The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-06 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,

POWELL V. BRADBURY asp EVANS.—The Attorney-Ge-
neral, in the came of " Powell against Bradbury and Evans,"
tried before the Lord Chief Justice in, London, on the Bth of
July last, in which a verdict was found for the plaintiff for
5001. damages, moved for a rule to chow cause why
that verdict should not be set aside, and a new
trial had, on the grounds that the verdict was against
the evidence, and the damages were excessive. It was an
action of assumpsit, the plaintiff alleging that he had entered
into an engagement with the defendants, the proprietors of
the Daily Newt, to serve them faithfully in the character of
sub-editor, at • given rate mentioned in the declaration-
-151. a week ; and the declaration alleged a wrong diereimal.
The defendants pleaded, first, non assumpsit ; secondly., that
they did not wrongfully, and without resaonable and pro-
bable cause, dismiss or discharge the plaintiff from their
employment, modo et forma ; and, thirdly, they alleged the
special grounds which induced them to dismiss the plaintiff,
which grounds were set forth fully in the plea, in which the
defendants alleged that before the discharge or dismissal
of the plaintiff, he had in his capacity of eub.editor,
and at the special request of a certain William
;
Alfred Wareing, who was also employed as a condenser,
or general assistant in the same office, written a letter
to a correspondent in Bristol, likewise named Powell,
directing him to send up for publication in the newspaper,
a report of certain proceedings which were expected to be
instituted in the district Court of Bankruptcy at Bristol, in
the matter of a certain bankrupt named Smith. In conse-
quence of that application, Powell of Bristol forwarded a
report of the proceedings in Smith's case. The report
reached the office of the Daily News in due course, and on
the same day there arrived a letter addressed by Mr. Smith
to the defendants, apprising them that Wareing had a feel-
ing of personal animosity towards him, that he had openly
heisted that he would procure the publication in extenso in
their newspaper of an account of his (the writer's) pecuniary
difficulties, and finally entreating the defendants not to
permit their paper to be made a vehicle to gratify private
feelings of vindictiveness and malevolence. The miscon-
duct which the defendants alleged against the plaintiff
consisted in this, that, being fully aware of the existence of
a strong feeling of personal animosity between Smith and
Wareing, he did, without the consent or privity of the de-
fendants, deliver over to the said Wareing the report fur-
nished by the Bristol correspondent, in order that IV arcing
might prepare from it an account of the proceedings in
Smith's case, and might so have an opportunity of
gratifying his feelings of revenge. In the second place
they attributed misconduct, in his having suppressed the
letter of Mr. Smith, instead of submitting it, as he was in
duty bound to have done, to the consideration of the de-
fendants. The plea alleged that the plaintiff had permitted
" a garbled, partial, unfair, and improper abridgement
of the cue" to be inserted in the newspaper. The
Attorney-General said that plaintiff, at the trial, bad
spent one-half of his time very usefully in proving the dis-
missal, and the other half very needlessly in giving evidence
to show what the duties of a sub-editor were. On the
latter point he (the attorney-general) should not then touch,
for he held it to be wholly immaterial to the issue ; but he
would confidently rely on this fact, which he held to be in-
controvertible, that at the trial he had proved, to the very
letter, every single allegation contained in the plea, with the
exception of that which referred to the garbling of the report.
The Lord Chief Justice: The note I made at the trial was
" I think this verdict wrong, and that all the plea is proved
except the allegation of the garbled acosuat."

The Attorney-General : That is just what I have stated,
my lord; and of course I will not submit further remarks on
the evidence.

The Lord Chief Justice: You had better state to the court
what the evidence wee.
The Attorney• General having proceeded at some length
into the evidence upon the trial,
Mr. Justice Williams said : I don't understand whether
the Lord Chief Justice said that it was necessary to
prove that it was a garbled report.
The Attorney-General No, my lord. But his lordship
said, "I don't think it is of the essence of the plea that this
report is a garbled report." His lordship said, " The allega-
tion that the report is garbled strikes me as not being an
essential part of the plea, but," he said, "to avoid all fur-
ther question, I wish you to give me your opinion on that
point," but the jury would not.
The Chief Justice: They thought it was not garbled.
Mr. Justice Haute: What do you understand by " gar-
bled I"—what does the word " garbled " mean ?
The Attorney-General: I apprehend it was intended that
he had not, in the fair discharge of his duty, given an
accurate condensed report, but retained portions to gratify
his animosity, which in the discharge of his duty he should
have omitted.

