The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-19 00:00:00

SMUTS were liable ; and Mr. Baron Rolfe, having been of
opinion at the trial that they were not, a rule had berlaab-
tabled for a new trial on the ground of misdirection. Time
was taken to consider, and now it was announced that the
court agreed with the learned baron in thinking that. the
whole risk of the policy had been run by the underwntere
when the ship had been at anchor 24 hours betaw the pod,
she having arrived as our to bar port of disaharge aa she
could with safety get. The ale must, therefore, be die.
charged.—Rule discharged.
Moos e. Duanam.—This was an action on a wager
brought in the mouth of June, 1845, to which the defendant
had demurred generally. Os the argument it was contended
by the defendant that the right of the plaintiff to maintala
his ratios was destroyed by the statute of Games and
Wagers, 8 and 9 Viet., c. 109, which passed on the Bth of
August, 1846, and whilst the action was pending, Tho
question turned entirely on the language of the 18th sectioa
of that art, which enacts that "all contracts by way of
simian or wagering, whether in peal or in writing, shall
11 and void, and that no salt shall be brought or Nub-
Wined in any court of law or equity for movenog any mut
of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any
wager, or which shall have been deposited in the hands of
any person to abide the event on which any wager shall have
been made," the plaintiff contending that its operation was
simply prospective, and that as he had commenced hie
action befit.e it passed into law he did not fall within its
terms; the defendant, on the other hand, insisting that the
words were ample enough to have a retrospective effect, and
that the word "bring ' referred to future actions, and
" maintain" to those already in existence. Time was taken
to consider, and the court not being unanimous in their
view of the question its members delivered their judgments
seriatins.—Mr. Baron Platt was of opinion that the de-
murrer was well founded. No doubt the general rule was
well founded, that new laws ought not to affect existing
rights, but the future only; but • statute may have a rote*.
spective effect, as had been decided in many cases; and looking
at the phraseology of the statute now under coinideratlon,
it did appear that clearer language could scareelybe expected
if the legislature meant to give its enactments • retreeetlve
effect. If it were not so, portions of the section would be re-
dundant. The word maintain meant to point to steps which
might be taken after the act passed to further maintain aa
action commenced before it passed. Here the writ was wed
out in June, the act passed in August, and the &clam
tion was delivered in December. That was a maintaining
of
the action, and that was exprendy prohibited by the statute.
For these reasons, he Me. Baron Platt) thought that than
ought to be a judgment for the defendant.—Barone 11•16,
Alderson, and Parke then delivered their judgments, ad en
all thou learned Pita agreed in the opposite construction
of the statute, it may be unnecessary to go into their views
in detail. They thought that the general rule of construc-
tion in reading the statutes alluded to by Mr. Baron Platt
was so well founded in principle, and so just in its operatien,
that it ought not to be deviated from, except under the pros-
son of the most express words. It was unjust to deprive the
plaintiff, who had infringed no law in bringing his action, of
his vrted rights, thought it might be very proper to prevent
future actions of a similar character. If the statute had a
retrospective effect the plaintiff would not only be bound to
discontinue his action, but also to pay costs to the defendant
fur so doing, whereas on principles usually adopted and
actually imported into this act in the 16th section, which
stopped all actions by informers, he ought to have received
compensation. For these ressonsthe majority of the court was
clearly of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to proceed
with his action, and that there ought to be judgement given
for him on the demurrer.—Judgment accordingly.
TTENS V. JONES.—Mr. Baron Parke said this was a case
which came before the court at the recent sittings on an
alleged misdirection of Mr. Justice Wightman, who at the
trial at Liverpool had rejected evidence tendered by the de-
fendant, to show that by the custom of the totem+ trade all
sales were effected by sample. Tie action woe to recover the
value of a quantity of tobacco sold by a broker to the de-
fendant on account of the plaintiff, and the bought and sold
notes being put in were general, and silent on the subject of
samples; and the evidence was rejected on the ground that
it went to contradict and vary the written contract. The
court bad taken time to consider this point, and had come to
the conclusion that the rejection was erroneous, and that the
rule ought to be made absolute for • new trial, as the evi-
dence in question was not offered to vary or contradict the
written contract, but to enlarge it, and engraft on it an in
cident which by the custom of the port or trade was at-
tached to all contracts. The rule must, therefore, be abso-
lute; and if the evidence was given, and the custom proved,
the plaintiff ought to tender a bill of exceptions to its recep-
tion, and so take the opinion of a court of error.—Rule
absolute.
Pares—galore sir P. Ponca, C.S., and • London Commoniur).
ADMINISTNATKII F. NAPIER.—CONFENSA
TION FOB Lose or Lira.—Mr. Gurney, Q.O , and Mr. Bad-
deley were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Petersdorff and
Mr. Hawkins, for the defendant. This was an ection
brought under Lerd Campbell's act (9 & 10 Vie., e. 93), to
recover compensation from the defendant, under the follow-
ing circumstances :—Upro a certain day in the mouth of
August last George Andrews, the plaintiff's husband, who
was a painter and plumber, was engaged painting the paddle
wheel of the Northern Star steamer, which was lying moored
in the river, opposite the London Docks. He was outside,
upon the paddle-box. On one side of the Northern Star
was • coal barge, and on the other • steamer
called the Coleraine. The defendant's steamer, the
las of Thanes, which was at the time upon a
voyage from Margate, got tato collision with the
barge, which was sunk. For the plaintiff it was con-
tended that the accident was caused by the negligence of
the defendant's servants; that the Isle of Thanet, instead of
keeping, as she should have done, to the north side of the
river, tame unnecessarily to the opposite side, which caused
the collision. The barge, on being struck, dashed with vio-
lence against a piece of timber called "a fender," which was
attached as a guard to the paddle-box of the Northern Star.
