The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-14 00:00:00

luu-at 10.

Cheshire, Monday, Darnhall; Wednesday, Wreebury ;
Thursday, Havensmoor Windmill ; Saturday, Hurlestoms
Village—at half-past 10.
Cleveland, Monday, Guisbro' Spa; Thursday, Hazel-
grove—at halt-past 10.
Mr. Colyer's, Tui sday, Maplescomb ; Thursday, Farn-
ingham Wool; Saturday, Coldruir Lodge—at half.past 10.
North Devon, Monday, Bleb Mill; Thursday, Kempland
Crow—at half-past 10.
South Devon, Monday, the Thorns; Thursday, New Inn,
Ilsi ogton—at 11.
Mr. Drake's, Monday, Barton Common ; Tuesday, Edg-
eott Village; Thursday, Tusmore House; Saturday, Luwer
B-ddington—at a quarter to 11.
Lord E'ebo's, Monday, Copeland; Wednesday, Long-
framacm ; Friday, Ladykiik ; Saturday, Longridgo— at
half-past 10.
Essex Union, Wednesday, West Hanningueld, Com-
passes; Saturday, Crizea—at half-past 10.
F. 8., Tuesday, Peleuu Cross ; Friday, Croft West—
at 11.
Mr. Garth's, Monday., Ns w ; Wednesday, Dog-
inersfield nous: ; Friday, Er rs.eigh Bridge—at half-
post 10.
Hambledon, Blenday, Horn& an 'Village ; Wednesday,
Snakemoor l'arui; Friday, Wiinifurd Park—at a quarter to
, 11.

"A WOMAN BURNT TO DEATIL—On Saturday
night, about eight o'clock, tho inmates of the house, 7k.io.
20, Castle-street, Holborn, were alarmed by a smell of fire,
and, on catering a room orr tho fiest•floor ba.k, the body of
a sober industrious woman, named Aiding, was discovered
extended on the floor, her clothes being in a blaze. It is
supposed that the poor creature had been seized with a
and fal'en into the fire while in that state. Thg„u
Of her person was completely charred. With a. i :i..
wi-to ,' 41
brigade, the fire, which bad attacked the 1120/44- .. 'w. '
under, and the bo4y removed.] : l'-''',‘. •-1., • 'O9
-1- ":
_. .
..,..,
:-.) ;:4: f-----, 'J

\4-)

Lax Ententeence.

EQUITY COU lITS.—S %TV luny.
!asst tr• Lau Couuscuroa •so Ise I.•aw Jrmous.
Hz CROII/11Wiltr.-BANILIMPTCY.

This was 11reiiti*it,lbeobjeet of which aas to allow a
bankrupt, who was trustee °fun estate of one 'lhrimss Cro—
thwaite, ileteawd, sad which emoisted of 10.0001. iu rail-
way bowls. sad a number of Carron sharer, to sell the
latter Alit% la the market at fil mow. •ithout the inter-
venison of the eapensive asseninery of the Court 01 hank•
rui.tcy ; the b►ai.rupt to mcount for the iroceeds under his
bankruptcy.
retstan allowed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—SATuni)%T.
ammo •T $W Pali♦ •r lil ILIMAkt.I. —Baty as LOW C4111.1.11.L

411$0 C at ma
1101113111611 UT TUB COITZT.

This was the dust day cf the sittings in London. The
list tiontaiul 8$ cause., of which 12 ar. rentrocte. Twenty-
two causes are to he tried by special juries.
W ALNI!D r. Titt YUIIK AND Nonni MIDIAND RAIL-
VAT CDMVAN I.—.RAILWAT CONTANT—LIARDATT As
CAD:um'.

