The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-28 00:00:00

all his demands for costa, and discharge them from all fur-
pier liability in respect ti whatever proceedings might he
imitated. [Jailer these circumstances, an action was com-
menced against Mr. Berkeley, and at a certain stage, it
seemed advisable to creepier evidence of the differ, nee of
enereacy between British and French money, and other
matters, upon which a journey to Calais and Boulogne be.
• came neceasag. The defendant, who required the as
sacs of an interpreter, undertook to pay the plaintiff hie'
expenses, if he accompanied him to Calais and Boulogne;
and accordingly, early in 1844, they set out, and remained I
thero for several days. At the spring assizes of 1844, the
action was tried at Lewes, and the result was, a verdict for
Monsieur Laveux for 7,000.1. The plaintiff attended as a
witness at Lewes, upon the same understanding as he had
gone to France, namely, that the defendrelt should recorn- I
pease him for his expenses and lOU of time. A difference
of opinion arose as to the payments made to the plaintiff, and
ol item now disputed was 16 guineas, which, it
the • •aktiacmcd by the :••t••" on taxing the
ppeared Wag
toendant's bill.
Mr. Creatiey sontended that the-several cheques drvenl by
the defendant in Debernardy's faVour, being ta *march mid
fond
teen to the time the defendant admitted the claim
for sixteen guineas, which was afterwards one or the items
in his bill of costs as against Mr. Berkeley—they should not
be taken as evidence a the payment of that sum. The do-
fendsnt acquiesced in the plaintiff's claim, and although the
affidavit "to increase" was sworn in :May, the defendant
made no reference whatever in
it to that item.
Mr. liumfrey, Q.O ments
~ insisted that the plaintiff's de-
mand was fully satisfied, and proved receipt, of pay
made to him by the defendant for his servinee in the cause of i
Levees a Berkeley. It was quite true (observed the learned
gentleman) that the defendant undertook the conduct of I
that suit for 10 pet cent. upon the sum recovered, but
although he obtained a verdict r the plaintiff and recovered
judgment, it was as yet wholly inoperative. AA Mr. Berkeley
was a member of parliament his body was safe
and as to his goods, they were non aun it
t ineetis
—(laughter)—so that all the parties had reason to
be dissatisfied ; however, if the statements made in the
newspapers, as to the intentions of Lord Fitzhardinge, we
true it was not improbable that the lion. Mr. Berkeles
personal' irresponsibility would not be of long duration; ostler
the next election his position might be altered, and then the
judgment against him might be made available for some-
tkuag. In the meantime, Mr. Gell (the Present defendant)
has instituted proceedings against the plaintiff in this action,
and his former partner, Mr ltnaelotty, for the 10 per eent.
they agreed to pay him : Is he was advised he could recover
his per centage ,upon the amount of the judgment he ob-
tained, whether it was paid or not, or whether the party
against whom it was recovered was solvent or otherwise, and
a special case in which that point was raised was now pend-
ing in this court.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
sittings In Mum after Michaelmas Tenn.—Special Paper.
--- CHILTON, DOA, v. THE LONDON AND CROYDON
RAILWAY COMPANY.--VALIDITY OF Bra-LAW INFLICTING
PAYMENT OF FULL FARE ON Loss OF Tteewr.—This
was an action of trespass, in which the plaintiff 'ought to
recover damages from the defendants, for assaulting and
falsely imprisoning him on the 15th of October last. To
this the company pleaded a justification, under the well-
known bye-law adopted by all the railway companies, to the
effect that if any passenger shall refuse or neglect to produce
his ticket to the guard at any time during the journey, or to
the officer on the arrival of the train at Its point of destina-
tion, he shall be taken to have travelled the whole distance
of that particular journey without paying the fare, and shall
be liable to pay the full fare accordingly. The pleadings in
the case were ve,y voluminous, and would be unintelligible
to the general reader. It may suffice to say, therefore, that
the questions raised by them were, whether such a bye-
law was a reasonable one in itself; and next, whether
the company had the power ucder their act of incorporation
to make any such, and to carry it into effect, in the way they
did in the present instance. This action was one which has
excited sonic attention both in public and among the profes-
&ion from the circumstance of the gentleman who has come
forward to try these questions with so powerful a body as
railway company, being the eminent Queen's counsel and
leader of the South Wales Circuit, who, it appeared, took his
seat in a first-class carriage at Sydenham for London on the
day above-named, having first paid his fare of le., and re-
received a first-class ticket, whereon it was notified that
" this ticket must be produced open on demand, otherwise
the fare must be paid." ' On Mr. Chilton's arrival in London
he discovered that his ticket was lost., and though he offered to
pay the Sydenham fare over again, the officer, who was one
of the defendants on the record, insisted on his paying
the fare as from Croydon, vii., Is. 3d., in pursuance
of the b)e-law to which reference has been made. This the
plaintiff refused to pay, and he was therefore taken into
custody, whence he was ultimately released on bail being I
given for his appearance.
Mr. Peacock nos contended, for the plaintiff, in support '
of his demurrer to the rejoinder of the defendants, that they
had not due or proper notice that the plaintiff was a passenger
from Sydenham only ; that the bye-law in question
was invalid and unreasonable. In the first place it
was not warranted by the act, which only authorised
the company to bind themselves and their servants, and to
regulate the management of the coreeration by bye laws.
This bye-law was aimed at the public, and was not warranted
by their act. If, however, it should be held to be within
the act, the plaintiff would contend that it was an unreason-
able one, and one which could not be sustained in law. If, '
moreover, this bye-law was good, still the defendants were
pt jto ustified in taking the law into their own hands by im-
isoning the plaintiff for disobedience it, for the act, in
various sections, pointed out that the proper course was to
have proceeded against the plaintiff before two magistrates.
In all such cases the penalty is to be shared bpa etween the
company and the informer ; but here the comny, by this
bye-law, fix an unreasonable penalty on a mere act of omis-
sion, not a wilful breach of the regulations of the legislature,
nad then seize on the full penalty or imprisoning the party

