The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-12 00:00:00

?Lau) intelligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YEATELDAT.

SISTIPue tall

Lath e.wratit, ♦+O lCs:1:1111

OOTT V. OANDY.-LAW OP LANDLORD AND PRNANT.

This Can tame before the court on a demurrer to the
declaration. The declaration stated that the plaintiff was
the tenant of the defendant, holding under a yearly tenancy
a worksh.p and other premises, and that during the time
of his occupation a chimney had bee .me out of repair, and
in consequence of the landlord's We at to repair it had
falfen down and injured the plaint.ii'm property. This de-
claration was demurred to on the itround that there being
no epecial contract as to repairs between the partite. the
lanolord was not h:rund to keep the chimney in repair, nor
was he therefore liable for the edosetjaerdes of its being
out of repair.
Mr. Unthank supported the demurrer.
Mr. Rumen, for toe plaintiff, contended that this was an
entirely new cose and there being no authority in point it
must be governed' by the principle that a person must be
liable for the consequeoc.a of an injury which it was in his
power to prevent.
Lord Campbell said the declaration was bad, unless it set '
out fact' from which the duty alleged' might be implied;
for the allegation !host the defendant had c immitted an act
which was contrary to his duty amounted to anthing at all.
But whence could it be implied that the defendant was
bound to repair on request ? There being no contract, the
ploiatiff was bedittd to make out the obligation. Mr. Rua-
sell allowed that this was the first time in which it had been
attempted to throw such an obligation en • landlord, and
he found no vise io the books and no diction in the test
writers to prove that there was each en obligation. Neither
had he been able to adduce any principle from which any
such obligation could be inferred. Ile had therefore failed
in proving the affirmative, for which he contended. It was
clear that although substantial repairs were not to be done
by the tenant, without an express contract, under • tenancy
Pram year to year, there was no obligation on the landlord
to repair. Ha (Lord Campbell) dot not think that, under
the tircumstences here stated, the plaintiff could put him-
self in the position of being one of the public en whom the
chimney bad fallen, he being well aware of its condition and
laving had ample opportunity to escape from it
Justices Coleridge and Elle concurred.
Judgment for the defendant.

IIITT:448 AT MIDI 1%104 111 UNIDOI.-111LFIRE
WIOIIIIIAII AIM A /LAIN

PIA V. CAeL.—ACTION On AN •ITOKNIT'S BILL.
This was as action brsught to recover 44!. Se. 4d., the
helms of se attorney's bill, and the defence was that the
plaintiff had agreed to do the work for 201, sad as to 71.
10s. there was a plea of tender.
Mr. Atherton, (,) C. and Mr. Lush appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant %%Holes and Mr. Barnard
for the defendant.
It appeared that in August, ISI9, a person who held a
minims upon some property of the defendant, for 1,6001.,
pressed for payment of his money, and he brought an action
of ejectment, and commenced a chancery suit to foreclose.
Mre.Ceee so* •thaious to teaser.; the mnrtgsge townie other
person, end she inserted ea advertisement in the newspapers,
which was answered by Mr. Peach, who is an attorney at
Berkhanertead, and he saw Odra. Case on the 17th lfee.
After some preltsaioaries, Mr. Peach was eogaged as solid-
toe to Mrs. Cabe, and through his means the mortgage was
transfened, sad the action of ejectment and Chancery suit
were put an end to. Accordieg to the plaintiff's rase, he
serer agreed to take a specific sum for doing them things,
and he therefore claimed hie ordinary costs. The defend-
ants cam, however, was, that else mentioned to his the
ease of a Mr. Tracey, a claimant of the Tracey peening,
and he offered, if, through her introduction, Mr. Tracey
should become his client, that he would do her work, at
drat it was s sid (or nothing, but suhsequeatly it was agreed
that he should litre •al. for it. The evidence upon this
point was very contradictory, as also was the evidence
which referred to • tender of 71. 10s., the question being
whethor it was • conditional or an ithcond.fional trader.