This was :.0 aeti brought to ri cover damages from the
defendants for negtigonee in not drlivering fish at Liverpool,
Msactoester, and Loin at the time specified in their time
talsh is. The plaintiff .s a fish sidesman residing at Scar-
borough, wh• W 4.1 in the habit of sending fish to the above
places by the defendants railway, the only one which runs
fears Scarborough. On the 3rd of September last he con-
signed •is his brother at Manchester 2.i barrels of herring,.
Ile delivered these barre:a et the Scarborough station at
9.10 a m .sal they ought to have Aeon forwarded by the
4.5 or 5.34) pm. train, SO as to arrive in Manchester on the
mine evening. Th.•y were, however, not delivered in Man-
chester until:after the elm. of the market, and thus a loss
of if. Ifs. 111. tell upon the plaintiff. On the 11th Sep-
tember he eimignad sixteen eases of fish to his agent in
Landon. Those, again, ingest of reaching town at 3 a.m.,
did nut -irrive until 1./.10 a.m., and thus a loss of 101. 10s.
was occ.i.onuAl . At another time 21 barrels were forwarded
to Liverpool, and d.il not reach their d,,tioation .until four
days after the proper date. The entire loss amounted
to 741. _ _

Mr. Knowles, Q.C., an l Mr. Cowling, appeared for the
Mr. Watson (with whom was Mr. A,Wilms) urged for
the deli•ndants that the fish-dealers of Scarborough were
greatly oeucti!etl by the railway, which emended the area
of their trait. _ _

111,41 Campbell—Arc not the defendants contractors for
the %lir!!! st.t.socc ? . _ .

Mr. Watson said that they could limit their responsibi-
lity. Bat the only question now for the consideration of
the jury was, whether or not there bad been a want of due
diligence on the part of the company ? The defendants did
not contract to send the fish by any particular train. In
fact, having lately In were/ their tariff for carrying fish, '
they had issued a handbill, giving notice that they would
not undertake to send fish by any particular train or for
env ;enient at m olo.t. The company were obliged to issue
this notice In self defence as theAsb market varied so much;
on some days u i fish would be sent, while on others a large
quantity would p.m along the line. On the 3rd of Septems
bet, already mentioned, no less than 64 tons of fish were de..
spatched along the defendants' line.
One of the superintendents of the line was celled. lle
stated that the orders were not to send more than four fish
trucks by the mail train. Upon the 3rd of thatember he
told the plaintff that the fish woult: be despatched at a late
hour by a special train on account of the quantity. It was
absolutely impossible to start them at an earlier hoar than
they did.
A clerk of the railway company stated that he gave one
of the printed handbi,is above mentioned to f'4e plaintiff.
Upon erom-examination it appeared, however, that his
anal plow of employment was at York, and that he did not
know the plaintiff personally; but when he gave the hand-
bill to Walker he (Walker) was pointed out to him by a
third party, who also was a stranger to him.
Other witness.. were called to show that every effort had
bra able by the company to effect the delivery of the fish
with as little delay as possible.
Mr. Knowles, in reply, contended that from the loose
way in which this notice or handbill was delivered nothing
could arise out of it to render this a special contract between
the plaintiff and the defendant. Tho plaintiff declared
that no such notice had ever reached him. The witness's
amosust was that he put it into the plaintiff's hand while he
was standing with a crowd of other (killers upon the Sands.
Even if this were so, the plaintiff might have taken at for
some advertising puff or another, and treated it as ens
would treat such puffs, by throwing it away without far
tber consideration.

Lord Campbell then summed up, pointing out that much
tarsal up,m the n•itieo ; the jury muNt consider, firstly,
whether it had bees served upon the defendant; if they
thought sot, they must then cousider the amount of damage
austeical. _

Th jury found that the notice was not served. Their
verdict was, therefore, for the plaintitf—dainages GO& fis.Gd.
♦ juror thou asked if a notice affixed to the walls of the
siompany's office Ismail have becn sufficient?
Lord Campbell was of opinion that it would not.
♦pryaaau—Suppose the plaintiff's attention had been
specially galled to it ?
Lord Campbell was not disposed, at that moment, to give
any farther opinion. lle thought, however, that the com-
pany would be justified in saying they would not deal with
say one who would not give a urines acknowledgment of
Midas received the soda.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-SATURDAY.
Berrusos hies u Idimos.—Baroas Clam Jtsnce ht writ
alb • Coins= Jilt.
_ _

TAR OLD WOOLWIC-11-8711;;BORM.0.11PARY O. 111 WITT.

