The Express.
London, England, 1854-01-16 00:00:00

should be ezuneely sorry if It contained say impressions
Much might be considered disrespectful.
Bale absolute for a commission to be issued within four
days, and returnable in one month.
t. Tilt MIDLAND RAILWAY costrany.—LlA2l.
Little or RAILWAY cONTAIIIIR.
This wr an Mies Might by a mamercial traveller Se
imam the value of • prhaelatm4 whiles he gilled be had
lost through the mortise of the defendants esgmeile.
This case was tried befog. Awed Campbell at the AIM.
after last term In thiamin, wheat the damn ei*
that the plaintiff at the time urban he data be ha
Tend the portnienteau to the gempany, wry ntablehel
that he did not know whacks was Msg. sty add
for the plaintiff for 161.
Mr. K. Macaulay now moved for a shie he a view trial
en the ground that the verdict wee agaimbalimea.
Lord Campbell said the verdict 'acmel9lllllll9l9
it was not • perverse verdict, as se
involved in the case, and the character dimpormei
gervaats would not be at all injured by the lit ; the mart
would abide by the general rule that no me trial would be
'mated when the sum recovered was less num 201.
Application refused.
DOWDILL V. /RR ROYAL WAIL STRAW NAVIGATION
00IITARY.--ALLIOND NVIDLRICrioN.
This was ea einem brought by the plaintiff, who had
formerly beam • press Is the empleyment of diefeselahtsy
for an hapeepsr diemlermi. Thea ahem wall that be had
elselled the Iserd "hft • Sae
as te half seal m Mla salet the=arellisey.
On the trial before Lord Campbell la this entre, the jury
reamed a verdict for the plaintiff for 401.
Mr. Macaulay now moved for a rule for a sew trial, os
the grounds of misdirection, and that the verdict was against
evidesce.
The court granted a rale nisi.
TONLINS V. GARRETT:VALI INTRUIONNINT.
L this ems the plaintiff had recovered 401. damages for
false imprisonment. Both the plaintiff and the defendant
resided at Great Stanmore, in Middlesex, and on the trial a
great number of witnesses were called to prove that the
defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that the
pia atilt had been in the habit of receiving geode which
had been stolen from his shop.
Mr. fierjeant Wilkins moved for a rule for a new trial, on
the ground that it was a perverse verdict.
Lord Campbell having expend kin dissatisfaction of the
verdict,
The ems graatoil• tab di
- RIME 9. 9119911.1--LISIIL.
This vie is sedis lissially limbs the Mom Po'
pieta: el IMWaif sesippaissesser Wei •
labourite' w Imo boss la fa is
the atossew neimisper. ale bed WO
lag is the plaintiff dhow awe be than seSZ
esessity he costs.
The Attorney-Oenerel, RR sopa dila tre
be ad not intend to mimes the
sira
he was Gentled to the into tithe in
that at the time it was nob the bit ea
Ns
a Milne that Ma lash ridded is beast,
be all dos amid Odle llwl is England.
Lo;d Coos:Manirsiler. Birch was entitled to his
mete, as he could ems gpemed for departing from the go-
send rah that the oft snit be paid by the party wiles
had made the appIIMMISMISImat sußcient ground.
Rule discharged Ma ads

BAIL COURT.--BATURDAT.
smug" AT PM TRITS-111011011 AM ANTICS WIORTYAN LTD OMNI
MIL

ATTOIXIT.
This was an as been* by the plaintiff, who is a
smith sad bell-ha the defendant, who is an
articled ink, to mow lion in damages hr
karats amealsed by his idle of a suit at law by nano
the dehadans. repressailsig
but se bo two enemey,
anal eadeneldep &hurl Mink but melseiren to de so.
Nr.lrs=a 101 as *INK
Ithe
s earned ham the elelenset d tbe plaintiff that in
Da he had • lane he It pun el sone preniam, for which
he wee Is pay a renal a SOL per annum. sad in which he
sus lid ea his Mohan. In 1848 the and was desirous
edhaildlag en nee of the had which was held by the
=sea the piehitlf spend to take WI. for it. The
bad ales dime min wadi fin his landlord, who thus,
at the aid of 111411 was isdebled to hint in the sum of
NIL Ia esmegususeel this the plidatiff did not pay his rent
suppeeng that it would be paid out of the 1001. In 1852,
larreser, an action a iiivelniat was Ineught against him to
meow possuisa et she promisee. Hs was at the time
=le delag sum we for the defendant, and as the
hlmeif to beme attorney, he applied
to him to dsierrelithe sides. TM defendant said be would
mss, and the plalatidr pre hie ep the parrs in the
assiter, Some tine On the plaintiff 'mind notice to the
Abet thatj %Ida meat Ind pme by default, and that the nest
day mention would igenev and that if he did not give up
possession, his goods would be list into the road. The
plaintiff took this notice the meet 11117 to the defendant, who
said it was all right, and thee he used not be afraid, and
that he would use to it. Ines be returned home, he dosed
his wife and childr n and pub turned into the street The
plaintiff had lost his bristles, end was now obliged to suss as
a pauper.
Witnesses wen sailed Is support of the plena:ire case.
The cue for the defence wee that on the action of eject-
ment being bee tight the defendant, who was an articled
clerk to Mr Young, said be would are if hie office would
undertake the defenee. The defendant's Saar, however,
declined to do se, and he told the plaintiff to call on him is
the evening for the papers. The plaintiff neglected to de
so, but came the neat day and said that the defendant bed
neglected his business. The defendant told him he wrest
an attorney, and that if he had any defence he bad better
take out a RoWellane. The plaintiff had not &IN se, but
told the defendant that he had been advised not to pro.
cud any further, but to look to the defendant for compen-
sation.
The defendant hating been called in tit;t-rt of this
CAW, contradicted the statement made by the plaintiff.
Mr. Lush replied.
Mr. Justice Wightmen, in summing up, left it to the
jury to say which aide they believed, and said that if they
found for the plaintiff, they must give such damages astbsy
causidered he was entitled to.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, TX

