Sir F. Tbesiger and
Mr. Clarkson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cockburn,
Q.C., Mr. Luah, and Mr. Joyce for the defendant. It
appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff was the
ialumbent of the district church of Haggerstoae, in the
parish et St. Leonard, Shoreditch, and that the defendant
was the treasurer of the schools connected with the
church. Mr. Hopkins was called as a witness for the
plaintiff, who proved the speaking of the slanderous words
by the defendant, which conveyed a distinct charge of •
capital offence having been committed by the plaintiff.
Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., proposed to give in reduction of
damages evidence which went to show that the plaintiff had
been guilty of conduct sheet of that which had been attri-
buted to him ; but, as there was no plea of justification on
the record, the evidence was rejected. Mr. Cockburn then
addressed the jury in mitigation of damages. He said that
the defendant had acted bona fide, without malice, and was
speaking to one of the subecribers to the school, of which he
was the treasurer. He had made the same charge before the
Bishop of London, the plaintiff's diocesan. Under those
circumstances, he trusted the jury would give the smallest
amount of damages. Lord Denman, in summing up, con-
demned with great warmth the conduct of the defendant in
refusing to plead • justification, as he might have done, in
which case the plaintiff would have come prepared to meet the
charge, and now attempting to give evidence of that charge,
when the only issue which he had raised upon the record was
as to the fact of his speaking the slanderous words imputed
to him.—The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff,—Damages
4001. Mr. Cockburn tendered a bill of exceptions to his
lordship's ruing.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-GuiLDHALL.

t the Lord Chief Justice mod a Common Jury.

ANENT r. NIATTNEWB,-ACCIDINT ON THE DERBY
DAY,-LIABILITY Or TOR DRIVRR OP A PVTILICCON-
verAwcz.—Mr. Serjeant Talfourd and Mr. Come for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Serjesint Bytes and Mr. Warren for the de•
fondant—The plaintiff in thidcase was a billiard-marker and
the defendant was the proprietor of a van, which had been
used for the purpose of conveying passengers on
the occasion of the Epsom Races, in 1846. The action
was brought to recover compensation in damages
for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff
in consequence of an accident, which he attributed
to the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff's
case was, that, having engaged an " outside place." he and
several others were returning from Epsom rams on the roof
of the defendant's vehicle, which was a ppecies of omnibus
calculated to remove goods or to carry passengers ; that the
defendant was himself the driver, and the number of per-
sons riding outside, including those on the box, wes about
15 • that the vehicle was observed to " sway about " a great
deal, by reason of Rs being top-heavy; and that when it
arrived at Chasm, one of the hind wheels broke, and the van
was overturned, precipitating the plaintiff and his fellow-
passengers into the road. The consequence was, that the
plaintiff's left arm was severely fractured, and he continued
an out-patient at St. Bartholomew's Hospital for a period of
eight weeks. The surgeons who attended him gave it as
their opinion that he would never perfect y recover the use
of his arm, and witnesses were celled to prove that he had
been c.mpeUed to employ a person, at the rate of 11. is,
per week, to attend to his business since the accident.
On the part of the defendant, witnesses were called to
prove the following facts :—That the vehicle was capable of
carrying four tons burden, and that on the occasion allud
to the weight of the passes ors (their number being th^-
one) did not exceed more than two tons; that on the day
previous to the races the van had been examined by a
coachmaker, who reported it to be perfectly sound in every
respect. That at the time of their leaving the race•course
the defendant had warned the passengers of the danger they
would incur by crowding on to the outside of the vehicle.
That the weather being extremely tine, a great number of
persona, including the plaintiff, insisted upon riding on the
roof in preference to the inside ; and that shortly afterwards
the defendant stopped the vehicle and told the passengers
that an accident would happen if they persisted in riding in
so dangerous a position. Ludy, it was contended upon the
evidence proved, that the defendant had not, as alleged in
the declaration, neglected to use due and proper care, and
that the law did not compel him to undertake, "at all
events," to convey his passengers safely and securely,
but only to adopt the best means in his power to ensure
their safe conveyance. The defendant having warned the
passengers that an accident might occur, and, moreover,
caused his van to be carefully supervised on the previous
day, negligence could not justly be attributed to him. The
accident had heppened, not by reason of the van being
overloaded, or " misconetructed " in any particular, but in
consequence of the passengers being (through their own
negligence) improperly disposed on the vehicle.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, told the jury
that the question wee, whether or not the plaintiff was
bound, in point of law, to get inside the carriage, upon the
defendant's warning the passengers that there was danger
in riding outside. He (the learned judge) was of opi-
nion that he wee not so bound, inasmuch as he had
previously engaged a seat on the outside; and as it
did not appear that any caution had been directed to the
plaintiff personally, if the carriage was upset by reason of
the defendant's having permitted a greater number of pas-
sengers to ride than the vehicle would conveniently
by reason of any other act in the conduct of the del'tziT4uotr,
• their verdict must be for the plaintiff. The evidence err-
§ tainly led to the belief that the carriage broke down in eon-
, sequence of its being overloaded ; an 3 the question, there-
- fore, was, what amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled
to recover. The driver of a !gage coach or other public con-

