The Express.
London, England, 1865-11-07 00:00:00

D*Y EV gNTIO, 11F 0 VEMPZII 7, 1865.

ELLIQ •IfaN

LAW INTEUIGENCE.

CUM DAT.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S MINOS.
Sittings is Banoo.—(off ire the Lord Chid Jostles. sad
Justified hlellor,dhee, and Lash.)
This was a special paper day, but the Court ant discord
of the following rearved motions.
MORGAN V. CEIZTWYND.
This was an seeks brought by the plaintiff, • draper, in
lb* late of Wight, againit the detendast, wbo resides at
Loogdoe Ball, ritaffordslike, sad who has become notorious
from the peocesdiogs is the Divorce Court, to mover,
24/. 13s. lid. for goods supplied to Mrs. Olietwyad beim*,
the separation consequent as the proesedinp la w,
Divorce Court. The action was triode, Guildhall before
thii Lord Chief Justice, when tki• jury returned • vendiee
for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
lir. r dward Je
d,
eel moved for a rule nisi, puimmt
to leave reserved, selling upon the plaintiff to lbw
cause why the verdict should not be catered'
for the defendant, or for a new trial, on the
ironed that the verdict was against evidasea i
The question was one of considerable import's,» to the'
defeodant, because he had other domande to • very help
, saint made upon him. The goods were supplied heilens
ths separatioo, Kra. Chetwyod having • separate allow-
sass sad settlement of her own, and it was put es the
trial oo behalf of the defendant that he was sot liable for
everything ordered by his wife, but that it moat be limited
to neormaries suitable to her station in life.
The Lord Chief Justice said be had bettor read the fisd-
begs of the jury. He asked the jury whether the goods
supplied by the plaintiff were secessities, or lad Melt
Obetwynd a sufficient supply of clothing at the lime.
There was some evklease on the part of the defendant,
that, indepesdently of her allowaooe, she had an aboodsoos
of
clothing, but the jury found that the clothing was 1
aneenry, sod that she had not at the time'
a sufficient supply. They were further aka ,
of the goods 'applied were suitable to the cooditios sod,
state of lde of the plaintiff's wife, they replied in the
Had she an allowance sufficient to meet her '
proper ▪ tr
ots, ref 'repos being had to the means and pool-'
Lou of her husband? red the Jim' answered, "No." And
I aloe, notwitlatendiog that the defendant swore be had pro-
Whited his wife from pledging his credit, the jury found
there was i.e sub prohibition.
Mr. James said it was • serioos goestioe for the defendant
and hoped the court would great him • rule on the ground
raised at the trial, and on which the Lad Chief Justice
pvc him leave to move, viz., that there was no evidence to
show that the deleodant had ever authorised his wife to
...

pied s credit.
The Lord Chief Justice said he thought the learned counsel
ought to have a rule on the leave reserved.
hale nisi aeordiegly.
HAILDNAV V. BIUDISIt.
Mr. Edward James, Q.C., said this was an action
to recover the poreesion of certain land in the neigh-
bourhood of Liverpool, when he was obliged to
submit to a verdict against him, in consequence of the
absence of Mr. Hardman Erie, a solicitor, after his baring
been ear" enaed and received his oriduot money. Mr. Brie
was in the poemsnion of documents which would have
proved the plaintiff's case, but retied of attending
at the trial and producing them he met some
his clerk, which were of so use. Although
ilwas at one time suggested that Mr. Erle's
alumnae was by Dollar= with the defendant's attorney,
he bad every reason to believe there was no fouedstioa for
it, but be felt bound to apply for • rule foe an attach-
ment against Mr. :Ale for not attending oa the trial, sad
also for • rale far a new trial °a affidavits that Mr. irk
wee a material witness.
The court said that unless it could be shown there had
been caries Ware the parties so as to defeat Partite
they would not poet the rule for an attachment against
Mr. Erie. They would grant • role fur a seer trial.
Ede panted.
LUNT v. NORTII-WIETZILII RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Edward Jams, Q.C., with whom was Ms. Wltory,
said this was an action for the value of • hors' and lorry,
which involved an important quadri of railway liability ;
it was tried at Liverpool before Mr. Jostles tretega Smith,
ohm the jary returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 1001.
&urges. The ear had been twit:Dried already (once before
Kr. Justice She"). The facts were ideate's' ; same wrote'ss
were calld, and the same evidence gives, and he wee sorry
to say with the same result. Two things were ladepatable
—one that the plaintiff's hone and lorry were destroyed,
and the other, that the defendants were a railway company,
but be did not koow if it was a logical oonclusioe to say,
therefore, the plaintiff had succeeded. The action was
founded ma the negligence of McGrath, Doe of the dales-
dent's swore. McGrath was stationed at •
level crossing, and when the plaintiff's servant
was about to corm out of Mews. Ormarild's
yard which adjoins the crossing SO WOO the 'rainy into
the politic road, he called out, " lis it all clear!" nod he
was replied to by McGrath that it was, when IV fact
dagger was impending by rears of an approaching train.
The Jam went out of the yard on to the railway, whin •
rein same by and 'mashed the horse and lorry. The gra-
des nerved at the Mir' was whether much en act,
although negligent on the part of McGrath, could
bind the company, because although be was the
oompany's servant for certain pewees, it was contended he
was not the company's servant for the purpose of giving
the ibformatiou required by the plaintiff's man.
The Lied Chief Jeatiee asked if there was any rest:aril
ever the plaintiff's man's pamiag without the resent of the
company's servants.
Mr. E. James said he could not say. l'he plain. ,
tifs man took so trouble to see if the way was ,
clear, but McGrath, the moment he maw him
coolie; on the line, rushed forward to atop him, ,but he
was too late. By ie iith section of the Railway Clauses
Consolidated lot companies were bound to keep men at
level °twerp to open and close the gates. That only was
their duty ; and berg there was no negligence of duty
imposed on McGrath by the statute • therefore, it wee
leoatended the mummy were not liable or respeasible
for any other set committed by him. Besides, the
I mac with the horse sod lorry was not at the time oe the
1 claming of the publics roadway. The company's servant
' had no duty imposed on him with regard to Messrs. Creme
Gelds private gate, and even if he had it was only to open
and shut the gate. If the plaintiff's man trusted to
McGrath's cautiou, he trusted to him individually, and not
the svonpany's servant.
Mr. Justice Lush—Suppose when McGrath was called
'that he had declined to mower
Mr. James—Then there would have been no muse of
action against the defendants.
The Lord Chief Justice said it was an important point
that was now rained by the company, and he thought there
should be a rule.
Kale granted. _