ACCIDIVIT u c THE RITES.
The plaintiff. in this cue sought to recover damages, in
consequence of their boat the lipase having bees injured
by • smack called the Fame, belonging to the defendant.
The only plea was sot guilty.
Mr. Sarj.sut Bylu and Mr. Lush appeared far the plain.
tiff.; and Mr. Szrjeant Shee tad Mr. Ilawkina for the de-
fendant

Tho facts of the case were these. On the 14th of &p-
-lusher lost, about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, the Nish'
left London-bridge, and the Fame was at the same time
hauling out from Billingsgate. The Fame was employed
to go down below Ciraneend to meet the ordinary fishing
smacks and bring their cargoes up to Linden. To per-
form this work she carried • great deal of sail, and espe-
cially a large mainsail, with a boom about 45 feet in length,
and 10 iaches in diameter. When she left Billingsgate
the boom was over the larboard side of the vessel, at
nearly right angles, but shortly afterwards it swung
round on the starboard side in a similar manner. The
Niobe then attempted to pass her on the starboard side, but
when nearly abreast the tvvern again swung round to the
larboard side, passed over the paddle box of the Niobc,
and carried away her funnel, and injured the steam chest,
mobs% the steam escaped, and enveloped the whole of the
vessel. Unfortunately the fennel fell upon a woman, and
so injured her that she died the next day ; and several
other passengers were Injured. The amount sought to be
recovered in this action was 141., which had been paid for
repairing the damage done to the Niobe, and as she was
four days under repair the plaintiffs also claimed 20/. for
the loss they had sustained in consequence of her lying idle
during this time.
A great deal of evidence was produced on both sides.
On the part of the plsintiffs it was .said that the boom
ought to have been confined by tackle, or if not, that
there ought to have been men to take care of it, whereas
the only man aft was the man at the wheel. Oa the
ether hand, however, the evidence was that it was 11Cfet•
eery to have the boom loose, and that it had been man-
aged In the ordinary and proper manner; sad that the
&evident might have been prevented, if the Niobe had been
properly managed. One principal point in the defendant's
evidence was, that it was not the duty of the crew on board
the Fame to keep a look out behind, but that it was the
duty of the crew of the steamer to take care where tier
wont.

'N. jury, after considering the matter for a few minutes,
found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 341.

BAC/LITT V.

us 13zomtSi OP Men•

RIAOII.
This was an actioa to recover damages for a breach of
promise of marriage; it was understood to be the first case
of the kind in which money was paid into court under the
new set.

ii.l3erjt. Wilkins came into court, in the course of the
morning, and said it bad been 'arranged that • verdict
should be taken by consent for 5111., beyond the amount
paid into court.
Verdict accordingly.

BtAINZSA OF TEI COCIIT.
Thil WU the Ant day of the sittings la Loudon. The list
contained 74 causes, of which 15 were remanets, and 15
were marked for trial by special juries.
The Chief Justice said the list was unusually heavy ; he
believed heavier than had been known for years before, and
h 3 understood, that after deducting undefended muses and
those that had been withdrawn and stayed, there were still
61 bona tide CUM, which must be trieiL

COURT OF EXI
BaTINSII ♦T Nw ratos.—t

LTURDAY.

ntsLoaD elllll BLtUII •aD •

ii;;

.............. ......
SOLOMON O. MOLTN!AL'I.-A BILL TI

DY •

MINIX° BUOKER.