veyanee was bound to use every precaution, and to exercise
the greatest firmsos on occasions like the present, in order
to ensure the safety of his paseragers.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; damages, 501.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
ti tot Pana.—Before B,r P. Pollock. C. 8., sad * London Common Jury.
Yesterday was the first day of the sittings at Onildhall.
The entry, which is unusually heavy. contains 236 cases.
The following was the only case disposed of worth notice.
BURNIUDR a. DATIIIILL.—ARCOVEILY or RAILWAY Da-
rostra.—This was an action to recover back 424 paid as
deposits on 20 shares in the Dived Manchester, Leeds, and
York Railway, of which the defendant was a provisional
committeeman. The defendant, who wu High Sheriff of
Bucks, vim advertised as chairman, and he attended meet-
ings of the committee on the 3rd of November and in
December, 1846, the project having been abandoned in the
latter month. The application for shares was on the 3rd of
October, and the allotment was made about the 14th of
that month. Some importance was attached to those
facts, as they proved the defendant had attended meetings
of the committee after the allotment had been made.
There was no direct evidence that the defendant had sum.
tioned the publication of his name ; but it did not appear be
hail complained of it. Upon the principles established by
ch. Court of Exchequer in " Wyld v. Hopkins" and " Ray-
ne' v. Lewis," it wu contended that the defendant was not
liable, as there was no partnership, and he attended no
meeting of the committee until the shares had been allotted.
—The Lord Chief Baron took the opinion of the jury—first,
as to whether the defendant's name was held out as chair-
man with his content • and secondly, whether he was, per-
sonally, any party to the allotment of thane to the plaintiff.
The jury answered the find question in the affirmative, and
the second in the negative. A verdict was then entered
for the plaintiff for 421., leave having been reserved to the
defendant to move to enter a nonsuit should the court be
of opinion there was not sufficient evidence of his liability.

ARCHES' COURT.
Before Sir 11. 3. Fast.
BOODE o. Boons.—This was a suit for divorce by reason
of adultery, brought by Mr. J. K. Hoods against his wife,
and came to this court by letters of request from the Chan-
cellor of the diocese of Salisbury.--A libel was given in and
13 witnesses examined, and no allegation, exceptive or
otherwise, was tendered on the part of Mrs. Boode.—The
Queen's Advocate, on the part of the husband, submitted
that the case was sufficiently proved to entitle him to a sea-
-1 tense in his favour.—Dr. Curteis said,tbat Dr. Addams, who
was necessarily absent, and himself, felt that it would be
useless to offer any opposition on behalf of Mrs. Boode.
They must, therefore, leave the case in the bands of the
court.—The learned judge was clearly of opinion that the
proofs were quite sufficient to justify him in granting the
prayer.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commissioner Pone.
EXTENSIVE FAILVRE.--IN RE J. M. BLASHFIELD.—
This bankrupt, a builder, of Albion-wharf, Blackfrisrs, came
up to pass his last examination. The balance-sheet ran over
a period of about two years and a half, and showed the fol-
lowing items :—To creditors, 28,1651.; do., holding annuity,
30,1661.; capital, 3,9171. ,• and profits, 1.5,86.51. The assets
appeared to be about 3,0001; property in the hands of cre-
ditors, 42,8841,• trade expenses, 14,1271. ; domestic expenses,
1,7951.; and limes, 16,2111. The balance sheet bad not
been filed in sufficient time, and the case was accordingly
adjourned.

