The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-07 00:00:00

lIST'II BILL.

This was an soden tor-;;;;;er—ti;snat of 341.75. U., berg
the rapist se • WA se Nib he betroth bas by the
teast
plaintiff = the =lda dslindent, who is a= of
those mem ids anal initemiss hasengsgsre,
known as a " ." VV of time man= Ins hr
costs incurred an =ha essmarisid by the dalliedent
wain= the puffin at ha Done Now In an shied
libel. =kids the delhalent. visa aggsmasil in gamma, ex-
plained whaveadsin Katas ongspe his heft hai mos Ow
mill tba ineenlag ss IR he sells= =leis
wffffamel_alfoCan dia MY, 'Ha=
des Ws hadalgiiiil hibernate ids ekaghalimidi
hilesams aireradiene MAO swing of ha
la tin De* *in. and • stommos_ilst h a Ir• net an
aulkaindpozsde= of any anning wringesgat, The
la prise= with this Mks et Ilbsi yaks
Itirsitiehnt paid i= the mots ad atpoekst, width he
ffilail la de, sad the coingsinegy dralpped.
The dins= prom= assign was, that the plain
of had irinadion to =lag ha =don against the Daily
Nam kr 60 NM of U., and dr way gaieties left to the
I jury was, istrabse they bedewed sub fobs= be.. the ease
oriti jury hued • =wide • he ha gisimill he the fall
' runt *Mod, myna = hoostins by the watha.

ITUNZ, 7,

.8451.

Mirree ass Mr Parr le Mientams. —ls Ma. Jessica
rumens sea • COMM MIT.
Itiarrneore e. Hamthrox, D•IOIIIT.—ACTION PON
DISMISSING • GOVIIIINEMI.
The SALM in this action is a widow lady, and in Sep. 1
tram kr the defendant, Sir Frederick Hamilton, engaged
bee r 101111111 at the salary of 6W. a year, but after she
bed been in that situation for about six weer she was dis-
aismged, and the present action was brought to recover
Eimer Me the injury sustained by her in consequence of
Wag dlinimi before the expiration of the year.
On the part of the plaintiff a witness was called who
proved the hiring, and some other evidence haying been
given, a letter of the defendant's in answer to one from the
plaintiff's attorney was read. In this it was stated
that the plaintiff war " utterly incompetent to her
duties" in consequence of being " almost stone deaf," that
he (the defendant) " could not say anything in favour of
her temper and disposition," and that she had behaved an-
kindly to one of his grand-daughters • " I therefore," said
the writer, " discharged her, nor shall she ever enter my
doors again with my consent." It was, however, stated by
corer that the plaintiff had been dismissed in consequence
of something of which he could not give evidence, but the
principal point of the defence was this : It was contended
that according to the evidence the agreement between the
parties was made verbally in September, and was, that the
service was not to commence until November following. If
this were so, the engagement being for a year from Novem-
ber, the agreement was one which could not be performed
within a year and a day, and therefore void under the Sta-
tute of Frauds, which enacts that all such agreements mu.t
be in writing.
The jury retired from court at a quarter to 3, and were
absent until 5 o'clock, when they found a verdict for the

SECONDARIES' COURT.-YESTERDAY.
Biros. Ma. 8IK:0111DMIT Perna.
COLLETT O. THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN
RAILWAY COSPANY.—ComrsireAriox FOR • RAILWAY
ACCIDENT.

