The Express.
London, England, 1862-02-18 00:00:00

OF RAILWAY COVIANIFS

The declaration vin thi;—earie—ZlZl-1417at the defendants
undertook to carry the plaintiff es a passenger on their line,
brit from Sheffield to Narmmnton, and secondly from
Sheffield to Birmingham, and back, and that b their
there bad been delay, whereby he suffered
ThlllVffC. ultots pleaded not guilty, and a special p7e7iM,
eying their responsibility.
Mr. Berjeant Parry and Mr. T. Jones were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Overend and Mr. Hume represented the
compeny.
It appeared that the plaintiff is the manager of an Ma-
blidunent for plated goods at Sheffield, which place he
left on the 24th of December, 1860, for the purpose
of vhiting some of his relations. On she arrival of the
We at Masborougb the train by which be bad to proceed
had not su rived, and he was delayed there in hour ; and his
complaint on this occasion was that he had not been sent on
to Norrnouton so so to have reached It in time for the train
to Bowden by another line. On his arrival at Ncemanton
he missed the Bowden train, and had to walk, in a bitterly
°old night, a distance of three miles to a ferry, to moss
which the boatman demanded Is., instead of 3. ed., se it
was so late at night. He was further put to mess for
refreshments and • conveyenee. On the isemd maim
there was a delay at the same elatioe of the Deb is which
the plaintiff was travelling to meet a person at Birmingham
from whom be was to receive 71., and in consequence he
mold Dot keep his appointment and had lost the ereary,
ae the debtor who was at his appointmest, had sines gess
I through the nsolveet Overt
Mr. Baron Wilde said that because a man went to mosive
a sum of money from a debtor and bail bven delayed on his
journey. be could not recover the amount from the

The fence, in support of which a numlier of the ea.
casemate were examined, was that there wee me seg-
os the pad of the company, who did not gamuts,
the punctual arrival of trains, although they took every
precaution to render them so. On the first occaaion corn-
of, the frosty state of the weather rendered the
taveetlng difficult, the water-pipes being frozen ; sad on
the second, owing to the same cause, the line bad been
blocked up in consequence of the axle of the engine of the
bietzLireoeding that in which the plaintiff weebreaking.
the progress of the cause the complaint for the
delay on the 10di of January wee abandoned.
His lordship, in summing up, left it to the jury to say
whether there had been negligence on the part of the eons.
puy or not, telling them that if they thought so, the law
Eft it to them to say what damaged the plaintiff wee un-
titled to.
The jury, without leaving the box, found a verdict for the
defendants.
His lordship certified for a uncial jury.
Sittings at Nisi Prins at GuddhalL --(Before the Lord Chid
Baron and Special Juries.)
[MG IeWANAILL.'

Mr. 13erisant Shee and Mr. Day Were;c-imusel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Giffard for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant, as manager of the General Omnibus Company,
for a breach of contract with reference to the supply by the
plaintiff of harness, &c., to tho company. It was part heard
on Saturday, and haring occupied nearly all to-day, resulted
in a verdict for the defendant.