The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-01 00:00:00

•
tX/URT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YEsTEsnAv.
anon* in Baxech—Baru Cm. lovimg aava. 11t JoTica
Clribllll4•Xylla.Pmeno• Wiuura.
POW= V. TIM AUSTILALIAX_BTS:9I..NAVICIATION Co,,

PANY.—" THE GOOD SHIP; MILBOVINI.
Thill was s rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause
Viti:lise trial of the cause should not be postponed until the
after Trinity Term nest, in cossequmice of the &b-
-ane. di material and necessary witnesses.
Mir. Needham stated that the fiction arose out of
•onatract, made by the plaintiff with the defendants, that
dry should carry him as a passenger from London to Port
Phillip on board the Melbourne. The declaration charged
that the vessel was unseaworthy, and unfit to carry the
plaintiff ; that he was in peril of his life, and left the shin
at Lisbon, and then special damage was alleged. The de-
(madras traversed various allegations in the declaration,
and, among other things, the unmaworthinees of the vessel ;
and stated that she was detained by accident only, and for
no other reason. The affidavits stated that several persons
who were necessary witnesses were absent ; and, further,
that they could not safely proceed to trial without them.
Mr. Justice Cromwell said they knew • great deal of
the history of this vessel from the public papers. After
sailing from Plymouth she put in at Lisbon ; and, hiving
been repaired extensively, continued her journey.
The Chief Justice—How could there be a fair trial with-
out these witnesses ?
Mr. Needham—There were several persons in London
who knew the whole histo7 of the matter, from beginning
to end, and among others there were the commander of
the vessel and the surgeon. The plaintiff had lost amp
thing in the world, and was new a pauper in London, with-
out the means of living from day to day. lie stated kis be-
lief that the application for postponement was mad* le
drive him to a compromise, and that if it was postponed, be
should be obliged to accept any terms they might ahem to
give. He submitted to the court that no ground was *bows
for postponing the eau, inasmuch u there were no Wee
than eight persons in England who were on board at the
time in question, and knew all about the matter.
Mr. Justice Creswell—The case seemed to be this: a
party sought to postpone • trial, because A B and C, his
witnesses, were absent, but the other party said, " 06,
don't stop for them, you shall have half a dozen of my
wiener's."
The court without hearing Mr. Lush in support of the
rule, directed that it should be made absolute.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YzneaDAy.
Mame. in eLP•46—Baroas ma Lazo Cam &mos. Ma. Buzz
PARK& MK. BAUOOI PLAIT, a.o Ma. BLOWN 11111121111.
WOODXOOIIIII O. CLIO (CLZEM).—AN OVRADILAWN
ACOOMPIT.

The Attorney-Oeneral, who appeared for the defendant,
said that in this case (which was an action by some bankers
at Leamington against a clergyman for 1,0501., the balance
of an overdrawn account) the court had suggested a vele-
rents, with a view of settling the matters in dispute. He
was quite prepared to agree that the account should be re-
ferred to the muter.
The Chief Baron said the court suggested a reference in
order that the defendant might get credit fur the alleged
overcharges for interest and commission.
Mr. James, for the plaintiff, said he would conseat to
any arrangement of that kind, if the 1,0601. was paid into
mart.
It was ultimately settled that the defendant should
either pay the amount into court, or find security for it in
the course of a fortnight ; the verdict to stand for 1,0501.,
subject to such deductions as the muter might consider the
defendant entitled to.
Lave e. CUTTS/LILL. —ACTION AGAINST rue Swims's.
This was an action brought by I awrenoe Levy against the
Sheriff of Middlesex for neglecting to take a person
named Pratt, of Bond. street, in execution. The cue was
tried at the sittings after last term, when the jury found •
verdict for the defendant. It was proved on the trial that
Pratt had been paving Levy 60 per cent. for the time
accommodation he afforded him.

A rule nisi was obtaind is the present term for a new
trial, or a stet procemus.
Mr. James now showed cause against the rule, sod said
he had no objection to a new trial if the plaintiff could
be made responsible for the costs, 'apposing they fell
upon him.
The Lord Chief Baron made some severe remarks on the
conduct of the plaintiff in taking advantage of a trader in
misfortune, end mulcting him to the ezeent of 60 per cent.
It was arranged that the rule should be made absolute
on payment of costs within a fortnight, otherwise the ver-
diet mast stead.