The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-06 00:00:00

Won or calling. I only knew him as a frequenter of the '
Flora Ciardene.
Mr. James Benssford, son of the late inspector of the C
division, was examined by Dir. Chambers, and stated that
;le plays the simile hues in the orchestra of the :wine. Mr.
Lenten:, sea., paid his eatery.
Cross-examin:l by the Attorney-General—Young Mr.
Laurent agreed with the lessee to provide the music, and
that is the custom usually adopted in such cases. Mr.
Christopher Brown is in the rooms every evening.
Inspector Wall. of the C division, examined by Mr.
Chambers—l know these rooms, and have seen them fre-
qu.utly. In the early part of June, 1330, there were no
such words as " Licensed pursuant to act of parliament, 21
Geo. II.," on the outside of Cie premises.
This being the plaintiff's ease,
The Attorney-General then addressed the jury for the
defendants, and denounced tha plaintiff as being actuated
by the basest motives, having himself distributed bills for a
grand ball on the sth of June, 13•50, at the Argyll Rooms,
and lien otherwise engaged by Mr. Grier and the other de-
fendant,, and then bringing an action, as a common in-
?OrtELT, to recover penalties for that which he bad sought to
encourage. The defendants had, however, the most com-
plete answer to the action : the act of parliament enacted
that Vac keeper of an unli:ensed house should be liable to
an action for the penalty, but it was clear, upon the plain-
tifrs evidence, that Christopher Brown was the lessee, and
that the defendants could not in any respect be regarded as
propr:etors or "keepers" of the rooms. Biereell was an
assistant, Beyer the decorator, and the two Laurente were
also employed by Brawn, who had not been made one of
the defendants. The establishment had been licensed at
Michaelmas, 1810, in consequtnee of the proper mode in
which it bad been coaducted during the previous twelve
months
Mr. Justice Wightman said the questions for the jury
were whether the house was opened for public music and
dancing without a license, and if so whether the defendants,
or either of them, were the keepers or keeper of the same,
or acting and holding themselves out as the managers of the
room in question•
The jury, without hesitation, found a verdict for the de-
fendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAT.
eirttso. 13.4mx..—etrrax LeabCntbskcenct ham, Ma. Joy
mu Min; W. James Camormu, AM/ Mr. JVIPTICS TaL•

rot AD.
THE WCAT LONDON RAILWAY COMPANY T. TIM LAN.
DON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.—AC-
TION Poll BREACH OP COYZNANT.
This was an action which had been brought by the West
London Railway Company against the London and North
Western Railway Company, to recover compensation in da-
mages for u breach of covenant. It appeared that the
Londe, and North-Western Railway Company had become
the lessees of the plaintiffs' line of railway, and that the
plaintiffs were to receive a certain amount of the profits of
working the West London line. By the lease which had
been executed between the parties, the London and North-
Western Railway Company agreed to work efficiently
the West London line. The plaintiffs complained that
the London and North-Western Railway Company
bad not efficiently worked the line, because they
had not run any passenve trains. At the trial
a verdict was entered fur the plaintiffs generally. In
M• course of the present term, Mr. Serjeant Byles bad
obtained a rule on behalf of the plaintiffs to show cause
why the damages should not be assessed on two principles,
viz., that it was the duty of the London and North Western
Railway Company to work the West London Railway in
connexion with their own line, and that they were bound to
call upon the Great Western Railway Company to stop a
certain number of their trains to meet the trains of the West
London Railway. If these two propositions had been de-
cided in the affirmative, the result would have been that
the amount of dalliance would be considerably increased.
Sir F. Thesigcr, ti C., and Mr. Borill showed cause
against this rule, and Mr. Serjeant Byles, Mr. E. James,
Q.C., and Mr. Aspland, supported it.
Lord Chief Justice Jervis, in delivering judgment, said,
that at the trial of the case it was decided that the plaintiffs
had a right to bring an action against the defendants for
not running passenger trains, and that Mr. Serjeant Byles
had shaped his motion in such a manner as to ascertain
upon what principles the plaintiffs were entitled to have the
damages assessed. Mr. Serjeant Byles had contended
Mat in order to ascertain the damsges in this case it must
be assumed that the defendants were bound to work the
West London line in connexion with their own line,
and to stop the trains of the Great Western Rail-
way, so as to make them meet the trains of
the ,Vest Landon Railway. The Court, however, thought
that was not a correct view of the ease. It was observ-
able that nothing was sail in the lease about the London
and North Western Railway Company interfering with
their own trains in order to work the West London Rail-
way. Then there was the ether question, which was whether
the London and North West•rn Railway Company, being
bound to work the plaintiffs' line efficiently, compelled
them to stop the trains of the Great Western Railway Com-
pany. It was true that the West London Railway Com-
pany themselves had formerly- had the power of stopping
the Great Western Railway train., but the court did not
think that because the plaintiffs had transferred to the
defendants all their rights, powers, and privileges, that
that enabled the defendants to compel the Or at Western
Railway Company to stop a certain number of their trains.
He (Lord Chief Justice Jervis) thought, therefore, that the
damages could not be auested in favour of the plaintiffs on
the two principles which they contended for.
The rest of their lordship; eel:mend a similar opinion.
In this ease we should state that a eertain amount of
damages, about 5001., had been assessed at the trial upon
se of the counts in the declaratien.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.--YEsrzatur.
(Barman Comm hula.)
OEO%Ol_O. BAKTHOLOMER.—:FEIO74O.I:O TUVE.