rmmlik
PWnge
d.h

SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS.
GUILDFORD, Jume 29.—The general quarter sessions for
the county of Surrey commenced yesterday, at the Court-
house, Guildford.
THE New Novas or Coattscrion.—The committee re-
ported that they had obtained the offer of a piece of ground
fur the contemplated new House of Correction on Wands-
worth-common, and they recommended that it should be
purchased, and that a sum of 10,0001. should be obtained by
way of loan, to be repaid in 30 years, for that purpose.—
After some discussion the recommendation was adopted.—
On the motion of Mr. Austin, seconded by Lord Lo.
I nine, that the building be erected upon the plea of
separate confinement, an amendment was moved and carried
that the committee be requested to take steps to obtain all
the information in their power ups's the subject of the sepa-
rate system of imprisonment, and report to the court at the
next session what system they considered the most desirable
to adopt.

over the Regent's Canal, at Stepney, and
water. An alarm was raised immediately,
e. went foe the drags to a neighbouring public-
_ attempted to recover the prisoner by means of
~,,,.t-hooks. The wretched woman sank, and nearly five
minutes elapsed before she was taken out of the water. She
was imaisahata4 takes into the Gunmaker's Arms in an
ripped/6* Wm mite. Every attention wee paid to the
ease by the propriebx of the tavern and his servants. The
leer wee stripped and put into • warm bed, sad after
the met assiduous friction had been applied, and other
new to resuscitate the woman had been used, under the
dieselbra of a surgeon and his easistant, she was happily re-
lined to • state of conacionsnese, end given into the oars of
pillomessiable named Collins, 176 IL, to whom she stated
that AO Viet out upon as errand on Monday morning, and
woe amated on London-bridge by two well-drowsed men,
whe entered into conversation with her, and invited her to
Mak with them in a pnblic-house. She refused to do so,
bub oree of them prevailed upon her to remain outside the
be while his companion went in, and soon afterwards
out a glass of brandy-and-water. She tasted a
=ik eisuantity of it, and afterwards felt very giddy,
ad became intoxicated. She had no perfect melba:
ilea where she went to afterwards, hut had a Odor
recollection of being taken into another public-house, and
some liquor being forced upon her by her companions, which
made her feel worse than she was before, and she became
quite insensible. At an early hour that morning she came
to her senses, and found herself in a secluded place in Hag-
gcritone-fields, near Hackney. She was ashamed to return
home, and proceeded to the bridge over the canal, with the
determination of terminating her life. The prisoner further
stated to the policeman that she believed the liquor was
drugged, and that the first mouthful she tastedmade her very
ill. Ann Dunning, the mother of the prisoner. who
appeared in a state of great affliction at the sufferings
of her daughter, laid her child's absence from
home had given her great unesaintss. Her daughter
was a very steady, well-conducted girl. The pri-
soner, who was in an exceedingly weak state, and
was accommodated with a chair on the bench near the ma-
gistrate, repeated in a low tons what she had stated to the
policeman. She described the persons of the two men, and
said she should know them again. She was very ill, and
felt grateful to the persons who saved her life, for she was
very sorry that she had made the attempt to drown herself
in the canal. Mr. Yardley gave some directions to the po-
lice on the subject of the alleged outrage on the girl, and he
delivered her over to the care of her mother, who imme-
diately obtained assistance, and conveyed her daughter to
her own home.