The jury, after cassias/Mg the matter for some time in
private gave their decision for the plaintiff on both points,
and • ;enlist was entered for the amount claimed.

BAIL COURT.YEATERDA T.
PITTIOW IV BANCO. -- SlllOllll !IBMS (SWINTON.

11. lIIWILZT.-SLANDTIL

The declaration is this cues stated that the plaintiff was a
trader, and had bees slasdered by the defendant is his
trade, and alleged special damage. The defendant pleaded
that a former action had bees brought agsitut him for the
same grievance, in which be had obtained judgment is his
hvour. - - . . . . .

Mr. Hall now moved for judgment for the plaintiff on
the production of the record. The declaration in the first
action alleged that the defendant bad imputed felony to the
plaintiff, bat did not allege special damage.
Mr. Justice Crompton thought the eterges in the two de-
elaratiuns were different.

Mr. Cowling said the record having been produced, the
question was whether it did not make 'out the issue raised
by the defendant's plea. He contended that it did so, as it
was by no means necessary to show on the face of the retard
that the grievances in both actions were the same. It was
enough to show that they might be the same. A person
vers could not bring soon than one action for • single
El
Mr. Justice Crompton was clearly of opinion that there
*Wit to be judgemest fee the plaintiff. An action for
words imputing felony could not be the MIN as an action
for words spoken of a person as a trader. He considered
that the charges were distinctly different.
Judgment for the plaintiff.

IN I i aN •ITORNIT.—PILOVII6SIONAL ZTIQUITTN.
Mr. Wilde moved for • rule to strike an attorsey of the
rolls under the followiog circumstances:—At the Middlesex
Semiens a brief upon which there was the name of an
attorney we. handed to counsel fur the prosecution of a
prisoner. An the attorney was not present at the time the
Militant Judge directed inquiries to be made, and the
Clerk of the Peace accordingly wrote to the attorney re-
quirieg to know by whom he had been instructed. The
answer of the attorney was, that professioaal etiquette
would not allow him to give the party'e name, bat le
thought it was the wish of the legislators that any ea*
might render seeirtance in the adasisietratisa of *eke.
Mr. Justice Crompton thought it was ea Imprefiee pre-
lim, hut the court below had the remedy fa its own hands.
It might have refused to allow the attorney his eels, tad
that would teach him to be wi.er another time. This mart
however could sot interfere.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERIMT.
erfTfliOS. II WM. WO= CNIBF JL TCI MM.!, 7171T1C1

MAULS, 111. ltatlti WILLIAM. An, Xt. 1,11, B TALtOrltD.
TUrrlti r. NIWTON.—ACTION Tull A PANALTY.

This was an action brought in the county court of Kent,
to recover a penalty of 601. from the defendant, which
penalty was ineurrsd by him for having on the 7th Nay,
1853, acted as a paving and lighting commissioner of Herne
Bay, without being duly qualified. The act creating the
commission was the 3 and 4 Wm. IV., cap. 105, and this
set stated that any person rated io Herne Bay upon an
amount exceeding 501. should be qualified to act as a corn.
salallaoSef, but it was provided that certain oaths mast
be takes, and there ware several things named which
should disqualify persona from acting as commissioners.
la eibilden to this the llth motion of the act stated, that if
any penes not being qualified as aforesaid, or having ceased
to be qualified, or not having taken and subscribed the
oath", lit being disqualifies!, should act as a commissioner
in the emeettiee el the set, each persons should forfeit 501.
to be resevered is as action of debt ; and the person sued,
if qualified, should prove his qualifiation. At the trial,
the plaintiff proved that the defendant acted as a commis-
Mosier, on the 7th May, 1853; and the defendant proved
thet be was a rate-payer on an amount exceeding 601. It
was admitted that the defendant was not affected by any
disqualifying section. The attorney for the plaintiff re-
quired the defendant to prove that he bad taken the oaths ;
bat the judge Mild that that was not necessary, and that
it was net musesary that any evideoce should be
gives by the dedendant, except that he was a ratepayer on an
mesa wreaks/ 601., and that he was not affected by the
disqualify* 'INNS. The question for the court was whe-
ther the Comity Court Judge was right in the direction
which be had given.
The Court, without hearing the cue through, decided
that the judge below was deafly right, and therefore that
the appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed with costs.

