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

trial, viz., that there should be no certificate. It was o
vexatious action, and though, perhaps, the entry might not
has been strictly iustifi ihle, the ;e: rut found t t the
geode taken did not Wong to the plaintiff.
The met of the judges concurred.
Bide refuted.
Ai. tisrem, r WILDt —LIAIIII.I re OF leettrerite.
Ties was an seem brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant, as the keep:rot an inn, rounded upon the cus-
tom of Baslaad, fee the sum of 2001., loot by his servant, a
commercial traveller, who win staying in the inn. The de-
fendant pleaded several pleas, but the only important ones
were not guilty, end that she was not the innkeeper. The
110." was tried before Mr. Baron Platt. The facts an they
ap..ared at the triai were that the mother of the plaint&
bail been the innkeeper till within about three month, be
fore the tame of action arose, when she died. The be
was 19 years of age, and bad been living in
the house duties her mother's lifetime, and toe.
tinned to do to after her death, and received the
customers who tune to the house, and acted in most re-
'Mehl as the mistress ; but the license had not been train-
fermi!, and the motheee name remained over the door, sad
was at the top of the bills. The executor, of the mother
had proved the will, but there was no evidence that they
bad in any way interfered in the management of the house.
The daughter had, in conversation, said that she would
make good the ; and three weeks after the lose, the'
license was traosferre.l to her. It appeared that the Plain-
tiff'. eereant bad taken this money out in the commercial
room, in the presager of several persons, and had placed it
in his driving-box which was locked, but with a very in-
different lock, which might be opened without a key. It
had been the custom for bl yearP, for all commercial travel-
km to leave their valuable property in their driving-boxes
in the commercial mom, when they went to bed. The
judge, in summing up the case,
had told the
jury that the traveller might have taken the
lbox up to lied with him ; and that as the
defendant was an infant, the fact of her haling offered
comp enention was no evidence to bind her; and he left two
questions to them. first, was the defendant the keeper of
the inn ? secondly, was the traveller guilty of gross uegli-
mum in leaving the box containing the property in the
commercial morn? The jury found for the defendant upon
both three questiens. A rale nisi for a new trial had been
granted upon the ground of =Wire:ethers, and that the Ter-
diet was against the evidence.
Mr. Knuwles, and Mr. Crompton, now allowed
Anse against the rule, and maintained that the law had
nit been incorrectly laid down. It was true that the
ae mg the boa in the commercial room did not withdraw
it limn the care of the innkeeper, and might not of itself
amount to gnaw negligence, but the question must be whether
all V. • facts which were proved did nut amount to some
evidence to go to the jury of gram negligence. It could not
be disputed that there might he such negligence as wont,'
tale :sway the prima facie liability of the innkeeper, and
all the eireunntances of this case must be taken into account
in Welting at the direction to the jury; thimeh a well
lathed box with money in it might be *del,' loft in the com-
mercial room, it would be very negligent to leave a roll of
bank 'inks louse upon the table. 011 the .tend point there
was nothing to show that the defendant was innkeeper.
Lord Campbell—Who do you say was the ostensible inn-
keeper ?
Mr li newlee-1 should say the executors, but it might
Ire that no perms was liable.
Mr. 'feud( rem, for the plaintiff, contended that the di-
rection of the Judge on both poiete wee. calculated to de-
ceive the jury a- to the law of the case. The box was left
where surfs property had been accustomed to be left foe 20
years, and the jury would infer that it was negligence to
leave ony valuable property in the commercial-room ; and,
though it might not be nay to say that there wan no mi.
dence of negligence, still the verdict was unsatisfactory,
and given Oil a lobe suggestion. On the other point the
deb intent held herself out as the innkeeper, and the under-
taking to pay was strong evidence of an admis-
sion of liability ; and the judge was weeetir is
withdrawing that from the conaideralies of the jury by
stating, as he Ilia, that it was a nullity because made by so
infant. Lord Campbell said he theueht the rule must be
di...barged. As to the misdirection, if the judge had inti-
mated to the jury that it was the duty of the traveller to
have withdrawn this property from the commercial-room,
that wool.' have Ism a naisdireetion ; hut he did not do
that, lie left the quettiora to them whether leaving the pro-
perty in that loin, was or woo not grins negligence., that
must be takes with reference to all the circumstances. It
would tw inipmelde to say that there might not be negli-
gence in keying property in that room. And the case
pot of leaving a puree there would surely be such a ease.
Ills thought th:r. e. evidence of grow neglieence, If it
was iteceeeary to pfe.o.l. that. Under thew circumstances the
other pint/son became unimportant ; hut if it ware not, he
could not say that the jury were wrong in the conclusion
the y Ii el maw to.
Mr. J notice Poltroon mid, when the rule was moved be
thought the mi. left to the jury that the mere
toniraien to take the but to the bedroom was grope negli-
gence, but it now tamed out that there ROA othtr evidence
111141 there mold he no doubt that the prima facie liability
of the innkeeper might he removed by negligence; and
th. re was evidence is this ease which might fairly be left to
tie- pity. The orient point was unimportant : but, if not,
it o have appeared to him more iu acrodanee with the
beta, if the jury Let found their verdict the other way.
Mr. Justice Cotentin," and Mr. J auk, Erie concurred.
Lord CompieU added, that it ',weed to him questionable
whether the puiut lies not left to the jury in a manner too
favourable for the id multi; for it was ilouhtful whether it
was necessary to show era. negligence, and whether simple
argintence would not suffice to remove the liability of the
innkeeper —Kale discharged.

