The Express.
London, England, 1848-04-17 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 17, 1848

This
BXSSPLL P. SMITH.—MrSICAL was
an action tried before Mr. J ustice Brie, to mow r damages
from the defendant, for performing at Croshy-hell a musical
composition called "The Sbip on Fire," when the verdict
was given for the plaintiff. The defendant subaquently ob
taiaed a rule to set maids the verdict, on the mean that it wise
not • musical representstion within the ng of 3& 4
Wm. IV. cap. 15 dr 68, and the 5 & 8 Vic. cap. 45; secondly,
that Croeby-hall was not " e place of dramatic entertain-
ment" within the meaning of the statute; and also that it
was not alleged in the declaration that the performance had
occurred in a place of dramatic entertainment. Mr. Serjeant
Talfoard, Mr. Locke, and Mr. Wise were heard last
B term
against the role.—Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. J.
were now heard in support of the rule, and contended that
the musical composition in question was not of a dramatic
character, but was a mere narrative. The performer was,
at it were, chained to the pianoforte, and his only acting was
the see-saw motion of his head, and the opening of his mouth
as wide u be could, in imitation of all other er public sinengerter-
'.
Moreover, Croshy-hall, although a plmusical
tainment, could not be said to he a place of " dram itic ewer-
tainment " within the meaning of the statute; there was no
scenic representation, neither was the performer dressed
in character, and if the learned counsel on the other
side were right in construing the 5 & 8 Viet., c. 45, to extend
to the prohibition of the performance of songs in any place
whatever, no lady would be able to sing a Fong or play a
rondo in a drawing-room without a license from the author,
as provided by the act in question, the teamed counsel
against the rule having argued that such a performance
wcold make the room in which it occurred .' a place of
dramatic entertainment"—a term which the learned coun-
sel in support of the rule insisted could only be meant to
apply to a public theatre, where dramatic pieces were repre-
sented in character.—The court deferred its judgment.
W MOOT v. RICE.—REPLEYIN.—JUILISDIVTION OP TILE
NEW COUNTY COL KTS.—Mr. Archbold moved for a prohi-
bition, to be issued to the County Court of Lancashire, to
prevent a judgment in an action of replevin by •
damages tenant
against his landlord from being put in force. The
were laid at 2001. The value of the goods dietrained was
201 ; and the jury had given the tenant 751. damages,
which, ir was submitted, exceeded the jurisdictien of the
County Court.—Lord Denman said the court considered
that actions of replevin to any amount might have been
brought in the County Court previous to the late act, and
its jurisdiction in such cases had not been altered.—ltale
refused.

BAIL COURT.
Mr. Justice Coleridge presided in this court. The learned
edge sat for about a quarter of an hour, and disposed o f a
lotion of no public interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
This being the first day of Easter term, the Lord Chief
Justice, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Justice Creswell, and
Mr. Justice Williams took their seats soon after 10 o'clock.
Very few motions were made, and the peremptory paper
was proceeded with.
NEWTON O. 1..0R11 ALBERT CONYNOHAIA.-• A PLAINTIFF
CANNOT OK TAXEN IN EXECUTION FOK COATS PENDING
A WRIT OF ERROR.—Mr. Bramwell moved fur a rule
calling.oui
noton thel.7m tinrtuyfft:t::::::=..iihj
ctoshets,denf,e,towdiajlit.
standing the pending of a writ of error. It appeared that
the plaintiff was nonsuited at the trial, and that since then •
writ of error had been moved, on the ground that since the
se, 7 & 8 Vic., c. 96, sec. 59, which enacts that no person
.hall be taken in execution in any action where a sum not
exceeding 201. has been recovered, • capitol ad satisfacien-
duns to satisfy costs was ur founded ant could not iSille. It
was now contended that this ground for writ of error was
frivolous, and that the statute was only intended to apply to
defendants and not to plaintiff. who had failed in an action,
because then no sum at all was recovered.—The C..urt, how-
ever, were of opinion, that there were no grounds thereon to
~
lane end set asipde theing ga
writ of error.—Rule refused,
eneral rule—hat no writ of " co. is. "could

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Cox V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY CONIPANT.—LIARI.
LITE OP A RAILWAY COMPANY PIMI SURGICAL SERVICEE
RENDERED TO A PASSENGER.—It appeared in this case
that a poor man travelling on the Midland Railway met
with an accident by his own incautious conduct, and the re-
sult was that his leg had to he amputated. The station-
master sent by electric telegraph for the plaintiff, who is an
eminent surgeon at Birmingham, and who successfully per-
formed the operation, and the passenger shortly alter
covered, end brought bis action against the company, who
had to pay him 1.501. damages. the plaintiff, as well as a
surgeon, called upon in the-first instance, and the inn-
keeper at whose house the passenger was lodged, all brought
actions against the railway company at the hat Warwick-
shire assizes, and had verdicts. The plaintiff's verdict was
for 261.—Mr. Humfrey now moved (or a rule to set aside the
verdict and enter a nonsuit, on the ground that the Railway
Company was not liable by reason of their servants having,
from motives of humanity, procured attendance and surgi-
cal assistancecid for a passenger who had been subjected to
serious acent.--Thc court granted a rule to show cane. a

ARCHES COURT.
Before Sir It. I. Put.
Fits. D. LAW AND thliallB.—This will a Ma brought
up by letters of rcquest from the Chancellor's Court of the
Bishop of Lichfield. Four gentlemen, named Mr. Bond,
Mr. Green, Mr. °eerily, and Mr. Hand, applied in due form
to be admitted proctors of the court. Tee preliminaries
having been gone through, tnd the order given fur the e.i-
-rolntent of their names in the Chan ellor's Court hook, Mr.
Fell, a proctor of the court, protested against their admis-
sion, and the deputy register refused to do the duty of en-
rolment, and considi rable delay took place. At length, Mr.
Mott, having received high legal authority, and having re-
ceived positive authority en the part of the Chancellor, the
enrolment took place. Immediately afterwards the case was
broughtuP to the Dean of the Arches, and it came on for hear-
ing on Saturday morning Among other things it was praed
that the Chancellor himself should be made a party to the byait.
Dr. Addams appeared for Chancellor Law and others. Ile
deecribed this as aa appeal from the decision of a competent
court, but it could not be entertained. The attempt to cite
the Chancellor as a party in the cause was asking too much.
The appeal ought to be entered immediately after the parties
bad been sworn in. It was absurd to think of making the
Chancellor a party in the cause. On the main grounds
stated he (Dr. Addams) trusted that the appeal would be
diemimed with costa.—The Queen's Advocate contended
that the appeal wu good, and mteit be entertained by the
court. There was precedent in citing a Chancellor, and
making him a party in the cause, ►namely, the Chancell
of Chester, who was compelled to be a party in the cause,
and had to pay the entertain The learned advocate said the
court was hound to the appeal, as there was a
cause pending in the court below.—Dr. Harding followed.
After the reply, the learued Judge said he must take time
to consider the case.