Mr. Justice Maule : " Garbled," I think, means leaving
in something.
The Chief Justice: I believe the word is borrowed from
the dealings of merchants; garbling in merchandise is se-
lecting the bad and indifferent.
Mr. Justice Maule There is an old act of parliament that
prohibits selling " ungrarbled " spices. You were bound to
" garble " them—that is, to select them—but when you had
garbled them the proper thing wu to sell the good.
The Attorney G,neral : In this case the converse is true.
The fact is, that he made the article too " spicy," leaving in
that part which might be hurtful to the feelings of Smith,
and leaving out everything that might be offensive to
himself, Wareing.
Mr. Justice Maule In modern times the word " garbled"
is used in a popular sense in a very loose way, applying to
any unfair dealing with words.
The Attorney-General: The best explanation is what we
attemrted to prove, namely, that he kept in everything
offensive to Smith, and left out everything offensive to him-
self, leaving his own name out of the transaction. I appre-
hend that the finding of the jury that this is sot a garbled
account, does not at all disentitle me from having a new
trial on the rest of the case, because I have a right to have
an opportunity of arguing, al matter of law, that everything
in the plea is proved except that it was a garbled report ;
nod then it would be a question for your lordships, on the
record, to state—
Mr. Justice Williams: A bill of exceptions might have
be.n tendered.

The Attorney-General: Ilia lordship told the
,fury that
they might deal with it as a special fact, it being his opinion
that it was unimportant, if the jury found all the rest of the
plea in my favour.
Mr. Justice Maule: His lordship's impression was that
the plea was proved, and that the other part was immaterial ?
The Attorney General : Yes. my lord.
Mr. Justice Maule: Then how came the verdict not to
have been found for the defendants?
. . .

The Attorney General: Because the jury chose to find it
the other way.
The Lord Chief Justice I did not direct the jury that the
plea was proved, but I left it to them to say whether it was
proved or not. Going over the several parts, I said, "It is
not material whether you find the article garbled or not,
because if you find the rest of the plea proved, and that not
Proved, it may turn out that the proof was not material."
Therefore the jury found contrary to my impression.
The Attorney-General: Therefore the matter stands
thus • The jury found a verdict against the evidence, and
against the opinion of the judge, upon five allegations, and
the sixth the judge left to the jury as matter of doubt. Upon
five allegations they found against the opinion of the judge,
and against the evidence.
Mr. Justice Maule : The Lord Chief Justice was of opi-
nion, and rightly, I suppose, that the garbling was not
material ? _ . .

The Attorney-General : No doubt, my lord.
The Attorney-General, addressing the Lord Chief Justice,
said, that even if the verdict were warranted by the evidence,
the damages were very large.
The Lord Chief Justice : 1 have no note no to that. What
did the contract allege ?
The Attorney-General: ill. a week for two years.
The Lord Chief Justice : How long had he served?
The Attorney-General : About eight months.
Mr. Justice Maule : Then there were It months remaining.

. - -
The Attorney-General : I am bound to state that, at the
conclusion of your summing up, your lordship stated that,
supposing the jury should consider that the plaintiff was
entitled to a verdict, the case was one for substantial
damages. It is not for the defendants to argue this matter
upon the question of damages; but it is a matter of the
deepest importance that they should ascertain what are the
duties of subeditors towards them ; and it is of the greater
importance, because there is another actioa pending, at the
suit of Mr. Waring, on the same ground, and the result of
this case may have a considerable influence upon the other.
The learned judges consulted for two or three minutes,
after which the Lord Chief Justice said: You may take a

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Blltings In Banco.