Mr. James and ietertdoricondueted the case fur the
p 1 tintiff, and Ks. Keane, with dr. 111'Namara, represented
the defendant.
This was an action to recover 301. on a bill of exchange,
accepted by " Molyneaux and Co." The def:ndant pleaded
that ho never accepted the bill. It appeared that the plain-
tiff is a solicitor in New Inn, whilst the defendant (formerly
of Lenience) described himself as a dealer in mines end
mining shares, and the proprietor of considerable mining
property: The plaintiff stated that he had discounted the
bill by giving 2111. in cash for it. The bill pur:sorted to be
drawn upon, and was accepted by, " Molyneaus and C 0.,"
of 31, Threadneedle-street. It was not honoured on arriv-
ing at maturity ; and the plaintiff having served process on
the defendant, the attorney of that person :ailed upon
him, and in the course of their conversed's up-
on the subject of the action, the attorney in-
formed him that there were several actions against
the defendant, hut that he would be able to settle the
matter in about two niontl4' time. Upon this statement
the plaintiff offered to give time, provided his costs were
paid, as well as a payment on account of the bill. The de-
fondant's attorney, however, refused to pay the coats, be-
gan. he maid th:y were excessive. Subsequently, at another
beterriew, the del', ntlant's attorney told him that he had
Ned lid wrong Pima, that the bat led not been accepted
kg the delbadeat, Met by Ide soh% mite were "Molyneanx
4.4 Oh; milk whisk flu the Meter hod nothing to do.
TM tlMlm 1.11 also lid Ma that the deteadaat had ad-

sised his sass to settle the matter in order to save farther
tipenses. that the affair should he "settled agreeably,"
and that he was prepared to pay dawn '2of. if the plaintiff
would take 6?. instead 01 291. for his cuts. The proceedings
basing gone oily to deaaration, time was asked for th^
payment of the balance. The plaintiff declined to accept
fit for his amt., and the action proceeded.
On the part of the iletendant, himself and his two sons
were examined, when they all said that the father, the de-
fendant, was not a partner in the firm of " Molyneaui and
Co." The firm had offices first at 34, Threadneedle-street,
and now at 114, Bashopsgate•street, and the west-end others
were at 10, Buckingham-street, Strand. The defendant,
however, admitted that he bad been a member of a firm of
Idolpseaus and Co. at 31, Threadiseeele•street, but that
partnership was dissolved in July, 1&51. Ile had been in
partnership with a person named Dathoit, under the firm
of Dathoit and Cu., and their trade under that firm was
that of tent makers. The firm as mining agents was
Molyneauz end Co."
The Gazette containing the notice of the dissolution
haring been handed up to the Chief Baron, his lordship
said that the dissulul.lll was of the firm of Dathoit and Co.
and not of " 51.4neaux and Co." There was ao dissolution
of the tirin of " 51,,lyneaua and Co." in that Gazette.
'lnc defendaut, in cross•czamination, admitted that when
he left Finsbury-place South, and went to livo at Benyon-
terrace, Kingslatid, he had remov. d his furniture to the
dike of " Mulynt aux and Co ." 31, Threadneedle-street ;
that he was in the frequent habit of attending at that office
to transact his business ; that a bill on a termer occasion,
which had !seen accepted by one of his sons as " Molyneaui
and C 0.," and upon which bill au action had b.:en brought, li
be had given directions should be paid, and it was paid by
the gentleman who acted as the attorney to himself and his
sons. Tile defendant also admitted that he bad given
orders for printing mining prospectuses at the offices of
" Mulyneaui and C 0.," the cost of which had been paid by
acceptances of the firm; and his sons had made him ac-
quaiated with the fact that they bad given the bill in ques-
tion to a person named Moyle, who was the captain of a
mine of which the defendant (Melyncaux, senior) was a
direc:ur, for services rendered to the company.
The Lord Chief Baron turd the jury that the question for
them to consider was whether the detendant had held him-
self out to the world as having an interest in the partner-
ship of " Slulyneaus and Company;" if so, be was liable.
The jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff,
for the amount of the ball, and IL 2a. 6d. for interest.