The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-17 00:00:00

The Foreman, on behalf of his badger jurors, rigatoni'
that this questioe, to be submitted to them, should be put
into writing. This was done by
?dr. Baron Rolfe, who read it as follows : Whether King
&ache by Prince Manua his son, in concurrence with the
Rogers family, and other chiefs, whose names were un-
known, had by the laws of the Oellinae power and authority
to make, and did make, laws authorising Capt. Denman to
take and destroy such slaves and goods, if any, es he did
afterwards take and destroy, and whether Capt. Denman
bad acted in pursuance of such law in taking such slaves
and goods, if any, as he did afterwards take and destroy."
The jury after a desultory conversation again withdrew.
The Attorney-General obeerved, that while the jury ware
oat it might be well to settle the verdict as to the other pleas
On the plea of not guilty the verdict would be for the de.
(evident, so ter as they related to the bills of exchange, deeds,
and securities for money—the residue of those pleas would
be found for the plaintiff. The 24 and 14th pleas, se to the
posseadon of such securities by the plaintiff, would also en-
title the defendant to a verdict—the residue of that class of
pleas would be for the plaintiff. The ph as which might
bad
be
called the *Mach' pleas, were those on which the jury
jag mired.
Dozing • further conversation between the court and
cease, the jury returned.
The Attorney-General said he had been very anxious, in
order to show the grounds on which Capt. Denman had pro-
ceeded, and that he had not been aggressive i the first
instance, to have the whale matter as regarded King Bischa
and the chiefs prominently brought before the court and the
public. This had been done, and now by the mutual eon-
' sent and concurrence of his learned friends on the other
tide, he would withdraw these plead trent the consideration of
then
Mr. Parke said that the jury were discharged from
giving a verdict on the &ache pleas, end the matter would
stand thus:—Verdict for the defendant on the ratification
pleas, and for the plaintiff as to the residue, in the manner
already stated.
Mr. Baron Alderson.—That reduces the bill of exceptions
to the simple question, whether the subsequent ratification
by the government of Capt. Denman 's acts, was equivalent
to a prior command to do those acts.
The Attorney-Oeneral.—That will be the only question to
be decided elsewhere.
The verdict as arranged in the manner described, subject
to the bill of exceptions on the point stated, was then recorded,
and the jury were discharged.

Nisi Pares.—Before Sir F. Pollack, C. 8., and a Special Jury.
THE MAYOR AND COILPoILATION OF RoCHWITER 0. Lag.
—RIGHT TO RIVER TOLL ON THE kliznway.—This case,
which was operic don Friday, and continued on Saturday (when
it occupied the entire day), was resumed yesterday morning
in the Court of Queen's Bench at Westminster, the Court of
Exchequer having been pre-engaged by the judges presiding
at the trial at bar. The question was whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to claim 3d. and half a farthing toll for evoke ton of
seals imported into Rochester by the river Medway. They
elaimed this privilege to the extent of 30 imam between
Sheerness and hawk wood. It was a prescriptive corporation.
and it appeared that from time immemorial they had been paid
toll in respect of all coals imported within those limits. Origi
sally the tax wan 4d. a too, but within comparatively a recent
period it was reduced to the amount now claimed. In 1841,
after the election that then took plzee, come political diffe-
rences arose between the inhabitants of Rochester. They
resulted in a refusal by some persons who dealt there in
coals to pay the toll. An action was brought against them
in 1844, and tried at the Maidstone Assizes before Lord Chief
Justice Denman. A verdict passed for the plaiatiffs, and so
far their right was upheld. The defendants moved for a
new trial, but the application was refused. That action
was, however, brought against persona who trafficked in
coals, and the distinction relied upon by the present
defendant was, that although the corporation might have
been authorised to impose the tax upon regular dealers
in that attie:e, as he had imported it fur his own private
consumption, and nut for sale (he being an extensive lime
burner in the neighbourhood of Rochester), he should be
exempted. The principal question raised now was, whether,
if the corporation had the right at all to toll, their right
was not limited to such coals as were imported for sale.
On behalf of the defendant, it was further contended that
whatever right the corporation had hitherto asserted, was
upon the ground that they had given an equivalent for the
toll in the shape of meteege. The defendant required
his coals to be measured, and he therefore urged upon that
ground also that he wee not liable.—Sir F. Thesiger, QC.
(with whom were Mr. Setjeant Shee, Mr. Deedes, and Mr.
14ovill), addressed the jury at great length for the defendant.
—ln the absence of the Attorney-Oenerel (with whom were
Mr. Martin, QC., Mr. Petersdorff, and Mr. Lewis, for the
Plaintiffs), Mr. Martin replied also at considerable lecgth.—
'fhe Lord Chief Baron, summing up, adverted to the impor.
tance of the case, and to the feet that the plaintiffs had no
' personal interest whatever in the matter in issue, but were
influenced solely by public considerations. lie said he
should submit two questions to the jury, and also leave it
open to them to find a general verdict one way or the other.
i The first question was, whether the plaintiffs, as a corpora-
tion, were the owners of the port of Rochester. The se-
cond was, whether, as such owners, they were entitled to
the disputed toll upon coals, whether imported for sale or
L not, or whether their right was confided altogether to such
coals as were imported for the purpose of sale, and to none

