The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-04 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 4, 1862.

tato intelligence.

EQI7ITY COI7RTIL—Noy. S.
(Before Vioe-Chancellor Sir Si. T. 'Lindenley.)
BTSPIIINS V. WORLLUIT.

Mr. C. Browne moved for an injunction to restrain the
defendant from doing certain acts, in contravention of an
agreement for dissolution of partnenhip. The parties were
partnen, and carried ea the business of wholesale stationers
at Bristol. In 1861 differences took place, ending in an
agreement for dissolution. The defendant became insane,
and was in confinement until March, 1862, when he re-
covered, and since then he had, as plaintiff alleged, been
to the place of busbiess, destroyed a number of bill-heads
with the name of the present firm on them, put up the old
sign of B. Workman and Co., and otherwise interfered in
the conduct of the business.

The Vice-Chancellor granted an injunction to restrain the
defendant from interfering in the partnership affairs, or
from printing circulars or bill-heeds bearing the name of
the late firm, or from otherwise holding himself but as con-
tinuing a member of the late firm, or representing it as
still subsisting.

(Before Vii

Stuart.)

His Honour took his seat shortly before 2 o'clock, and
some motions were disposed of, but none of any public
interest.

(Before

Sir W. P. Wood.)

The Vice.Chaneellor took hie seat in court about 2 o'clock,
when several short motions were disposed of, none of them
of sufficient importance to call for a report.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 3.

Sittings in Banoo.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
and Justices Wightman, Blackburn, and Mellor.)
WHATCOT AND win, V. LONDON AND BRIGHTON HALLWAY

COMPANY.

Hr. Bovill, Q.C., said this was an action tried before the
Lord Chief Justice, in the Court of Queen's Bench, London,
at the sittings after last term, when a verdict was returned
for the plaintiffs, damages 1101., beyond the sum of 3001.
paid into court by the defendants. He now moved for
• rule to show cause why the verdict should not be est aside,
or a new trial had, on the ground that the verdict was
sgainat the weight of evidence. His lordship, after the
verdict was 'returned, without the application of the defen-
dants, stayed execution. It was an action arising out of
the Clayton Tunnel accident. The female plaintiff, who was
a passenger at the time of the accident, had her leg broken.
She was taken to the Brighton Hospital, where she remained
until the 16th of October, and if she had continued to re-
main there in all probability would have been well in six
months after that time, or her leg would not have been
shortened, which was now the ore. She at that time de-
sired to leave the hospital. She was remonstrated with by
the medical gentlemen in attendance, who endeavoured to
dissuade her from leaving, and pointed out the possibility
of the danger that would result therefrom; but notwith-
standing she left the hospital, went to her home, and did
not obtain medical assistance until some days afterwards,
when the leg was found to be much inflamed.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the jury grounded their
verdict on the fact that the surgeons had not put all the
pressure on the female plaintiff to remain in the hospital
that they might have done, in which view at the time he
rather concurred. On the other hand, there was evidence
that the surgeons had intimated that she would act with
more propriety in remaining in the hospital. He told the
jury that if they were of opinion that the female plaintiff
left the hospital rather prematurely and without proper pru-
dence in regard to her condition, the company were
not liable for any mischief that might arise in aggravation of
the previous injury. He thought at first that the jury
were wrong in hairs on the company what they considered
a want of more urgent request or remonstrance on the part
of the surgeons to prevent her leaving the hospital ; but it
had occurred to him since, that what the jury meant, in
all probability, in determining that question, was whether
she had or had not acted with due prudence and care ; and
thequeetion how far the surgeons bad pointed out the im-
propriety that she was about to commit, and had urged the
expediency of her remaining, might have been an element
with the jury in determining how far she was wrong.
Mr. Bovill said the real mischief from which the female
plaintiff suffered arose from her leaving the hospital too
soon.

The Lord ChietJustice said that the learned counsel ought
to have a rule._

Rule granted.

RR. JORSON AND NR. DISRAELI, M.P.
Mr. Jobeon, who is now well known to the public
through the medium of the press, from his repeated appli-
cations to the magistrates relative to his charge of perjury
against the Right. Hon. R Disraeli, M.P., applied to the
court for a mandamus against Mr. Arnold, and also one
against Mr. Alderman Carter, compelling them to hear his
ease and decide thereon. He commenced his rambling
statement by observing that he applied to their lordships to
relives a wrong that bad scarcely a parallel. He said he
was a citizen of America by resWence and adoption, but •
native of the north of England. He came to this country
in 1859 to recover property wrongfully withheld from him
that had been in his family for centuries.
. _

