The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-07 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

BONNIE V.— MARCH.—RIGHT OF A FATHER TO THE
CUSTODY OF AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD.—Mr. Hunifrey,
Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict in this
case, in which a verdict had passed for the defendant, at the
last assizes for the county of Nottingham, should not be set
aside, and one entered for the plaintiff non °Monte rere•
ditto. The action was brought on a bond given to parish
officers for the support of an illegitimate child, of which the
defendant is the father. and he pleaded that, during the
whole time to which the breeches applied, the child was
beyond the age of nurture, and he willing and able to sup-
port it; that he had required the child from the parish
officers, and that they had refused to deliver it to him.
Issue was taken on the question whether he had required.
He now submitted that the father of an illegitimate child
bad no right to the custody of it, and therefore that the plea
was bad for not averring that the child had been willing to
go to the father; if the child had not been willing, the
parish officers were not bound to transfer the custody to the
father, and they therefore had been entitled to enforce the
bond against him. The court granted the application.
PICIPORD c. LACON.—COACH LAW.—Mr. Watson, Q.C.,
moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict in this case,
which on Tuesday last had passed for the defendant, should
not be set aside, and a new trial had. The defendant had
engaged places in the plaintiff's coach for the conveyance of
himself, his wife, and her servant, from Yarmouth to London,
and had paid the sum of U. as a deposit for the whole fare,
41. 4e. The coach was constructed to carry thirteen pas-
sengers ; and at the appointed time it proceeded towards
London with the plaintiff, his wife, and servant. At a place
called Yosford. diannt about 30 miles from Yarmouth, the
coachman took up at a school several additional passengers,
so as to make the number more than thirteen. The defendant
remonstrated, but in vain ; and eventually he and his wife
got out, and the servant proceeded with the coach to
London. He now contended that the judge should
have told the jury to find for the plaintiff, if they
thought that there had been room enough for the defendant,
notwithstanding the additional number of passengers beyond
13. He also urged that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the
amount of the fare as far as Yosford, and, at all events, the
sum of Is. beyond the It. deposited, to make up one guinea
for the fare of the defendant's servant.—Lord Denman said
that if the defendant had contracted to go by a coach which
was constructed for 13 persons, he was not bound to go by •
coach carrying more passengers than that number. The
plaintiff's departure from the contract rendered it unneces-
sary for the defendant to pay for the conveyance as far as
Yosford. Upon the omission to find the one shilling, the
plaintiff might have • rule.
TOPP e. BURRAND.—MEASURE OF DAMAGES me ACTION
FOR NOT ACCEPTING RAILWAY SHARES.—Mr. Wildman
moved fora rule to show cause why the verdict in this case,
which had passed for the plaintiff at the last assizes for the
county of Nottingham, should not be set aside, and a new
trial had on the ground of misdirection. On the 20th of
October the defendant employed the plaintiff to buy for
him 20 shares in the Nottingham and Oainsborough railway,
at a premium of 255. On the 21st he told the plaintiff that
the person for whom he had ordered the shares would not
take them; the defendant replied that they were bought,
and must be paid for. On that day the premium fell to
145., though business was done in shares of the same com-
pany at 18e. The plaintiff ultimately sold the shares at a
price much less than they would have produced if they had
been sold at 14s. premium. The defendant paid into court
111., the amount of the difference between the premium at
which the shares were bought and the lowest premium at
which they might have been sold on the 21st of October,
there being no settling day in the Nottingham share-
market. The plaintiff replied further damages, and had a
verdict. The learned counsel contended that the judge
should have told the jury that the plaintiff had been bound
to sell forthwith, on the defendant's refusing to accept the
shares; and, if so, it followed that the mama," of the
damages was the difference between the premium on the
20th of October and that on the 21st.—The Court granted
the application.