This was an inquiry to area damages in an action on the
ems brought in the Court of Queen's Bench, to recover
inamprroation for injuries sustained through a collision on
the North Western Railway, on the 6th of July, last year.
The company had not suffered judgment to go by detault,
but the present inquiry was inconsequence of the Court of
Queen's Bench having given judgment against the cons-
a demurrer filed on their behalf to the plaintiff 'e
declaration. The damages were laid in the declaration at
6,01/01.
The plaintiff, who resided at No. 9, Great Cambridge- I
street, Hackney-road, was, it appeared, a clerk in the
General Post-Pelee his duties being in connexion with the
conveyance of the nails on the London and North Western
Railway. On the evening of the Gth of July, 18.50, ho left
the Euston-square Station by the Liverpool mail train in
charge, conjointly with another clerk, named Henderson,
of the Taniworth'bagsoind the train, which started from the
terminus at 51 minutes past 8 instead of 45 minutes past 8,
proceeded on towards Barrow at a rapid pace. When near
Harrow the plaintiff, his fellow cleric, and the mail guard
heard the danger whistle, upon which the guard looked out
of the window, when he saw a red signal light ahead.
Henderson was going towards the door, but before be could
teach it a tremendous shock was experienced, the train
having ran into some empty cattle waggons. On the
collision taking place, the plaintiff was thrown
with great violence to a distance of about four
yards, and, after striking his knee against the roof of
the carriage, he fell, and struck the lower part of his spine
against the curve of a table or counter that ran along the
carriage (the travelling post-office), and at which the letters
were mrted during the journey. The train was brought to
a stand still, and the plaintiff not then feeling the full
effects of the hurt he hail received, left the carriage, and
found that in consequence of not having been properly
attached, some of the cattle waggons had separated from
a train to which they had been joined, and had remained on
the line whilst that portion to which the engine was
attached had gone on at a slow rate. The plaintiff, know-
ing that the loth mail was close behind, and nearly due at
the spot where the accident had occurred, sent a man up
the line with a danger signal to stop it, and fortunately
the object was attained, the driver of the York mail having
noticed the signal, when there was time to stop his train
before it reached the Liverpool mail. After some delay
the Liverpool mail resumed its journey, and directly after-
wards the plaintiff began to feel severely the effects of his
having struck his back against the table. lie felt
acute pain, and vomited with great violence, and he was
compelled to lie on the mail hags the remainder of his
journey to Tainworth. On the following day he consulted
en
apothecary, and on the day following that he sought the
advice of Mr. Towne, surgeon, who, after an examination,
ordered him to cease the performance of his duties. Mr.
Towne discovered that he had sustained a violent sprain
and contusion of the muscles of the lower part of the
and subsequently the case was brought under the notice of
Mr. hi'Murdo, the surgeon, and Mr. Arnott, the president
at the Royal College of Surgeons, both of wham confirmed
Mr. Towne's opinion as to the nature of the injury, and
added that in their opinion the spine was so injured that on
ultimate recovery, or such a one as would enable the plain-
tiff to resume his duties, was a matter of some doubt and
uncertainty. The plaintiff, it appeared, was in receipt of a
fixed salary of 801. a year, which, together with the SHOW-
&sees he was entitled to in respect of the journeys he
went with the mails, amounted on an average of three years,
to 2501. a year, the allowances forjournies being at the rate
of 10s. per journey of 100 miles. He had received from the
Railway Passengers' Assurance Company (in which he had
insured for the full amount, viz., 1,0001.) the sum of 425 f.,
that being considered under the circumstances and with
reference to the ultimate liability of the company under the
policy, a fair and equitable compensation. From time to
time the Postmaster-General had granted leave of absence
to the plaintiff, continuing the payment of the 801. a year,
but it was urged that he had now been required to resume
his duties, and that as he was unable to do so, and the
medical gentleman not being able to say that he
would ever permanently recover, the loss of his
salary and emoluments was involved, and, therefore,
that the company ought to make him an equiva-
lent compensation. There had tbecn some correspond-
ence between the plaintiff and his solicitors, and Captain
Huish and the secretary of the company, from which it
appeared that he had confined his claim to 1,0001. The
medical expenses incurred amounted to 831. 7s.
Mr. James addressed the jury in tnitigation of damages,
and said that whilst the company desired that the plaintiff
should be fairly compensated for the serious injury ho had
sustained, they also desired that the amount awarded should
not be extravagant, nor more than what the plaintiff was
really anustly entitled to. The injury was not the result
of any will or deliberate act; it was attributable to acci.
dent, and the company of course regretted that such an oc-
currence had taken place. lie contended that the plaintiff's
case had been put forward in an exaggerated point of view;
he had not lost his salary, and it was all a matter of chance
what his emoluments as travelling clerk might be, so that
it would be wrong for the jury to compensate him as if he
had really lost, as it was suggested, an income of 2.50 .
a year, especially as the medical gentleman could
not say that he would not recover permanently,
and the probability was, he being a young man of
30, that he would. The learned counsel commented on
the fact of the plaintiff having already received 4261. in re-
spect of this accident, and in conclusion asked the jury, as
the constitutional tribunal before which the company had
chosen to come, to compensate the plaintiff for the expenses
he bad incurred, and the pain he had endured, but not to
compensate him for the lees of his emoluments on his rail-
way journeys, when the greater part of those emoluments
were swallowed up in necessary expenses, the plaintiff hav-
ing out of the 10s. per hundred miles to provide lodgings,
&c. It was extravagant to claim 1,0001.
The learned Secondary, in summing up, said the jury had
nothing to do with the circumstance of the plaintiff having
been paid 4251. by the insurance company • the question to
be determined now was, what was the North Western Rail-
way Company to pay him for the injury he had sustained.
The company was bound to use proper care in conveying
passengers, and it was not said here that the accident was
wilfully caused. Under the circumstances the jury would
say what in their opinion the plaintiff was entitled to. The
jury retired, and afterwards returned a verdict for the
plaintiff.—Damages, 1,2001.