The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-05 00:00:00

Mr. Serjeant Pigott said this action was for assault and
for injury sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the de-
fendant's negligent driving, tried at Stafford, and in which
a verdict was returned for the plaintiff on the second count
with 1001. damages. The plaintiff was a steward of the
Duke of Sutherland, and the defendant, a groom, also in
the employ of the same noblemen. Ryley, accompanied by
the groom, Fleming, was driving a gig on the duke's busi-
ness, when the horse shied at a roller which was being used
in the grounds, and ran upon a bank. Fleming seized the
reins in his hands, and was thrown out of the gig and drag-
ged some distance. The horse ran away, met a at:, and
shied again, and the wheel of the gig coming in contact with
• stone the plaintiff was thrown out and injured. The first
count was for assaulting the plaintiff and forcibly seizing the
reins which were possessed by the plaintiff, whereby the
plaintiff was injured, and the second was to the effect that
the defendant, without suffering or permitting the plaintiff
to alight, undertook and commenced to drive and
manage the horse, and that by his negligence and improper
eonduct the plaintiff was thrown out of the carriage.
The presiding judge, Mr. Justice Byles, doubted whether
he ought not to nonsuit the plaintiff on the first count, and
also expressed • doubt whether there was any evidence
under the second to show that the defendant improperly
took the reins or that he drove at all. The plaintiff said the
original cause of the accident was the roller, and that the
imprudence committed by the defendant in the intermediate
stage between that and the proximate came, which might
either be the cart or the stone, was a sufficient cause of
action, but the learned judge was strongly of opinion that it
was not. The learned serjeant now moved for a rule to se:
aside the verdict for the plaintiff and enter one for the de-
fendant, or for • new trial.
Rule granted.
URA CHI" r. POOLL -DISMISSAL OF A GOVERNESS.

The plaintiff, Miss Gertrude Von Brecht, a young
German lady, brought this action to recover damages for
wrongful dismissal from thedefendant's service, in which she
was engaged as governess. Tbe damage alleged was tha:
she had remained a long time unemployed. The defence
was that she wilfully and habitually disobeyed orders, and
conducted herself in au offensive manner, sad that without
the knowlege of the defendant she went out at late hours
in the evening, and that at other times she brought frierds
home without the defendant's permission. A sum of 3/. odd
was paid into court. The trial took place at Gloucester,
before Mr. Justice Byles, when the jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff with 201. damages.
Mr. Huddleston now moved for a new trial or to enter
the verdict for the defendant, pursuant to leave reserved, on
the pound of misdirection by the learned judge. The
plaintiff entered the service of Mrs. Poole, the wife of a
gentleman residing neat Cirencester, in March, 1860, and re-
mained until December, when Mrs. Poole called her into
her private room, and said she bed received an anonymous
letter stating that in her mistress's absence she bad been
seen walking about the town at night with • shopmen
and other persons. The plaintiff admitted that she
had been walking with a Mr. Wright, but said
he was a respectable tradesman in the town, and
carried on the business of a chemist. She declined
to say whether she was engaged to Mr. Wright, although it
turned out afterwards that she was, and Mrs. Poole gave
her notice to leave at the end of the month, adding,
" Understand I won't have any more gossiping, and I must
ins:st on your not going to Cirencester while you are with
me." Mrs. Poole indulged in the sport of bunting, and
having on one occasion gone to meet the hounds she found
that in her absence the plaintiff had been again seen walk•
ing with Wright, and she taxed her with it. The plaintiff
then admitted that she was engaged to him, and said that
being ill she had gone to his shop for some medicine. Mrs.
Poole gave her notice to quit the house the next day, and
hence the present action. The learned counsel then re-
ferred to the evidence to show that the plaintiff had at least
been disobedient to ordeis. During the absence of Mrs.
Poole she went out, and sometimes did not return until ten
or eleven o'clock at night. She admitted Mr. Wright on
two occasions to the house and gave him supper, and also
some young ladies at different times ; and once she turned
on the clock half an hour in order that sho might '
pt the children to bed sooner and be enabled to visit
her friends. The plaintiff was, however, a very
attractive person, and enlisted the jury in her favour, and
he (the learned counsel) admitted that he himself found it
a difficult task to cross-examine such a witness. Judges
were also mortal, and he was inclined to think that the
learned judge was, to some extent, influenced by her ap-
pearance, although he seemed rather puzzled as to the
propriety of her conduct in admitting persons late at night
to her masters house.
The Lord Chief Baron said that misconduct of the kind
imputed would certainly justify • dismissal.
Mr. Huddleston said that Mr. Justice Byles had given
him leave to ecter the verdict for the defendant in the
event of the court thinking that conduct such as he stated
justified the lady dismissing her peen:was.
Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Nov. 4.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
DERNAU V. BRRNAD, TIMM, OODDOZ. AND O'NLAHNIITT.
In this awe a jury bad found that the reepoodeet had
committed Walter/ with the eo-respoadmit O'FLdwirty,
au old moo, doomlod am a dialer lo oak. and teetotal tracts.