LANES C. THE BOARD OF ORDNANCE.—IN PROCEED-
'NOS NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN THIS AMOUNT OF COMPEN-
SATION PAYABLE TO PROPRIETORS OP LAND PURCHASED
BY GOVERNMENT, FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, WHO ARE RR-
SPONSIDLE FOR THE COSTS ?—By the sth & Gth of Victoria,
c. 94, the Board of Ordnance were empowered to take and
purchase such lands as might be necessary for the improve-
-1 ment of the arsenals and naval defences of the country.
Under the provisions of that statute, they took 114 acres of
a property is the county of Pembroke called the " Bush
estate," of which the plaintiff was trustee during the mino-
rity of the owner. A difference of opinion as to the value of
the lands between the plaintiff and the government ren-
dered it necessary that the amount should be ascertained by a
jury. According to the provision, of the statute, two of the
neighbouring justices summoned a jury to amen the amount
of compensation to which the plaintiff was entitled. The in.
quiry took place at Pembroke, on Tuesday last, when the
sum of 15,269/. was awarded, the government having pre-
viously offered 12,0001., which was declined. The justices,
however, upon being applied to for the costs incurred, re-
fused to add them to the amount of compensation awarded,
on the ground that the statute was silent upon the subject
and that they, therefore, had no authority whatever to allow
any sum for costs.
Sir F. Kelly, Q.C., who represented the plaintiff at the
iuquiry before the justices, moved yesterday fur a rule
calling on the defendants to show cause why there
should not be a new inquiry. Another jury should be
directed to include in their estimate of the amount of com-
pensation to which the plaintiff was entitled the costs neces-
sarily incurred in bringing the case before them.—The
learned Attorney-General, who was counsel for the defen-
dant. objected to evidence as to costa being received by the
justices ; so that a great injury would be done if the present
application was not acceded to. In fact, the only mode in
which the question could be properly raised was by an appeal
to this court in the shape of an application like the present.
The expenses sought to he recovered were those of the sur-
veyors who bad surveyed the property in question, some of
wham lived in London, and were obliged to attend as wit-
nesses at Pembroke; also counsels' fees, &c., all of which
the plaintiff was obliged to pay. The Board of Ordnance
were, perhaps wisely, vested with very extensive powers ;
but it never could have been the intention of the legislature
that the necessary expenses to which a claimant who was
thus deprived of his property was subjected in making out
his claim for compensation should not be paid.
Mr. Baron Rolfe observed that on looking at the 22d sec-
tion of the statute he perceived the court might require the
party. making such an application as the present to give
security for costs. That was the only provision in the sta-
tute for the payment of costs, and it seemed to him probable
that the legislature had intended that costs should not be
allowed in any other case.
Sir F. Kelly : It is quite clear that the owner of those
lands was just as well entitled to the costs he was obliged to
incur in asserting his rights as he was to the compensation
awarded. It appeared a sum of 3,0001. more than was ten-
dered was estimated as compensation, and all evidence as to
the expenses incurred was re)erted ; so that they were not
included. It would be a manifest injustice if the plaintiff
was subjected to payment of the costs.
The Lord Chief Baron said that, in all probability, the
omission in the statute was at the suggestion of some
subordinate official, who had heard of the rule that the
