The Express.
London, England, 1865-11-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

METROPOLITAN COUNTY COURTS.
(MOW days appointed for the prawn week.)
WrITISMI, 114. Martins-brte.—Monday. Nov. 20 , Turiada2.
21 ; Wedutmday, ft : Thursday, 23.
Bcoonsso ay, Portlandvoad.—Wednesday, Nov. It ; Thursday,
Y 3; Friday, IL
BILOMProII. Whiteheas-grove.—Tue•day, Nov. Y 1; Wsdose.
day. 'it ; Friday, 24.
LIMILISWILL, Duocao-teersee.—Mooday, Nov. 10 ; Tenedol.
21 • Wednesday, 22, Friday, 24.
finoaserfra, 01d4ureefrrosd.—Tuesday, Nov. Y 1; Thom
day, 23.
Row, Bow-road.—Monday. Nov. Y 0; FridaY. 24-
Nov. 21
Warnollarn, Great PreecOtioLreeL—Tillolay. :
Thursday, Pi ; Friday, 24.
Sooynwasi, itivairstreeL—Toreday, Nov. 21 ; Wednesday, 22 ,
Friday, 24.
I. AltHrfg, Camberwell New.road.—Tuesday, Nov. 2L
ORZENWICIL—Wednaiday. Nov. n.
WooLwtoL—Thureday, Nov. /3.
CINTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
Monday. Nov. M.
-----

COURT OF EXCIIINITER.—Nov. 18.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock, and
Barons Beamwell, Channel!, and Pigott.)
BTUBLZY c. LONDON AND NOITII WICATZII3 RAILWAY
COMPANY.
This action was brought by the husband of a factory
worker to recover compensation in damages spinet the
defeodaots for having caused her death. It appeared that
the deceased in going to work had to psis over a level
creasing on the branch hue between Leeds and Dewsbury.
She waited until the train she saw had pained by, and
thee proceeded to walk over, when an express train on
the other rails came up arid killed her upon the spot.
At the trial, before plain Justice Blackburn at Leeds, •
verdict pulsed for theiff, with 1001. damages, but the
learned judge pee leave to the defendants to move to enter
• nonsuit, or for a nonsnit on the ground of misdirection.
Mr. Manisty, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Kamplay), now
showed cause against a rule which had been obtained for
that purpose. The question was whether the railway com-
pany had taken all reasonable precautions for the safety of
the public using the footpath somas the line at the point
in question. The content for the plaintiff was that they
had not, and particular refrence was made to the fact
that there was no watchman at the creasing to warn people
of their danger.
Mr. Deemed, Q.C., and Mr. Mauls appeared in support
of the rule.
The Lord Chief Baron said the court were unanimously
of opinion that the rule to enter a consult should beal made
absolute. The learned judge who presided at the Mal e
the use to the jury, hut reserved for the opinion of this
smart the question whether there was any evidence of neg-
ligence. He (the Lord Chief Itasca) avowed that he saw
no evidence of negligence. The railway appeared
in a straight line for 100 yards on each side of the footpath,
and there was nothing to prevent people who wished to pass
The court
over from seeing whether soy train was owning.
most assume that the legislature saw no mischief in allow-
ing a footway on a level with the line at this point: and
was there anything in the circumstances of the railwa
sty
to
require the company to station a porter or watchman this
crossing, or to take other precautions which they had not
adopted? He thought there were not ; indeed he did not
know what prepauttoes they °sold have taken. Is his
opinion there was no negligence on the part of the company,
and a oonsuit ought to be entered.
Mr. Baron Bramwell wee clearly of the same opinion. It
was said that the company, ought to have some person at
the footpath, not to detain people, for be could not do
that, but to warn them sot to aces when a train was
coming. The deceased. who was unfortunately killed, bad
an opportunity of seeing along the line for about the sixth
of a mile, and the period occupied by an express train in
travelling that distance would enable a
person who walked
even at a leisurely pace to pass several times across the rail.
Under those circumstances ought there to have been •
servant of the company present to tell her that • train was
approaching, when she could have seen it herself if she had
only used common caution? He thought that such a
He was pre-
caution was not to be expected of the company
inclined to the opinion that rules and regulatioos for taking
care of people when they ought to take care of themselves
were downright mischievous. U the deceased bad looked
she could have seen the train coming, and there was there-
fore obvious negliestene on her part in running into danger.
The other judges being of the same opinion the rale was
made absolute for a noesuit.

ARCHES COURT.—Nov. 18.
(Before the Bight Hon. Dr. Lushington).
DAB = e. GRANT. —ANOTHEB CHURCH-RATE CASt.
This was another ohnrch-rate case, and witnesses were
examined viva vow on both sides from the: untry.
Dr. Deese, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey, peared for the
churchwardee of Kettleburgh, Suffolk, is support of the
rate ; Dr. Tristram and Mr. E. C. Clarkson were for the
defendant Grant, one of the parishioners.
Among the witnesses celled on the part of the parish was
the Rev. Mr. Turner. the rooter, who wee chairman of the
new 'assessment committee. He said he paid church-rates on
him tithes.
Dr. Deane wished it to be clearly un too d
ders that the
rector paid church-rates on kis tithes. He should refer to it
in his argumext.
Mr.tTuruer said be had property in the parish, and he
requested it to be valued at its full amount, in order to
avoid complaints. He believed that Grant Bas the only
person who bad objected to the sesenmeut of the rate. The
property in the parish wee principally agricultural.
Dr. Tristram celled two witnesses in support of his
objection, after which the further hearing was adjourned
sine die.

EDWARDS AND MANN v. HATTpaON. r
This church.rate caw (reported in this pe of Saturday)
was rammed. The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Swabs) were
for the rate, end Dr. Deane, Q.C., sod Dr. Tristram on the
other ride.
The evidence was concluded, nod the argument of rowed
reserved.