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Before the Lord Chief Justice and • Special Jury.
RICHARD V. THII BRIGHTON RAILWAY CoMPANY.-
LIABILITY OF A. RAILWAY COMPANY AS COMMON CAR-
KIRKS; _Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr. Phipson appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant Talfourd and Mr. Swann for
the defendanta.—This was an action to recover damages for
the loss of • dressing cue belonging to the wife of the
plaintiff, a passenger to the company's carriages, by the
negligence of the company. The defendants pleaded, among
other matters, that they were not the owners of the railway
carriage ; that they did not receive Mrs. Richards as a pu-
senger ; that they were not liable under the Carriers' Act;
that the dressing-cue in question was above the value of
101., and therefore, by a rale of the company, its value
should have been notified to the company, in order that they
might make • proportionably higher charge for its carriage ;
and that this rule was duly posted up at the station where
the plaintiff's wife entered the railway. The plaintiff is a
major in the army, residing at Cambridge-terrace, Hyde-
park ; and his wife, • great invalid, and afficted with a
spinal complaint, returned from Bognor to London by
the Brighton Railway, on the 10th of November,
1846. She went to the Woodgate station to meet
the train at ten minutes to two, accompanied by
a maid servant and among her luggage was the dressing-
ease in question, containing jewellery and trinkets, not
only of intrinsic value but of interest personally to the plain-
tiff—enoh as • gold cockle-shell watch given to him by Queen
Caroline, and an amethyst necklace presented to him by a
person high in office in the Portuguese government. At the
station the luggage was weighed, and a charge made for it.
The maid was occupied with her mistress, and the luggage
was arranged by the company's servants; but she saw the
dressing-cue placed in the same carriage with Mrs. Rich-
ards, and under the seat on which her feet rested, she being
in a recumbent posture. The train arrived at the London
station at half-put five. A coach (one attached to the eta-
' Lion) was called, and Mrs. Richards was placed in it by
two of the company's servants, assisted by her man servant,
who met her there. The maid looked into the railway
carriage for the articles deposited there, and saw one of the
company's porters inside and another at the door, who told
her they would attend to them. Several articles were put
into the coach, which proceeded to Cambridge-terrace. On
its arrival there the dreuisg-case could not be found. It
was asserted that whatever was put into the coach at the
station was conveyed to Cambridge-hamce. Application was
made to the railway authorities for compensation, but they de-
clined to be responsible for the lo s, and tbis action was brough t.
It was urged for the plaintiff; that although the Carriers'
Act exempted common carriers from liability for the safety
of articles of extraordinary value committed to their charge,
unless their nature is stated, so that • higher eherge may be
made for them, yet they mut publicly notify this rale, and
there was no such notice at the Woodgate station, and the
act therefore did not apply. In order to meet any difficulty
which might arise on • question of the loss occurring be-
tween the railway carriages and the hackney coaches, far
which purpose they might not be common carriers, there
was • count in the declaration alleging the company to be
bailees carrying from the railway to the coaches. The value
of the property was fixed by consent of the defendants at
1501. It was also admitted that the defendants were pro-
prietors of the railway. The plaintiff's case as above stated
was proved by the lady's maid, the person who drove Mrs.
Richards from Bognor to the station, the footman
who met his mistress at the London terminus, and the
housemaid at Cambridge-terrace. A clerk to the plaintiff's
solicitor proved that he had been to the Woodgate station on
the 28th Dec, 1846, and that there was no notice there re-
lating to the charges on articles of value —lt was submitted
for the defence that there was no case against the defend-
ants. The declaration contained three counts. The first
charged the defendants, as common earring, with having re-
eeived Mrs. Richards into their carriages and contracted to
carry her and her luggage safely to the terminus at South-
wark. The package did arrive safely there, and the com-
pany had no duty beyond that. The second count charged
the company with an obligation, as common carriers, to con-
vey, not merely to the terminus, but to the hackney car-
riage ; but there was no evidence of any such obligation.
The third count charged the company, not as common car-
riers, but as " bailees," with an obligation to convey from
the railway to the hackney coach with due care ; but it was
known that this duty was undertaken by the servants of the
company, and it was a question whether the defendants
were responsible for this undertaking of the servants, unless
it was really a part of the duty of their employers.—
His lordship declined to stop the case, giving leave to the
defendants to move—Mr. Serjeant Talfourd then addressed
the jury, contending that notice of the value of the dressieg-
case should have been given to the company, and that the
question was whether the box was lost while under the care
of the company.—Witnesses were then called for the defence,
to show that nothing was left in the railway carriage, and
that no one was left with the hackney coach at the door in
Cambridge-terrace.—The jury stopped the case at the close
of the defence by finding a verdict for the plaintiff.
SOMERVILLE V. BAWII/41L—LIBRL.—Mr.Seejeant Wilkins
and Mr.E. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant
Dyke for:the defendant.—The plaintiff is a journeyman in
tbe oil and colour business, and the defendant is an exten-
sive dealer in throe unties in Bishopegate-street. The action
was brought for certain defamatory words spoken by the de
fendant against the plaintiff. It appeared that the plaintiff
had been employed by the defendant for eight years as a
packer in his establishment, except during an interval of
seven weeks, when be left on some dispute about wages; but
returned at the request of the defendant. In that interval
the defendant had given the plaintiff a strong letter of re-
commendation to Mr. Braidwood, the superintendent of the
London Fire EsSablishmeat, in whose force he had sought