The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-02 00:00:00

;Lain Intelligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH--SATURDIT.
SMIONIS loco.-4VI•t-lt tman Cars u, Ma. Stoics earn,.
POll. Pl. h. MS (1.1.111.15,, ASO Ns. jr,pC.
TMI MATTER OF AN AWARD METTLE'( TOE GET AY
WE,YERN IEAILWAY COMPANY AND THE INRAOITANTI
Or Ttatttunitt.
This was • question as to the amount at which the
parish of Tilehurst were entitled to rate the Great Western
Railway Company, in respect of so much of their branch
line from Reeling to Hungerford as was situate within the
parish. The fact. had been found by on arbitrator, and
the sessions had fixed the rateable value at 300/. per mile,
subject to be reduced to 2.51/. if thin court should think
that the company were entitled to make the deductious
claimed by them in respect of the reparation of the perma-
nent way, or of the reproduction of the stock beyond the
amount abwilutely expended by them ; and to be further
to:dated to the amount of 30/. per mile if the court shceild
be of opinion that the deduction on account of the general
expenses of the line were to be calculated on the principle
contended for by the company.
The real substantial questima was, it being admitted that
the arose earnings must be calculated parochially, whether
the oataoingi must be calculated iu the tame way. It was
eontmiled, on behalf of the parish, that though the earn-
inas might be so calculated, it was quite impossible to cal-
culate the outgoinze upon that principle, because it was Un-
pos,ible to say what part of the establishment required
to be kept at Paddington' for instance, was required
upon account of the railroad running through Tilehurst
arish, though some part clearly was; in the same way part
ac 11, work• in the parish might be expensive, but neces-
sary for the earnings upon other parts of the line, and the
p Irish had a right to contend that the whole should not be
deducted Iron the rateable value in that parish ; and the
was adduced as an example of the inclined plane at
~lir.ms3mCc on the Birmingham and Gloucester line,
which involved the noccawitv of keeping stationery engines
at con.iderable expense in that parish, but which could not
tie properly considered as a deduction from the earnings in
Bronssgrove, for without the expense thus created iias-
seogers could not get from Birmingham to Gloucester
at all.

The further argument in the ease was adjourned till next
Wednailay.

BA IL COURT.-SATI:RDA
PIITT/41, rr BANCYI-Ilt F 001.1.4111.

Tux LIKE Of littuNsll.lol 0. HASNIA.-LIBLL.-AkrLl-

CATION AS TO COSTS.

.....-..
Mr. James mored for a rule to show cause why the Master
should not allow the defendant the tats of a trial. The
plaintiff had brought an action against the defendant as
wopriet.tr of the It lluspatcA, for a libel published in
that paper not the 19th of September, 1830, and republished
in a more rei.. nt n.tmber of the same journal. Esidenec
was ;riven on the tad that butt of the papers produced,
containing the libel, were purchased at the office of the
viper, awl the jury gave a verdict fur the plaintiff, with
40. damages. In consequence of some circumstance
aftrwards di.cosered, a rule nisi was subsequently granted,
and made ale:alute, for a new trial, and when the cause was
,again tried, the jury found a verdict fur the defendant
'the object of the present application was to obtain from the
plaintiff the costs of the firtt action.
Mr. Justice Wightman said, as the full court had granted
the rule nisi, and made it absolute, he thought the learned
couival had better make his application there.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—SATURDAY.
11111711.11 AT Nits PC 11, IN 3181:11.11.R111%. —Kra. ML JCIITICIt

iV11.1.1•11. A..le • CONIIOII Jr,T.

.....
DIE DEM. MACK ENV r AND OTIIEM.4 r. 11.1 vms.--EJErr-
n Est' MILP.CoVED 1.10.U1,ES OCCUPIED UY AN ESTALLIbII-
MENT OP ILWIAN CATIIOI.IC LADIES.