HAIL COURT.—TIMITEIIDAT.
Sara s s Suaa—Daaa Ita. irtcsanue.
Ex ratan 1113.1111.—ABICULT.

In this esoe,tiseici.iiis of which have icen before given,
it being as applieation to eshihit artistes of the peace
Lpinist a Mr. folleniarte. a Inankrate of Cheshire, and in
wiorh his lord.hip had suspended indgnunt, the learned
judge now stated that the application would he 'ranted,
the ...readmit lint in hail in the country, binnult in 500 f.,
Ind two sureties to 2.51.1 f. each.

an..,. Fool P....

MONK* el AMIN O. 1/117;r117, ...it-H.171V AND LAVUEN'

_
Tau Attovt.l. Koons.
Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. Heaton, and Mr. Charnuck were
grie the plaintiff, and the Attorney-Llencrid. Mr. Lush, and
Mr. Parry fur the defendants.
This was a qni tam action to recover five penalties of 100/.
each from the defendants, for allowing dancing in the Ar-
irell.ruoins, iu Windmill-stet...et, in June, 1840, without being
dilly licensed under the 25 (100. 11., which enacted
that any person keeping a house or rooms for pub-
lic moor and dancing without being licensed
and having 11. word. '• licensed pursuant to act at parlia-
ment 24 lieo. II." over the door or in some conspicuous
place outside the premises, should be liable to a penalty of
100 . for every night during which such house or rooms
should be kept open ; to be recovered by any person who
should bring au action fur the same. The days laid in the
drelarat were the 4th, sth, tith, 7th, and Bth of June,
Iltiad. The plaintiff was a person who had been in the em-
ployment of the defendants, who were Mr. ltign,.ll, the
leper of at saloon and cigar shop in the neighbourhood;
Mr. Dryer, decorator of the rooms; and the two Messrs.
Laurent, father and eon, the one being master of the cere-
monies, and the other leader of the band.
The following witnesses were then examined.
Mr. George Bissaard, solicitor and vestry clerk of St.
James's, Wertesinater, examined by Mr. Heaton, said he
was instructed by the governors and oversees of the parish
to oppose the application for a license for the Argyll ROOM
at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions in Septeisber, 1849.
He attended accordingly on that occasion, but the counsel
who appeared for the proprietors of the rooms withdrew his
application. At the next semipro, in Itt'Sk he again at-
tended to oppose a similar application, but the magistrates
granted a license.
Croso.examined by the Attorney-Ocncral—His opposition
in 1819 was unsuccessful. The magistrates were almost
unantruous iu granting the license; only two or three
opposed it out of 21 magistrates.
J3llll. Gregg. beadle at the sessions, gave similar tes-
timony.
Mr. John Willis. formerly a police-constable, examined
by Mr. 1.31AM1W111.-11 was employed by Mr. Dryer on the
19:11 October, 1819, to attend the Argyll Dooms to keep out
disorderly persona, prostitutes and pickpockets. At the
tome I was employed Mr. Dryer told me that he made the
engagement on behalf of Mr. Christopher Drown, whom
he represented to be the proprietor of the rooms. I often
saw Messrs. Dryer, Laurent, and Dignell in the rooms, but
only Use former took any part in the active management of
the roans 'rho rooms were always conducted with strict
order, and can was taken to observe propriety and deco-
rum in those who attended. The TOMS were open from
eight o'clock tall half-past eleven o'clock every night. I
recollect a grand ball taking plate on the sth of June, 1849,
Mews Dryer and Bernell were thew that night, but I did
net UM them give any directions.
Crelowusalaed by the Attorney-Oeneral-1 knew Mr.
Chridepher leura. lie was the lessee, but I net ing 1
whether he had the management of the rams. I law ems
him there, taking pert in the management. Mr. Beyer
acted oe director of the proceedings, and I believe he ern
cued the deseratioas. On the night of the gran ball tie
mesas wen roviessrated by Ms. Dryer. Me. ing,lna,i,
was the leader of the band. Evaything was moaned la
the Nom will whet propriety sad deeeney.
Itiamed FriMels-1 knew the Argyll Rooms is Great
Wiwiniarat lam a printer, sailprinted the porting
bib ler these reams. I reeneet the ith of Jane) lin. I
ponied Mlle ter that day, bat I I. on know
now period. I have pet • bill ter the ball, wgilite
* dieseilen at Mr. Ryser, bat I saw anther Mw
use Kr. lo mat &bag it. The teeamuer of tie Ink%
lb. Beyer. an* pig sae. I oleo plated • agaill 11E
Ihr the vein* Amelia of lb. kw. I pitied Ha *be
on boteroaa Weber, ISte, sang August, Isso.
Onseannowl y MIS AMlllarrOsionl-1 was lila
Waas behalf of lir. Christina lbw% and I della
wa the ant at the hills is wry boaeggirs.
Cleans llindisrgele—l was m mad amagainag
• Ihe - la the ow", of IWO, and idle Hal
iletrAneee ism lit tom* mai bile with Mr. Imalloodla
abuse the
lb. lola err—Who Janis?
Thu ApeoaThe ,it *WM amp Li*
Mr. Obetabsto—lQs. He dies nut tome Itawssi I Its
*Om
Tbe AgettotOeserel—Ot foam not. Me mass hoe
wad lkor gala. A lwagh.)
Miaow rid had-bees at the rams tea hat he dill
• m go fa; it was begin the deed* begaa.
Albleati-Osaeral—Yes may go back to Flora, Mr.
1, bat WIN, listing, tell la who is lambs ?
lle mem always Wu a ratlema to sot, bat
Ism not clever wish to my whether he has any prase-