The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-26 00:00:00

Mr. Beebe% us reply. in this ease, contended that the de-
fendants. by the seeps they had taken, were misapplying
the powers given to them by their act, and that an injunc-
tion was of coarse. . .

application was then made to defendant fur the amount oh,
the debt ma no answer was given. A summons was upon
that tabus suitor leave to sign judgment in the original
aetiem Tble was, however, refused by the judge, and an
aides wes dies brought upon the agreement, but a diffi-
TIM wen its legal construction, the counsel who
plaintiff considering that the delivery up of
the brine, Met a condition precedent to the right to de-
Pend and was for payment of the debt and coats. The
amefore not given up, but upon the trial
dir_ibet action that question was raised and afterwards
AMNION before the court in bane and three judge,
held. la uition to the opinion of Mr. Justice Patten%
that)b, tiery of the bill was a condition precedent ; fie
plaintif, therefore, failed in that action, and had to pay
the costs. The bill was then delivered up and demand of
payment made, and defendant offered to pay 120!. in full
Stall demands. That was rejected and the present action
breaght. The defendant had pleaded sin pleas, for none of
nbiels there was any foundation—lst, that he did not pro-
tegee ; 2d, that the bill was not pmented ; 3.1, that the
Man had not been taxed; 4th, that the bill had not been
delivered up; sth, that it was not delivered up in a reason-
able time, whereby the defendant was prevented from re-
severing against Clanevy ; and 6th that the defendant had,
a good defence on the merits to the original action, which!
the plaintiff knew, and that the agreement was therefore
bad and was a fraud upon the defendant. It would now
be shown that there was no foundation for any of these
plies,ead If any attempt wu made to rest a defence upon
the eta plea, he should show that ever since the time when
the bill became due, Clancy had been in a state of hope-
less lesolvesey.
Mr. Charles Rogers, the plaintiff's attorney, was then
idled, who proved the facts stated by the learned counsel
in his opening speech.
Mt. Watson then addressed the jury for the defendant,
sad said he should abandon all the pleas except the fifth.
and should call Clancy himself to prove that lie could have
paid the bill during 1848 and part of 1849.
John Clarice, was then called, who stated that he was!
drawly a lieutenant in the 15th Hussars, which was en-
dow& at Madras. That he was the acceptor of the bill
which had been given to Clark as part of a sum of 1,2004
which he had given for four horses to take to India, where
he went in March, 1847. He returned to England in May,
1850, and shortly afterwards took the benefit of the Insol-
vent Act. He could have paid the bill during the whole of
1848 if it had been sent out to him, end up to March, 1849,
he could have paid it if it had been sent out and he had
been pressed with it.
On cross-examination the witness said the bill was pay-
able at Cox and Co.'s, in London. Ile had made no provi-
sion for it there. Ile arrived in England in Juno or Jul),
1819. He had other property besides the 101. mentioned ia
his schedule. lie had his uniform and a great deal of fur-
niture in India. This sold for 2.501., and ho haul also a
Charger, which was sold and produced 60!., and the pay-
master had ordered him to be credited with 30!. for arrears
et
pay. The proceeds of the effects in India went to pay
debts there. Ile sold the horses in India, about four
swaths after his arrival there. They fetched about 1,0001.
se 800!., out of which he had to pay their passage out, and
the keep of them since. lie was about 3001. out of pocket
by the transaction. His schedule was then put into wit-
nue's hands, wherein he had stated the loss upon the
Imes at 1,2001. The balance-sheet showed debts 7,000!.,
end meets arising from sale of his commission and from
mean of pay of 1,3001.
On re-examination lie said he might have sold the horses
for 1,3001. But he had been induced to join a Mr.
M'Lean in a racing speculation, which failed, and his
horses were sold to pay the
Mr. Noggins having been heard in reply,
Lord Campbell summed up, and told the jury that the
defendant appeared to very little advantage before the
court. His lordship then adverted to the pleas which had
been put on the record, which he termed an outrageous
abuse of special pleading; and that the only ques,ion the
jury bad to try was whether or not the defendant had lost
the Talkie of the bill by reason of the non-delivery within
reasonable time.
The jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff for
the whole amount.
Lard Campbell granted immediate execution.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAT.
Strrulos AT Nisi Pan• A? Wransweita.—Bzroaz LOU. Cam?
Awn's JILIMI. AID Seim.. Joust.
COFFEY V. BARNARD,7FALLINO OF A STAND ON EPSON