11311 P T V.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—SATuatimr.
011111101 111 11/110C0.—strose 41111EF JCITICIL !WM, ■e. !Ca

ll tl'l I, IN. !MICA CNAAARIAA, AND I. JCITICi wa.uots.
NAIIONNT O. KILCLIL—PILINCIPAL ♦ND AGENT.

The plaintiff in this ease is a provision merchant in Lon-
doe, and is also agent for Messrs. Vacher and Tilley, who
are in the ume business at Morlais, in Prance. These
gentlemen were pone time ago in want of a person to peek
and prepare provisions for the Lucke market, and the
plaintiff was engaged, at 30s. a week, to go to Moils:ix for
that pupae. The agreement was in sintleg, and the de-
fendant signed it for Mesas. Vacher end Tilley. Soon
afterwards the plaintiff was discharged, and he now seed
to recover damages, upon the ground that he hal been im-
properly discharged ; and his case was that the defendant,
in signing the agreement for his foreign principals, had
made himself personally responsible. The case was tried
before Mr. Justice Cringe/ell at the last London sittings, '
and his lordship was of opinion that the defendant was not
liable, and ho directed a verdict for him upon the first
issue, but he left the question of damages to the jury, in
cue the court should be of a different opinion.
Mr. Temple, Q-C,, now moved to enter a verdict for the
plaintiff for the damages assessed by the jury, pursuant to
blue reserved; and he submitted that the judge was
wrong in directing a verdict for the defendant.
Rule refused.

ORAHAn AND OTllitti C.
LAWS. _ .

This was an action by the assignees of a bankrupt named
Esrey, to recover the value of some geode bought by the
defendant of the bankrupt for about 2501. The sheriff had
seized the pronerty in question under five executions, and
the defendant paid out these executions and bought the
property of the sheriff. The cue for the pl►intifs was that
this transaction was not a bona fide one, but had been en•
tired Into in contemplation of bankruptcy and to defeat
the creditors, and upon there and other grounds it was now
sought to upset it. The case was tried at the last sittings ia
London before Mr. Justice Cresswell, and the verdict was
for the plaintiflb for 330/. 16s.
Mr, Montage Chambers, Q.C., now moved for a new
trial, upon the groucd that the verdict was aginst the evi•
duce, and misdirection. The learned counsel went through
the circumstances of the case, and admitted that they did
not support the verdict. As to the misdirection it was MA-
milted that his lordship ought to have told the jury that
under the statute of Elizabeth there was no evidence for
them of tits treseasties being fraudulent, instead of leaving
the ease Ow Air Asides.
The court Wu et opinion that there bad been no n.ia-
direction, and that the verdict wan warranted by the
evidence.
Rule refused.
Jarvis r. curros, Enzorriv.—.ACTlON TO RICO
DAMAO'S TOR A ITOL•CHOr CONT!ACT,

The phtintifiathi;UUscU7stinse ago bought by elu-
tion of the defendant, Sir Robert Clifton, • quantity of
tuber, then standing in Clifton-grove, and the plaint►ff
proceeded to cut it. In this, however, he wn interrupted
by the defendant's spats, upon the ground that ha had
Oa a quantity of timber, which he had net limed and
Sts pu.sat action was brought to recover damages la ace-
sammene tithe plaintiff not being permitted to go on cut-
*sibs timber wording to the contract. The cue was
Wisil bane the Chief 7 since at the List sittings in London,
psi dm verdict was fur the &imam& upon two of the

TM Atkemplasseral sow mend tee san trial woe
As pont el askikekits. Oa, of the Ws el Umber par.
aimed b Gs *WI was membered U, pad the tree ia
SOW midi sum sew mee issalbei as MI/
_marhBd
gbitalasSafisbatei. Same question vm mind ia the
esekis.m as m tress S. them km M
mot the -
ibm this te the mbar easiltkaaof
sale. " list the puaddleniessi eet lots 48, 62, 611, ead.=
Ulm olkilat MD Stir Mies au sa besed be the
b 7 lhalmlbeeses. If Ow Isom talk
Imo Tui we. i solo mum um several of the mt-
Cm sisals, bat k l
oairl ewd dig it wild,: ,zr.=
essissit. By simobs, sisweves, W. silod
or pit i Os Mist ear ea ism vs is
• was IL US* semi sf as UM la *Aim-
, we sob Is IllissiaO mini W
sal No iselismies
dolled Is soak
ss O. bins um salloblid le Os
Os OW Mi swum& whim Oil=
NM ON Ors NO be aam WC