This was an action of ejectment brought by the lessnra
of the plaintiff as trusteel of Mrs. Elie, to recover 110 -
Wkdian Oa large bowie, with the garden and premises ad-
palling, known as Colby-house. nearly opposite to Keusing-
ton Palace. The house (according to the plaintiffs' coun-
sel) was occupied by some ladies of the Roman catholic
pi rsuasion who formerly had a convent at Clapham, but
hail subsequently removed the establishment, which con-
sisted of a lady superior, several governesses, await boarders,
visitors, and servants, to Kensingnin. Mrs. Elsie had
great objectiou to her hour, being used fur such a purpose,
and some ineffectual communications having passed be-
tween the parties, this action was brought against Mr.
Ilaylia, to whom the premises hail been leased by the
lessors of the plaintiff, and who had let them to the pre-
sent occupiers. The ground upon which it was sought to
sustain the action was, that certain covenant's in the lease
had not been complied with. The elect of the first cove-
must in question was, that the lessee should not at any
nos. dunng the term, without the consent iu writing of the
lesson, use, or suffer the house or any part thereof
to be used, " for the business of a schoolmaster
or schoolmistress, or as a residence for insane
persons, or fur any other trade or business whatsoever."
ow, it had been decided that persons who took in boanlen
and let lodgings carried un trade, and were subject to th
b snkrupt laws. lint, beyond this, a portion of the 'kelpi-
e, ist premises had been sub-let to a greengrocer, and sn-
ot!, r portion to a plumber, who kept the steak awl imple-
welts of their trail, s there. There was also a eosenant
tie it thu 1e5..., should, during the term, insure, awl keep
insured, the property, and it was specially mentioned
that he was to insure not only the house hut also the coach-
house, stab:a, and premises; hut the plaintiff's ease WAS,
that some of the outbuilding" hail riot been insured at all,
Atha it was slur said that the insurances elfeeted were not of
suftleient amount to cover the value of the property, as they
ou flit to hive ben. The policies said that there was to
he no pipe, stove, or heated:air flue upon the premises ; hut
when the ladies who now occupied entered into possession,
they mule certain alr rations. For instance, they made
p sr: of the great ball into an ante-room the ileac ing-room
I they ronverwil into a chapel, and the 'dining-room into u
• arrigy, and the In el-roolus were divided into small demi-
' thrive. In the ante-room, they had meted a stove with •
liar, but they had given no notice to the insurance cum-
patsy of that fact, as they ought to luredole ; and in the
4it.lien they had erected a flue which pawed in the china-
' list. This, it was etnitendt.d, amounted to s breach
at the covenant to insure which meant that the premises
should be ao thalami that in the event of a fire, the amount
of the 'Waage could be recovered from the insurance office.
Mr. Me rjeaut By.* and Mr. Parry. appeared for the
p:aiiitiffs, and Mr. Verjeant Slice, Mr. sive:diem. and Mr.
SI ieuantara an re for the elefeudanto.
The plaintiffs called witnesses to support their case, and
from their tiatirsony it appeared that the premise, were na-
il
-mad in the Globe open two policies, effected in July and
August, ISraft, for 2,0001. and ~3do/., but the coach-house,
' :tram-house, and gardener's residence were excepted from
the policies. The value of the premises was sworn to be
4,1X101., but the gen stool whether the insurances were tuff-
I iitut in amount was abandoned by the plaintiff,' counsel.
It was shown that the stoves referred to had been put up
and that no notice hail been given to the insurance Alec of
the fart until April last, but the policies now contained en-
der-ements that these stoves had been allowed by the office.
The insurance was by the lease to be in the Globe, or any
other respectable office, sanctioned by the plaintiffs, and wit-
nesses were called to show that only the two policies above
meutioned had been effected m the Globe. As to
the question of trade it was shown that a
gr.-townie, r and a plumber had been permitted to
place some :winks u-eil by them in their trades
'in the met house., but it did not appear that they
.''aid any rent. Mi. Prestwich was also called, and from
her teatimony it appeared that the establishment which was
under her management was nut • consent, but was a cha-
ritable iustitution devoted to the reception of ladies who
had been discarded by their friends in consequence of
having adopted the Roman catholic faith. The witness
said that she sopported the establishment out of her owe
private resources assisted by donations. The distribution
of these donation, was entirely within her own diseretiou,
and no money was revived from any lady. its the Louie.
Mr. Justice Williams expressed his opinion that as far as
the iustitution itself was concerned there was no breach of
the covenant not to permit the business of • schoolmate
or mistress, or any trade to be carried on, but ao to what had
been dour by the greengrocer and the plumber that must
be left to the jury.
Mr. Serjeaut Ace then addressed tlw jury, and contended
that nu trade or business had bem permitted upon the pre-
inisea, and a, to the insurances he urged open them that
before they avoided a lease, of which there Is, re eighteen
years to run, the plaintiffs must prove to them conclusively
that no other policy than those which hail been mentioned
hail been elected, and that no notice as to the stores had
been given previous to the one in April.
Mr. Justice Williams summed up, and left it to the jury
to say, first, whether or not the defeuelants used, or suffered
to be used. the said house, coach house, stable, and premises,
or any part thereof, fur any trade or business, as that of a
greengroter or plumber, as suggested by the pleintiffs; or-
cannily, whether the policies a hick hail been referred to
were the only policies which had Lieu effected in the Globe.
or any other office .auctioned by the landlords: and, thirdly,
whether the stoves had la en u-ed fur the purpose of heat-
hs,: the premises, without any notice to the insurance office
before toe uotice in April.
'rise jury, after an aleience from court of about half an
hour, stave their opinion that past of tire premises hail been
used for the purposes of the trades of a greengrocer and a
ptunther ; that toe two policies were the only ones which
hail been eff. et; 1 ; and that the etovea were erected and used
without notice being given.
A verdict was then entered for the plaintiffs, and leave
was given to the defeudant to move the court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUEL—S.trraDAT,
811171 W 111 Wive.
BrDllOll r. FIROCIOUR BULL.
This was an action by which the plaintiff sought to re-
cover damages for certain injuries which he bad sustained
by having been gored by a bull, the property of the de-
fendant, a cowkeeper, in the neighbourhood of Hackney.
At the trial before the Lord Chief Baron, at the sittings
atter Hilary Term last, the jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff, with 101. damages. A rule to set that verdict
,aside, and enter a nonsuit, was subsequently obtained, on
the ground that there was no evidence to show that the de-
fendant was aware that the bull was a vicious or ferocious
animal, or that it was in the habit of goring or attacking
mankind. It appeared, however, upon the trial, that this
bull had on previous occasions run at a person who had
something cad about his (bras' and that it had also attacked
a postman wearing the usual scarlet collar to his cont.
The plaintiff held a red bundle or handkerchief in his
hand when the attack in question was made upon him.
Mr. Baron Alderson said it was a known fact, from the
writings of the highest authorities on the subject, that bulls
would run at adytidos rod or searitt. It was, tliordort,
settouty to lobs jaw posiostkos tdrok oodi todotals
we drives aims So *dab litglawog.lllllo Idodakqes lei