The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-04 00:00:00

ceived. Shortly afterwards Mr. Riddiford, who had had
dialing* with the plaintiff. and had assisted him with
money, rolled at the defendant's office, and the matter
shout suing the plaintiff on Pritchard's bills was mentioned.
Mr. Ridititord said he thought that defendant had birthr
not do so, for he would not get his money, and the deka-
dela said if he did not he would put the plaintiff through
the Gazette. Mr. Rogers, a coach-builder, also called at
the defendant's office, and the defendant told him If he had
any respect for the plaintiff, to advise him to fettle the
matter, or he would take proceedings against him. He
sai 1 it was for 9001., in a matter between Pritchard, the
plaintiff. and himself. Mr. Rogers had dealt with the
plaintiff for some years, and we- a creditor for 1911. for
money lent. Mr. Rowers communicated to the plaintiff
what he had heard, and the plaintiff's solicitor on the 6th
of April, again wrote to the defendant, hat *gain
received on answer. Mr. Rogers had n pressed
the plaintiff before, but he now instructed the de '
(rodent to write to the plaintiff, and say that unless 601.
was paid off his account by return of poet, he should sue
for the whole amount. In accordance with these instruc-
tion., the defendant wrote to the plaintiff on the 19th of
May, and on the 21st he issued a writ, but the writ, instead
of being for 1911., was by some means issued for 3411. The
plaintiff being thus pressed was unable to pay Mr. Rogers'
claim in money, but he gave him faur carriages to settle
the matter, and received 901. on the transaction. The de-
fendant did actually sue the plaintiff for 9001. upon the
two bills, and the action was tried at Lewes, when the jury
gave a verdict for the plaintiff upon the issue whether he
had dispensed with notice of dishonour of the bill, and this
finding was an answer to the action.
In cross-examination the plaintiff stated that he had been
bankrupt in 1847, and had on that occasion Bled as many as
three balance-sheets, but this he said was the fault of his

accountants. His certificate, however, was suspended for
three months, and there had been no dividend at present,
but he had since the bankruptcy paid 60W. out of his own
pocket to his creditors. He had been insolvent twice.
Once in 1844, and then ha was " fool enough" to renew
his debts, and so soon afterwards became insolvent again.
The fact of the bankruptcy was indeed urged as part of
the plaintiff's ease. It was said that he was jut regaining
his position in the world again, when the slanderous
words were spoken, and under these circumstances they
were likely to have • very serious effect. The plaintiff's
counsel, in fact, charged the defendant with a malicious
intention to ruin the plaintiff; and he asserted that what
be had done, by eausiug the plaintiff to be pressed for
money, and by injuring his credit, had gone far towards
effecting this result.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins addressed the jury fur the de-
fendant, and complained of the sympathy which had been
excited in this case ; and be contended that the facts did
not warrant such a result, and went through the evidence
to show that the plaintiff, after all, had not sustained
any gnat injury.
. _

The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—damages, 16W.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-YESTERDAY.

SrWONG AT Ma TANI AT WINNITUITISR—BWOW
BARON •AD Warms JOWLS.
BROWN CLACL.-LIIIIIL.
. . . O.

'Leto Canis

The plaintiff is this ease was an architect and surveyor,
and the defendant was a number of the same profession.
The action wee brought to recover compensation in damages
for an alleged libel on the plaintiff's character by the de-
fendant.

Mr. Serjeant Shea and Mr. Willis appeared for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. Chambers and Mr. Edwards for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff was carrying on business in
Ecelestoa-place, Pimlico, as an architect and surveyor, hav-
ing acquired a knowledge of his profession from Mr. Cubitt,
the well-known engineer. Re had also obtained a patent
for the manufacture of colours in September, 18.50, which
be alleged to be of considerable value. The defendant, who
was a young man, and had been for some years engaged in
the Ordnance survey of Ireland, entered into an arrange.
ment with the plaintiff to become a partner, in September,
1851, for which he paid him 5001.; and he also paid
1,0001. se his share of the stack and plant. Some time
afterwar.is he became dissatisfied, and wished to dissolve the
partnership, but the plaintiff refused to return him 1,2501.
He then wrote to Mr. Braithwaite and other persons in the
profession, abusing the plaintiff, under the impression that
he was in embarrassed circumstances!, and ogling him a
dishonest man, a robber, a swindler, a liar, &e.
These being the substantial facts in the case, Mr. Chambers
addressed the jury on the part of the defendant, and the
jury, after a few minute• consideration, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—damages SOL

PINE V. GIBBS.—ALLEOED NEGLIGENCE.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the
negligence of the defendant. It appeared that. on the 15th
July last, the plaintiff, who is a monthly nurse, of advanced
age, residing in Bath, was crossing from the eastern to the
western side of the Edgware-road, when she was knocked
down by a horse:which was drawing a phaeton, in which
were the defendant's wife and children. The animal,
which was described as on. of spirit, was being driven
by a boy, whose attention was at the time
attracted by a balloon rising over Hyde-park.
The result of the accident was that the front wheel of the
phaeton passed over the plaintiff's leg end injured her to
such en extent that she had to be removed to the infirmary,
where she rained some weeks. The lady who was is the
phaeton blamed the boy for his negligence, and having en-
gaged a cab for the plaintiff, gave her half-a-crown, and
dmeted that she should be taken home. The hone and
phaeton were the property of the defendant, who is a livery
stable keeper in Keppel-mews, Hymen-square.
A number of witnesses were called to support the plain
tiff's case, and also to speak to the facts as represented by,
the defendant. The evidesee was, as is usual in all " run-
ning down " eases, of the most cinflicting description.
Ultimately, however, the jury toned their verdict for the
plaintiff—damages 101.
Mr. Petertiderff appeared tee the plaintiff, and Mr. Ser-
joist Wilkins and Hr. Cole for the defendant.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—Yr.snaDAy.
Dame Ka Uppmaiousr Boacsa%.
MOMS O. Loan MOSTTS.
Tide woo • wit W assess damages in an action which
the *MIR' Woo* against the defendant for breach
of wwwws4, ri h reference to the transfer of certain
=e• imilmerge property in Wales, of the value of
The plokihf eJaimed the expense", incurred and
the the
to n Moose of eat wry which lay at his banker's pending
owliew
The jury Mai he the plaintiff--dantages, 4601.