WALLIS AND A:4O TUN MANCIIZATEIL,
AND LINOOLNSHIAS RAILWAY CO AAA N A .-KAILWAY AC•
010• NT.

This was an appeal from the county court of Lincolnshire.
The am sent up stated that the plaint:lfs filed a plaint
against the defendants, sad by their part.culars claimed to
mover , the value of two hones which had been killed
or 'seriously injured on the defendai.u.' tine, in consequence
of the defendants, their agents, or servants, having left
open a gate through which the hours pissed on to the rail-
way, and sneered the injuries complained of, and • sum of
money wee also claimed for the expense of trying to
recover the horses. The case cams on t.r trial, and the fol-
lowing facts wire proved: The plainr.tf. were fanners at
Torksey, in Lincolnshire, and they formerly had two horses
is • tied through which there wm • highway, but this way
wee crowed by gates which formed part of the plaintiffs'
fence. It happened that ese of thew gates was left open
by some body who had passed through, and the hones
strayed into the common road. About 100 yards off *al the
gateway of the railway-etatico yard, which was so con-
structed that it would shut of itself unless kept open
by something ; but it was proved that the gate
freque•tly was opts. Tbe bones went into the station
yard is the afternoon, but were turned oat by the cola-
patsy's sensate. Afterwards, however. they went is again.
sad were accidentally locked is at sight. It happened that
a portion of the railway fees* bad bees taken down to
remove some good., and the banes pared through the
opening, on to the lase, where they were ran against by •
train. It was contended that the &Sealants were liable to
make pod the lose of the bosses, In eassequence of their
gate bang open and their ferns dews; but the defendants
sabmiter4 that there was no ems is go to the jury. The
jingo refined to arnamit, and left the matter to the jury,
who head for the plaintiffs foe the 101.34 t claimed. It wee
now submitted to their lordships, ea behalf of the defend.
ea's, that the musty mart judge ought to have deeded
that there we as case M ge to the jury, sad to ham entered
a aaassiu
Kr. Maims appeared fee the **Wats ; aid Mr. Cany
he Me mapeadsam
The Owl Mob thee to swift the sailat.

COURT OF EXCHEQUEIt—ThrnazDAT.

sr ATMW IM ISA,CL-1111/01111 TIM OM/ sawn., as. taIION sum,
alWa Al 1,“401, AUU NIL 11•11131 PLATT.
LARIS C. BACIIILUS, —PATIN? MANVIIII.
This wos an action to recover entapeasaties in damages
for the infrtegernent of a patent for the manufacture of
artiii:isl manure in the form of pkaaphate of lime frees
mineral substances, by the use of salphuric acid. The maim
question for the consider►tion of the court was whether the
oisoovery was a novelty, a similar process having bees pro-
pounded by Liebig some years before the plaintiff obtained
his patent, in a treatise on agricultural chemistry. as also
by Dr. Bockland in his Bridgewater Treatise. The chief
value of the manure was in the cultivation of turnips, as it
is supposed to prevent the ravages of the turnip fly. At the
trial before the Chief Baron the verdict was found for the
plaintiff on some of the issues, and for the defendant on
others. Cr we rules were subsequently granted, with a
view of tendering a bill of exceptions, the judgment of the
court being regarded as the ruling of the judge at nisi
prism.
Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. M. Smith, and Mr. Aspland, were
heard for the defendant in showing cause ; and
Sir F. Keily haying addressed the court in support of the
role,
The court rose at the conclusion of his argument, and
adjourned the further hearing to Tuesday next, when Mr.
Batt and Mr. Orove will be heard.

ADMIRALTY COURT.—YEsmDAT.