The plaintiff's husband was struck is the middle, and so
severely injured that he died shortly afterwards at Guy's
Hospital, where he was taken immediately after the 00Cur-
rence.—For the defendant it was urged that there was no
evidence of negligence, and several witnesses were called to
prove that the course taken by the Isle of Thanet was una-
voidable. She had been herself immediately before struck
by another steamer, which caused the deviation from her
oroper course.—The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
arming the damages, 1001. for the widow, and 261. for each
of her three children.

POLICE. Y _EfITERDAT.
MANSION-HOUSE —RORBIRT ore TAIL SOUTH-EMIT-
S/IN RAILWAT.—.E. Rowe was charged with having robbed
the South Eastern Railway Company of a 601. note, a 201.
note, and other notes to the amount of 151. ; and Elisabeth
Rowe, mother of B. Rowe, and D. Ogilvie. her nephew,
were charged with having received the notes knowing that
they had been stolen. The accused Rowe was a servant of
the company, in whom much confidence was placed. The
notes bad been deposited in a cash box, and forwarded to'the
railway station at Ramsgate from that in London, for .the
payment of the men employed upon the line, and the box
was duly received at the latter place, but the cash had disap
peared.—Mr. W. J. Beeby, clerk to the treasurer of the
South-Eastern Railway Company, stated, that on September
30, he sent two bank notes, one of which wu for 501.
and the other fore 01., together with other notes, to the
amount of 151., the property of the company, from the Lon-
don station to the Remsaate station for paying the work-
men. They were deposited in a cash-dote which was con-
tained in another box and locked. He booked it himself.
The station-master at the Ramsgate station had a duplicate
key.—W.Coshead, the Ramsgate station-master, stated that
on the night of the 30th of September he received the cub- I
box in question, on the arrival of the train from Loudon, in '
the customary way. The locomotive pay-sheet WWI inside,
but there was no money. It was necessary to force open ti.e
box, as his key would not opeit it, and it appeared as if it
had been opened with a chisel by the person who had stolen
the money. Witness knew the prisoner, Edmund Rowe,
' to be in the employment of the carriagerepair department of
the company.-51r. Patrick Fiancees, the deputy traffic
superintendent of the South Eastern Railway, stated that
he went after the prisoner Ogilvie, and saw him on Monday
the loth inst , at No. 2, C .therine-street, Commereishroadl
Rest, and said to him," No :Oril, you as an honest man
can have no objection to ge me every information about
that 501. note which you presented at the Bank of England
(tor the 501. note had been stepped at the bank)." " Yee,"
replied Ogilvie " give you all the information in my
power ; only tell. me how I shall move in the matter." Wit-
, nese then asked him from what party he had received the
note, and he replied, from a Mr. atavis, a gentleman who
ease to him some time ego and ordered some sample lamps.
The answer wee incorrect, and witness gave him into cus-
tody. Subsequent y O tileie requested the officer to with-
draw, and then he said it was a hard cue, but he would tell
the fact ; he bad received it from his aunt, who after
having assisted him with some money, one day re.
quested him to get her change of a 501. note
which she said she had received from -her son, who was em-
I &wed in the carriage department ostation, anf the South EastMern
Railway Company st the it.msgate /A-
,
dentist man under Mr. Mansell. Witness last night gave
Edmund Rowe in custody at Ramsgate, and beard him say
to kis wife, "Itis a bad ioh. I found the money in a first-
clans carriage." In consequence of further information wit •
leen went to the house of the prisoner Elizabeth Rowe, in
Bridge-street, Greenwich, and beard a conversation between
her and the eonstahle who accompanied him to apprehend
her. Sergeant T. Kelly stated that at five o'clock on
Thursday evening he went to No. 2, Catherine-etreet, Com-
mercial-road East, and saw the prisoner Ogilvie there, and
told him he was charged with having a 501. note in his pos-
session, and pre-entste it at the Bank of England, not being
able to give a satisfactory account of it. Ogilvie asked whe-
ther, it he relinquished all claim to the .501. note the witness
would tie satisfied, and swim u replied in the negative.
Witness apprehended the prisoner Edmund Rowe in High-
sireet, Ramsgate, and told him he was charged with having
broken opeu a cashbox d stolen a 501. note, a 201. note,
and other notes, and he said he had found a 501. note in a
first-clam' carriage, avd then burst out crying. His wife
coked him if he took the money, and he said, " Poor girl,
you are quite innocent of it. You know nothing about
it. It's a bad job." Witness afterwards proceeded to
Bridge-street, Greenwich, and was let in by the prisoner
Elisabeth Rowe, and he tool her eh, was charged with
having received a 601. note from her son, knowing that it
had been stolen. She said that her son had told her at the
time he gave her the note that he had found it. Witness
then asked her for the gold chain which had been given to
her by her son, and had been purchased in Cornhill with
part of the prose: ds of the 201. note. She replied that her son
had given her no chaio, but when witness repeated the asser-
tion, she said she had not got it about her, and, ultimately,
she took it out of a drawer and banded it to him.—Mr. J.
F. S. B imish, clerk in the Bank of England, produced the
notes The 201. note had been paid, but the 501. note had
been stopped on the 12th of February.—Edmund Rowe, in
defence, said he went to work ea usual one morning, through