' crown neither pays nor receives costs inlitigation with the
1 subject; a rule which he (the learned judge) should say
would be certainly unjust to apply to the present case.—A.
rule nisi was granted.
NOBLES O. ATIENBOROUGH.—IMPLIED WARRANTY IN
THE SALE OP GOODS BY AUCTION.—This case was tried
before Mr. Baron Platt on Wednesday last, when a verdict
was entered by consent for the plaintiff for 17 guineas, leave
having been reserved to have it entered for the defendant.
The question involved was whether, on a sale of a chattel,
the vendor gave an implied warranty that he had a right to
sell it. The declaration which was in case stated that the
plaintiff bought a harp. of the defendant, who represented that
he had a good legal right to sell it, whereas it subsequently
turned out that he had not, and the result was the plaintiff
was compelled to give it up to the real owner. It
appeared that the harp, which was hired by a Mr. Foley
of Mrs. Chappell, the well known ramie-seller, was pledged
by him with the defendant, a pawnbroker, in Orford stmt.
It was not redeemed on the expiration of the stipulated time,
and the defendant then sent it in the ordinary course of busi-
ness to Messrs. Debenham and Stores, the auctioneers, of
King-street, Covent-garden, to be sold, as an unredeemed
pledge. The plaintiff purchased the harp for 15 guineas.
Some time afterwards it was claimed by Mrs. Chappell, who
brought an action fer it against the plaintiff, who, finding he
could not successfully resist the proceedings, gave ugthe harp
and paid two guineas for costs. The present action was
sought for the recovery of that sum, together with the price
paid for the harp. The question of law having been thus
raised,
Mr. Martin, Q.C., moved yesterday for a rule calling on
the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict entered for him
should not be set aside, and a verdict entered for the defend-
ant. Ho cited several authorities to show that on the simple
sale of a chattel no warranty whatever was given.
The Lord Chief Baron observed,
nidton:bthohteoe7.bycolodfauressans:
yvarteclleftachiinnet
tbarg.heirhrdi.eitntw,i7thacodtecuihi:wdoofthulhisdat beabtr.suairp.deserisaidiad
of selling it, warrant at least that he had a right to sell it.
It seemed to him, and to the other members of the court,
that the cases cited had no direct bearing on the question at
issue; however, it was desirable that no doubt should exist
upon a point of such importance, and, for the purpose of
discussing it, the rule should be granted.—Rule nisi
hooortagly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commlodoorr Pane.
IR RR FREDERICK RICKETTS AND THEVENEN J.tS(ES.
—CITT MERCITANTS.—Thess bankrupts, who were careen
on businees in Moorgatestrett, and whe have been en
in several partnerships, the last one being Ricketts,
Enthoven, and James, now came up to pass their last exami-
nation. There were balance-sheets showing how each part-
nership stood, and the following is a espy of the joint
balance-sheet of Ricketts and James, which will show the
true state of affairs from April 30, 1816, to Jan. 23, 1847.
100. Cs.
To creditor. .1=2.563 16 I Debtor, rood t 11.5 IS 6
Do. bolding I.:curdy 6,4e1 13 4 Do.. doubtful 3.543 412
hekntßinf to Rh, Propa t) at 265 0 11
Setts Intbosen, and 1b..0
Co 3.979 3 1 Do.. in hand, of enrdl.
Unbidden 10,270 4 11 ton, Available 5.,X10 0
Do., on account of Do., do., uncertain— AUDI 0,
RI •IE rtIA, Minorco. Lorwe 1,110 1 0
and Jame.. 37.500 11 5 Expo.. . ... 4,186 If IS
Rickane Capital 11.0)3 1 1 Amount drawn ... of
Protita 4733 4 7 Jan.% 6,112 14 19
Bleketta,lD;rltOrni:rgia
JllBlOl, balance, Te-
mpt, a,.J
boor n^count . •.. 6.009 16 11
Lialdlitor lkr contra.. 10.270 4 U
Total ..... 4 3 Tre.ll. ...... 4 3
•