Itacw-counsx.
This was an action brought by a grocer and eheesemon-
ger, carrying on his business at Chelsea, Against a market
gardener and scedsman living at Epsom, to recover corn-
pensation in damages for a severe injury which he had sus-
tained under the following circumstances. It appeared
that the defendant was in the habit of erecting a stand 11P011
the Epsom race-course during the tune of the races; and on
the 11th of April, 1850, the plaintiff, in company with a
gentleman named lleppcl, went down to Epsom to attend
the Epsom spring meeting, and they paid 2s. 6d. each
for a place in the defendant's stand. The principal race of
the day was the Metropolitan Handicap, and just as the
horses who ran in that race passed the stand, it gave way,
and the plaintiff, as well as the other people in it, were
thrown down. Mr. Coffey sustained two fractures of one
of his legs, which confined him to his lad for six weeks,
and to his house for three months. According to the evi-
dence which he now produced, it appeared that through
the accident, the plaintiff had been rendered a cripple for
life, the injured leg being permanently contracted. It was
also said that, owing to the illness of the plaiatiff, his busi-
ness had decreased as much as 204 a week.

Mr. E. James, Q.C., addressed the jury for the defendant
in mitigation of damages, and contended that as the oc-
currence was the result of accident, a small amount would
be sufficient to recompense the plaintiff.
The Lord Chief Justice then summed up, and the jury
returned a ♦erdict for the plaintiff—damages 1001.

PocKIN V. GOODAY.—ACTION TO RECOVER 6,0001.,
WHICH HAD BEEN PLACED IN THE DEFEADANT'd
HANDS FOR INVEATMENT.
This was an action brought by a gentleman residing at
Ipswich to recover the sum of 6,0001., which he had placed
in the hands of a Mr. Wm. Edward Gooslay, an attorney,
to invest on mortgage, but which that gentleman had lent
to his own father. Ve forbear from going into the facts of
this case, because, after it had proceeded for some time, it
was settled by a verdict being taken for the plaintiff for
1,0001., and also because the plaintiff made some very
serious charges against the defendant, any answer to which
was not offered by reason of the case being settled.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—TESTERDAT.
&moos is 13ssoo —Now Tam. Pans.
Cott t. PLATT AND OTllltaii.—TllE FACTOUT Act
This was an action in the case, in which the plaintiff also
sued in forma pauperis, and by her mother, as her neat
friend, sought to recover damages from the defendants, who
are mill owners, for negligently omitting to fence off the
shaft of their mill engine, by reason whereof the plaintiff's
arm was torn, and great personal injury sustained by her.
The defendants pleaded, among other things, that the
plaintiff was herself guilty of negligence, and that she was
not lawfully in the mill at the time in question. At the
trial, which took place before Mr. Baron Hatt, at York, it
appeared that a woman, named Billington, who was em-
ployed as a piecer in the defendants' mill, and part of
whose duty it was to sweep the room in which the
engine and shaft were, being indisposed, the inspector
directed a subordinate to provide a substitute for her. Upon
this the plaintiff's mother was applied to, and she consented
to her daughter going to the mill; and the inspector
having assented to her coming, the poor girl went to the
mill, when she did certain piece work, and was afterwards
directed by the same man who had procuredher attendance
to sweep the floor of the engine-room. In so doing she
was entangled in the shaft, which was not properly fenced
off, as required by the Factory Acts, 3 and 4 William IV.,
c. 103, and 7 Viet., e. 13. The learned judge having left
it to the jury to say whether the plaintiff was lawfully in
the mill, and to MOM the dosages, the jury found for the
plaintiff with 1201., whereupon this rule was obtained to
set aside that verdict, and for a new trial, on the
ground of misdirection, it being alleged that the
learned baron had told the jury it was enough
to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict, if she supposed she was
lawfully present, and also to arrest the juds-=nt on the
ground that the plaintiff aid not come within the provi-
sions of the Factory Acts.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Atherton were now heard in oppo-
sition to the rule. They submitted that the learned baron
had not left the question to the jury in the objectionable
form asserted by the defendants, and that the jury were
abundantly justified in coming to the conclusion that the
plaintiff was lawfully in the inill. They also argued that
the declaration was good in law, and disclosed a duty and
a breach.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Hugh Hill, were heard
on the first point, but had not concluded their argument
on the second and more important one, when
Mr. Baron Parke said that the court must adjourn, as
one of the harem must go to chambers. Ho would, how-
ever, at once give judgment on the first point, as the whole
court was of opinion that the learned Baron bad properly
left the question to the jury, who were quite justified, on
the evidence, in finding that the plaintiff was not a tres-
passer on the premises of the defendant, but was lawfully
there. Oa that issue, therefore, the plaintiff would, at all
events, be entitled to retain the verdict. As to the other
points, the court would resume the argument on Friday,
before which day it would be impossible to meet in bane.
The court then nee.