This was a feigned issue uncler tka interploader act, to
determine the ownership of certain goods taken in exe-
cution by the sheriff of Kent. Mr. Bramwell was for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. Addison, and Mr.
Hawkins were for the delentlant.

The plaintiffs are daughters of a person named Thomas ,
George, who carried on business as a butcher in a small 1
way in the town of Sevenoaks. The defendant, who lives
in the place, is a post-boy at ono of the inns, and has a deaf ,
and dumb daughter, who. being pregnant, charged George ,
with the paternity of her child. An action for seduction ,
was brought, which was tried at the assizes at Maidstone,
and a verdict given for the plaintiff, with 63/. damages.
The costs amounted to about 501. George was at the same
time indebted to his own attorney to the extent of i 141., and
he was also indebted to his landlord in 251. for rent. He
possessed no property but the furniture in the house and
the stuck in trade. :loon after the trial of the case, " Bar-
tholomew v. George," the present plaintiff., Julia George
and Mary George, applied to their uncle, Edward George,
a person possessed of some property in the neighbourhood,
to lend them a sum of money to purchase the furniture and
stuck. An application was also made to Mr. Willett, of
Croydon, the landlord of the house at Sevenoalu, who con-
sented to receive the two daughters, the present plaintiffs,
as his tenants in place of George. A. distress was at
the same time put in for the amount of rent
due. Edward George advanced the sum of 561.
the estimated value of the property.which the plaintiffs mad
over to their father, an agreement having been prepared by
an attorney, and duly executed. An execution having been
put into the premises at the suit of Bartholomew in the
action for the seduction of his daughter, the present pro-
ceedings were taken. Many witnesses were called, who
deposed to these facts. It appeared that George still lived
in the house, and carried on the business, though he swore
that he had no interest in it, but that it belonged solely. to
his daughters. It also appeared that George on receiving
the money paid out the distress and the costs due to Mr.
Carnet), his attorney.
Mr. Chambers addressed the jury at some length in an in-
dignant comment on the transaction. Under any view of
the case, he submitted that the whole goods did not pass to
the plaintiffs under the agreement ; for it recited that the
money paid by the plaintiffs to their father was in respect
of the goods and chattels on which the distress by the land-
lord for 24/. was levied. He also submitted that it was an
improper valuation, George having previously effected an
insurance for 2001. on property only now valued at 561.
Mr. Baron Parke left it to Ow jury to say whether there
was a bona fide purchase of the goods by the plaintiffs.
The jury found for the plaintiffs.
The court then adjourned tin Saturday.

VESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.—YEsTrapey.
Bffreaa F. BAR" 8aa...1014111.
WRECK O. WYLD.—Tax ORIAT GLOBE IN LEICESTER-

Actraas..

This was au action brougittiziattreajplaintiff, au architect,
raid* la the de-
fend/set the p. the peat ollih Lterho4przes,
to recover the sers of 471.45., waist the thowsbrele -
inattereleesited.
- - - - -

A solicitor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. T. Ro-
berts, of the firm of Roberts and Barrow, St. Martin's-court,
conducted the defence. The ease seemed to excite a great
interest, and a number of scientific gentlemen were present.
The plaintiff's case was that the money sought to be ee-
-1 covered was for work and labour supplied to the defendant
at his request in the shape of plans, specifications, drawings,
de., fur the erection of the great model of the earth, in
Leicester-ewe, as well as reducing a certain contract fur
the undertaking. That be was at first employed by Mr.
Wyld se architect, and accoedingly inserted advertisements,
in consequence of which Mr. Myers, the present builder,
obtained the contract at a sum of 2,5131 i but which was
subsespeently reduced by plaintiff to 14881., with which
the deAmolant expressed himself perfectly satisfied. A con•
bad was signed to erect at that price. Subsequently to
this defsedeat wished plaintiff to retire from the scheme
, and a meeting was appointed at Charisraoss,
at the , when it was agreed that plaintiff should retire,
and that he should receive for his services V. and a half
per cent. noon the contract, which would amount to the
present claim. Ile was desired to call on him the following
morning, and a cheque would be presented him in pay
meat. Re did so, but an objection was taken by /dr. Wyld
to the amount as being exorbitant, and the plaintiff had
not been able to obtain it since, and hence these proceed-
ings.
Evidence was given in support of the above statements,
and the plaintiff said that upon his retiring Mr. Wyld
to pay the demand in the presence of Mr. Abrams,
geed
who succeeded him, sad who mid it was a
moderate suns. The reason silepal by lb. :Mill for wish-
ing his retirement was that the piam wen asve.
Mr. Roberts mid I. dame be Sidi only cell Mr. Wyld
himself to rebut the aIstIMOSIS main kr the • a case.
Mr. Wyld stated mast lint in int none any
=s to pay the ma *nib be lei so ob-
to pay • tan dimmed, as Y did mi via airs wort
the *Mars amnion in ratan. Ils yogi ban
dispensed with plaintiff's mina but for the of