The Lord Chief Justice asked him bad applied to Mr.
Arnold or Mr. Alderman Carter to hear his ease.
Mr. Jobeon said he had. At Westminster Police Court
be wu thrown to the door by two policemen by Mr.
Arnold's direction with a violence that the wildest Irishman
would not be guilty of. (Laughter.) And with regard to
his application to Mr. Alderman Carter, it was a mockery
of justice. Mr. Alderman Carter took his documents to
read them, and on the following day be declined to act on
them. He then referred to the proceedings taken against
him by Sir James Fergusson, M.P., with whom he claimed
relationship, and to Mr. Disraeli's evidence in that came,
upon which he founded his alleged perjury. He alleged
that he had received a flattering letter from Mr. Disraeli for
his article in an American publication " cutting up
Lord Pahnerston"—(laughter} -and he denied that he
had sent Mr. Disraeli threatening letters. He also
alleged that the right hon, gentleman bad made
fa/se statements with reference to the number of letters he
had received from the applicant. He produced the letter
he said he had received from Mr. Disraeli It was written
on paper, be said, bearing the Exchequer stamp, and in an
envelope similarly stamped. It was dated 31st May, 1858,
and was signed by the tight hon. gentleman's secretary,
and was as follows :—" Sir, —The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer desires me to express to you his thanks for your kind-
ness in forwarding to him the " Democratic Review," con- '
tanking an article on Lord Palmerston." (Laughter.) He
denied that be bad seen him at the Exchequerothoe, and
that he had been turned out for "kicking up a row there,"
as was stated by the right honourable gentleman on
the trial above referred to—a delicacy of expres-
sion he did not expect to hear from so emi-
nent a man. (Laughter.) Such a statement he said
prejudiced him greatly with tbp jury. He then proceeded
to state that he was convicted by a jury packed for that
purpose and by a judge primed to condemn him. He next
proceeded to inveigh against the manner in which be was
treated is prison, and his being kept picking oakum and
mending filch? blankets. He denied that he had ever
written Mr. Daniell a threatening letter, but he had written
him complimentary ones, for he had respect for his abilities
though he dissented from his politics. (Laughter.) Mr.
Disraeli had said that he solicited him to bring his case
before parliament, and certainly be (applicant) thought he
stood on such good terms with the right honourable
gentleman for "cutting up Lord Palmerston," that he
would have done it at once—(laughter)--and not have
made it a charge against him. (Laughter.) He never
wrote the right hon. gentleman an that could be con-
strued into • threatening letter, but since his discharge
from prison belied written him a hostile letter, stating that
as he had prevented his case from being investigated
he would poet the right hon. gentlemen as a perjurer from
one end of the kingdom to the other. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice, after patiently listening to the
applicant, said be had not Mide out a case for the interfe-
rence of the court. His case bad evidently, on his own
showing, been investigated by Mr. Alderman Carter.
Applicant then asked the court to allow him to proceed
against the right hon. gentleman at the Central Criminal
Court, but they declined to do so.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. 3.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erle, and
Justices Williams, Bylee, and Keating.)

WRITE V. STEEL!.—ATTIOI PT TO ENFORCE A CHURCH RATE.
This matter had been frequently before the public, the
circumstances being shortly these. The plaintiff was sued
by the churchwardens for his contribution to a church rate
made for the purpose of forming a new cemetery, and of
which rate be denied the legality. The decision in the Con-
sistory Court was against the plaintiff, and a similar result
attended an appeal to the Arches Court. The plaintiff,
however, then came to thiscourt, which orderedadeclaration
in prohibition, and the issue came on for trial before Mr.
Baron Martin in Surrey, the sole question raised being
whether upon the making of the rate a poll had been de-
manded and refused. The jury decided this in favour of the
plaintiff, and awarded him 40s.
Mr. Serjeant Shee now moved for a rule to increase this
amount by 901., the amount of costs which the plaintiff had
incurred in the proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts,
which, he rid, it was now apparent should have been
decided in the plaintiff's favour.
The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion that there
should be no role. There was no authority for saying that
the costs in the ecclesiastical courts could be recovered as
costa by proceedings io prohibition ; but the present plain-
tiff endeavoured to obtain payment of such costa under the
name of damages. The statute of 1 William IV., cap.
21, enacted that the jury might give damages, but
, the legislature had not given the slightest inti-
mation as to what were the matters in respect of
I which the jury might give damages ; and for his part he
was clearly of opinion that it as not intended that a plain-
tiff in prohibition should recover as damages the meta in-
curred in the ecclesiastical courts.
Buie refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—Nov. 3.
The learned judges, Lord Chief Baron Pollock and Barone
Bramwell and Chaanell, took their nate on the bench
diartl7 before two o'clock.

LACRARMI O. RBI ROAM scum MARIPOSA GOLD MI ING

COMPAIfT.

Yr. Lost showed cease against a rule which had been
obtained, calling upon Yr. John Carter, a director of a gold