Thu Vico-Chancellor said that there was a legal question
to be determined, vie, whether, u the second act had not
expressly abrogated the powers given by the tint act, those
powers were or were not still in lull force. This question
he should wish to have decided by a court of law.
Mr. lkthell was quite willing that the legal question
should be tried, but submitted that the defendants should
be put upon terms not to proceed further in the course they
had tsk, n till the trial should have been had.

Mr. Holt submitted that no such terms should be int-
ecd. The effect would be that the plaintiffs would there-
by succeed in delaying the completion of the defendant.'
line.
The Vlse-Chancellor said that if the legal question could
not betaken to a court of law without being attended with
that effect, he would be obliged,i f the defendants wished,
to decide the legal question himself. lie would prefer,
Ivey/ever, to have the announce of a court of law. The case
was then ordered to 'tarsi' over till Saturday neat, to pro-
duce affidavits as to the state of fOTWarIIOIII of the works
on the defendant.' line.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—TESTERDAT.
&mama •T Nisa rans.—BilJlLl LOU; C•111711111•ND • CUTOIOI

34.111N50N V. CL.II.K.
By the statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiff
it appeared that the action was brought to recover 1931.
under the following circumstances :—ihe plaintiff in the
SS ar 1314 was the holder of two over-duo bills of the de-
feuelant's, one fur O. and the other for Nil., and Lad
brought an action upon them which would have been tried
in June 1348, but two days before the trial the defendant
went to the plaintiff and proposed terms of arrange meat.
The der-adapt was a person connected with the turf, and
was the holder of a bill, drawn by himself on a gentleman
of the name of Clancey, a lieutenant in the 15th Hussars,
dated Feb. 27, 1517, for the payment of 3do/. 14 mouths
alter date, and which would therefore fall due oa the 30th of
August, ISIS. The defendant proposed that the plaintiff,
should take this bill, present it when due, pay himself out
of the proceeds. and Land the sazplus to hem (defendant).
The plaintiff said if eLlendent would leave the bill he would
wake inquiries about it. Ile did so, and then declined the
r:posal. A communication was then opened by the de-
dust's with Mr. Home, the plaintiff's attorney, which
'resulted in the following agrscruent : " 19th of June, 1318.
It is ft-m. 4 tLat the record shall be withdrawn, that the
I debt and interest claimed by plaintiff and the taxed costs
, Le paid out of the precccdc of Clancey's bill, which is
to be presented by Johnson, and the balance paid ore, to
the defendant. If Clanceft bill isnot paid before Novena-
her it is to be delivered to the defendant, who is thereupon
lis pay the debt and tons of the plaintiff, but no interest."
Clancers bill was przs?r.ted what due, and not paid. Aa

CONSISTORY COURT.—YunaiDAY.
Moose Da. Lveamoos.

SARII4 POPE, DICIIEED.—DISINTIEWINT.
This was allappliastion to the court to grant a faculty to
disinter the body of a person buried ill the month of May
last, who had crainusittod suicide. It was supposed to be
that of Sarah Pope who had been missed about that time
oaid never since heard of.

Dr. Deane, in making the motion, said it was =emery
to identify her in consequence of proceedings about to take
place in eltaneory,
The court said its only aut'_ority for acting was the fact
of the body having been buried an consecrated ground.
Considering that fact, which was of importance, had been
ascertained—that there was prima facie evidence it wu this
body of Sarah Pope—it would grant a faculty,

STRIFE or P.ttatts tit BERLIN.—Among the news
from Berlin is the account of a feud which appears recently
to have broken out between the barbers and wig-makers of
that city, from the latter claiming the especial privilege of
cutting and dressing Lair ; while the barbers insist with
equal obstinacy that their profession is not confined merely
to easy shaving. The affair has been brought before the
1 courts, and indeed, is not the only one of the kind. Several
other of the trades in Berlin being engaged in disputes re-
' Wive to the precise function of their craft.

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 26, 1851.