o offending.
Mr. Kennedy, for the defendants, argued that it was the I
most just, proper, and reasonable, thing, for the public good, '
that a railway company should hate the power to make and
enforce such a bye-law as this, for if they had not that
power, it would be utterly impossible to carry on the line,
and the public would be materially prejudiced as well as
the company. Without such a check an this it was out of
the question for a company to guard against fraud. Such a
bye-law would be most reasonable ou a long line, like the
London anilßirmingliarn, where, but for it, passengers might
take a ticket and pay from Birmingham to Coventry, intend-
ing to go on to London, where they might profess their
inability to produce their ticket, and assert that they had
only travelled from Watford. How could such a fraud be
checked but by this regulation, which was a plain and
simple one for that purpose ? It was in truth the contract
which was entered into by every one on taking a ticket,
namely, that he would consent to be taken to have travelled
the whole distance of that journey unless he produced the
ticket at the end of it.
Mr. Baron Rolfe.—l am obliged to go away ; but beforell
go, I may say that I think it a most reasonable regulation.
At the same time, I don't see how you have the power of
enforcing the payment of the fare.
Mr. Baron Parke.—There is no power in the act to impri-
son or take a man before a magistrate for not paying a tare,
though there is for a penalty or forfeiture.—Mr. Kennedy
would contend that this was not a " fare," but a penalty or
forfeiture.
Mr. Baron Parke.—We must adjourn this case until we
all meet again, as my brother Rolfe is obliged to go to
chambers now. We will give notice when we shall be able
to:resume it.—Adjourned accordingly.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
Before Mr. Secondary James.
HINDIVARgiII V. WARRAND.—A SURVEYOR IN EIGHT
WERKlL—Plaintiff sought compensation for services rendered
to defendant's son. fir whom the latter had become respon-
sible. In June, 18.15, the defendant, anticipating the great
request there would be for professional men during the pre-
valence of the spirit of railway speculation, became desirous
of placing his son tinder the tuition of some competent
civil engineer, or surveyor. With this object in view,
defendant was referred to Mr. Hindmarsh, the plaintiff, as a
person of competence and skill. An arrangement was
entered into fur the latter to instruct the son in levelling and
surveying, the defendant agreeing to pay all fair and reason-
able expenses. The plaintiff did so instruct the son, who
was eight weeks under his care, and frequently dined at
plaintiff's table. He was instructed both privately and in
the " field," and was with the plaintiff for three weeks sur-
veying a proposed line cf railway in Durham ; and Mr.
Warrsnd, jun., acquired a considerable knowledge of
the art of the profession during the course of
lemons he received from the plaintiff.—C. E. Houghton,
Commander R.N. deposed to the plaintifra expe-
rience, and to his having been employed professionally
on the government works in Canada.—A lady named Britss
proved the defendant's son to have been with the plaintiff
eight weeks.—Lieutenant Tait, R.N., said 30 guineas would
demand for the plaintiff's services.—Mr. R.
.fendant's son, swore he was with the plain-
The plaintiff having one day dined with
witness and the plaintiff had a walk in
a cigar and a bottle of wine, and then
to turn him out a good surveyor, with-
specific charge, leaving the amount of remu-
defendant.—This evidence was the main
. It was contended that the plaintiff could
specific amount of remuneration, as such had
upon. Two letters, written by the plaintiff
, were put in and read. One asked for re-
which being answered in the negative ; the
tten in the most elegant style.—The learned
summed up, the jury returned a verdict
121. 18s. The original claim was 15/. ; but
paid on account.

CT OF BANKRUPTCY.
NC Mr. Commissioner Evans.
JAN/Ml:PT.—Hayward and Adams, book-
looter-row, came up to pass the adjourned
a u bankrupts. The debts, arc about
assets arc " doubtful." The solicitor for
prayed for an adjournment, as the accounts
ly the bankrupts' affairs —His Honour said
assignee had reported favourably as to
iyward had absconded, taking with him the
1, and therefore it was impossible for Adams
correct account of his affairs.—The solicitor
asked why it had not been advertised in the
.pen that Hayward had absconded.—The so-
amignees replied, for fear of action of libel.—
'4 it was quite clear that Hayward had ab-
assets also, and, under such eircum-
useless to talk of actions for libel.—The
assignees said he would advertise the eh-
. a reward for Hayward'a apprehension.
then adjourned for six weeks.
Before Mr. Commissioner Hoiroyd.
`ECCLATIONS.—A bankrupt named Graham,
Old Jewry, has been speculating in

have been a fair dome]
Warrand, the defender
tiff but five weeks. Tt
his (witness's) father, 1
the garden, discussing ,
the plaintiff promised t
out making any sped&
neration to the defen
point of defence. It w
not demand any specific
not been agreed upon.
to the defendant, were
muneration, and which
I other was not written i
ilSecondary having sum
for the plaintiff for 121.
2 guineas had been psi
COURT
Before
FLIGIIT OF A BAN
sellers
in Paternoster
last examination as
6,0001., and the we
several creditors pray(
did not state truly the
that the official awl
Adams, and Haywar
books and papers, and
to give a full and core
for the creditors sakes
public newspapers th
licitor for the assign.,
His Honour said it 1
•
Denuded, with some
stances, it would be 1
solicitor for the mai
1 ' sconding, and offer a
—.The cue was then
,
Before
RAILWAY Spaces
a stationer, in the f