...
The separate balance-sheet of Frederick Ricketts extends
over a period of three years, and shots that he owes to cre-
ditors 35.0761., and creditors holding security 27,5251.; lia-
bilities, 19,2001.; good debts, 2,9061.; doubtful, 4,.5081.;
property available, 6,3691.; ur.certain, 10,4291. ; capital,
41,3661. ; and profits, 45,965/. ; the knees being 18,144/., and
tra:e and domestic expenses 19,3001. Several other items of
• minor character appear upon the balance-sheet, milking a
total of 175,6261. The balance-sheet of Trevenen James,
embracing the same period, shows a total of 69,120/. 19s. 7d.,
including debts and liabilities to the extent of 11,0001., and
assets stated at about 3,0001., capital and profits nearly
28,0001., and losses and expenses between 17,0001. and
18,0001.—The trade assignees and the ofli :lid assignee ex-
pressed themselves satisfied of the accuracy of the accounts,
and the bankrupts were declared to have paned their last
examination, and the 20th of December next was appointed
for both bankrupts to apply for their joint and separate cer-
tincates.—Mr. Lowrance appeared for the bankrupts, and
Isle. Tilsan as solicitor to the fiat.

IN on W. L. Divine.—A 6140 NT CAREER.—This bank-
rupt, s dealer in glass, carrying on business in Ludgate-hill,
came up to pain his last examination, and was opposed by
Mr. Lloyd.—lt appeared that the ankrupt had been in
trade only four mouths, and now owed 1,8931. Losses 5201.,
expenses about 8001., profits " none," and the assets con-
sisted of property, 3061. He had been ordered by the court
to file answers to requisitions, which, however, he had not
done; and now stated that he could tile no better accounts
than those before the court.—His Honour adjourned the
case sine die.

Jx no D. C. H. LORNEIL—Losm ON INDIA /MAIN.—
This bankrupt, who was a merchant carrying on business in
London-street, now applied for his certificate. His debts
and liabilities amount to about 34,000/., and assets very
small. The losses were stated at about 15,0901., being prin-
cipally upon Indian corn and wheat—lie was supported by
Mr. Lawrance, and being unopposed the certificate was
granted forthwith.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

ur ~o Mr.

.....
IN RE ANNE ESCHKE.—A ltustakca Or REAL
The circumstances connected with the case of this insolvent,
who applied to the court under the 118th section as a pauper,
were of a most singular and romantic description. She was
opposed on the behalf of Mr. Burton, a draper, carrying on
business at 71, Baker-street, Portman-square, on the ground
of haring contracted a debt of 331. without any probable ex-
pectation of being able to discharge it. It appeared that the
insolvent had obtained credit from Mr. Burton for drapery
on the representation that she was entitled to a considerable
sum of money, which she expected to be in the possession of
in a week or two. It was proved oa inquiry that she had
filed a hill of discovery in Chancery, with a view of ascer-
taining what amount of property had been left by her bus-
band at the period of his death, which event took place about
20 years ago, during the absence of the insol vent front England.
On her return to this country the insolvent found that two
of her daughters were under the care of Mr. Collman, a
merchant, of 31, Broad-street-buildings, who would not
allow her to have any communication with them. Having
been informed that a sum of 20,0001. had accrued to her
husband's executors from some life insurances, she endea-
voured to ascertain whether or not he had left a will, and also
whether any one had taken out letters of administration.
Success not attending her inquiries, the old lady made an
application, 17 years ago, to the then Lord Mayor (Alderman
Farebrotber) with the view of obtaining some sati.tactory
adjustment of her affairs from Mr. Coltman, which resulted
in Mr. Collman's agreeing to allow the insolvent 1501 a year,
which was continued for a period of one year and a half
only, when it was suddenly withdrawn, and all she had
to live upon for some time was an allowance from
her eldest daughter, who was married. It was afterwards
arranged that insolvent should receive a sum of 601. a year;
but by whom the money was allowed she had never been
a'le to ascertain. It was paid regularly for three yean
through the h►nds of her gen-in-law, when it was reduced to
501. This annuity was continued up to August, 1846, when
it was entirely stopped, and she had been utterly destitute
ever since. It farther appeared that one of the insolvent's
daughters had been married to a son of Mr. Coltman, and
s'ss at present residing with her husband at Vienna. Her
1 youngest daughter was also living abroad, and she believed
the allowances she had received were from her two children.
—The learned Commissioner observed, that as far as the
opposition was concerned, it was not sufficient to call for •
remand; but that the case altogether was of so remarkable
a character, as to demand further investigation. An adjourn-
ment was accordingly ordered to enable the parties to pro-
duce either the insolvent's son-in-law, his attorney, or Mr.
1 Coltman.

Before Mr. Commissioner Phillips.
IN RE JOHN BENTON.—FALSE ItIWYESENTATION.—Thia
insolvent, who had speculated in railways, had been dis-
charged on a former occasion, and had since applied to the
Bankruptcy Court, when his petition was dismissed. The pre-
sent ground of opposition was that he induced a creditor
to advance a sum of mosey, to obtain his release from prison,
on the representation that he was entitled to considerable
property, which, however, turned out to be untrue.—The
learned commissioner obacrred that the insolvent had been
in prison for • long time, and taking ail the circumstances
into consideration, ordered a remand of three months only
under the discretionary clause.

BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT.
Before IL Heath, Eat., lodge, and a Jury.
COLLINORIDO6 V. THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANT.—AILR RAILWAY COMPANIES HE
SPONIIITILE FOR Lt 00AGE STOLEN.—In this case the plain-
tiff, a journeyman currier, summoned the London and
North Western Railway Company for the sum of 191. 10s.,
the value of a desk, carpet bag, and their contents, stolen
from him at the Euston-square station.—Mr. Lewis, for the
plaintiff, said the case was one of extreme importance, not
only to the plaintiff and the railway company but to the
public at large. The plaintiff arrived at the Euston-square
terminus on the Gth of October last, in a third-class train
from Northampton, with three packages, a carpet bag, a
desk, and a box, the two former in the carriage with him,
and the latter in the luggage van. When he alighted on the
platform he gave the bag and the desk into the care of one
of the porters, while ha went to get the box, which the com-
pany's servants could not find, the porter telling him that
the company was responsible for the safety of the packages
as long as they remained in his care. The plain-
tiff found his box, but on his return found that
the porter had gone and his luggage too, and soon afterwards
learned that the bag and the desk had been stolen.—Mr.
Lewis contended that the company was in the position of
common carriers, and responsible, under the Carriers' Act,
for the safety of the goods entrusted to it. Ile cited several
cases in support of his argument. The desk contained
jewellery to the value of 131.—Mr. Russell, for the com-
pany, submitted that there was no cam to go to the jury.—
Unless the goods were regularly "bailed," the company
could not be bound by the Carriers' Act. The company,
again, could not be liable, since it had not bad possession of
the goods, for the plaintiff had them in his custody all the
way in the carriage with him. And even if it were not so,
the responsibility ceased directly the trait' stopped. If the
plaintiff then gave t.h.r.n into the care of the tympany, the
defendants must be sued as warehousemen, not as carrion ;
and, therefore, the present plaint could not stand. Thd
two last objections he had to make he thought
would be fatal to the claim. One was that in
law the company was not responsible for articles of gold,
silver, or jewellery, if they were over the value of 101. ; and
the other that the luggage was above the weight of 401 be.,
the utmost the company's act allowed third-clam passengers
to carry without extra charge. The weight of the packers
was 56110., and, therefore, the company was not liable.-1 he
learned Judge summed up, leaving the jury to determine
whether the goods were legally in the custody of the defend-
ants, whether that custody ceased upon the arrival of the
train, and before they had been carried out of the terminus ;
to decide the value of the excepted article, and the weight of
the luggage.—The Plaintiff here said that his goods were of
the weight of about 56161., and the company allowed that
weight to third. clam passengers.—The Jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff for 101. deducting the assumed value of the
excepted articles—At the close of the case, Mr. Lewis said
that though the defendants had endeavoured to avail them-
selves of their act limiting the weight of third-class passen-
gers luggage to 401b5., they stated in their time Bill that
5611”. was allowed.

LONDON SESSIONS.
Before the Recorder, Aide. Farneemb and Ilughet.
Ma. J. HARTET, APPELLANT, O. THE MATER AND COR-
PORATION OP LONDON, RISPONDENTB.—CONTICTION OF
STEAK-BOAT CAPTAINIL—There were seventeen appeals
against the conviction of the Lord Mayor, &ruing
from infringements of the by-laws made by the cor-
poration, and approved of by Mr. Baron Platt,
for the proper regulation of steam-boats plying for hire
within the limits and jurisdiction of the corporation
of London. The conviction having been read, which set
forth that the defendant did command a certain ateem-boat
called the Bridegroom, which said boat not being duly
licensed, shall forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding .51.,
Mr. Bramwell contended that the corporation possessed no
powers under the act which was parsed in the 7 and
8 Gee. IV., entitled "An Act fur the better Re-
gulation of the Watermen and Lightermen on the
River Thames, between Yantlet Creek and Windsor,"
to make such by-laws as those on which the con-
, •iction was grounded, nor did it give to the Court
of Aldermen power to license steamboats.—Mr. Ryland
having replied to the objections urged, the Recorder said
he wu perfectly satisfied that the 57th section of the act gave
the corporation of London-tie power to snake such by-laws,
while the 38th section gave the corporation the power to
license and determine upon what numbers each steam boat
should carry. —Mr. Bramwell said his next objection was that
the corporation had AO power to delegate any part of their