The Express.
London, England, 1849-11-09 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLRAL—Yinnais.

ammo u Daseco.—thereen Loan Cum Renee Mitre, Me. Joe.
ma limn; Ka. Awns Mstuans, AND Ma. Justice TALPKTILD.
Boithith or lath Coos?.
The Lord Mid Justin said that the court would not sit
Thursday nth; the 15th inst.. as it was the day which
had been sprinted Mt a general thanksgiving. That day
bad been lied by the mart u one of the days on which they
would bear reghtreties appeals, and it was User. fore neer'.
sary lessen another day ; and, therefore, the court would
hear the appeals on Monday, the 19th instant, instead of
Thursday, the 15th instant.
BILL (PUBLIC OFFICER) O. WRAC' AND ANOTHER.—
, ACTION ON A GUARANTOR.
This ease was tried at the sittings at Nisi Prins to Mid-
dlesex after last Trinity Term, before the Lord Chief Jus-
tice, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, damage,
1,0001. Mr. Berjeant Channell now moved for • rule calling
on the plaintiff t) show cause why the verdict should not he
set aside, and a nonsuit entered, or why the damages should
not be reduced by the sum of 1791. 10s. 10d. The plaintiff
was the public officer of the National and Provincial Bank
of EaAland, which bank had a branch at Blandford. A
person of the same of Richard Pinner was a customer to the
branch bank at tilandford, and the de'endaats had given the
bank the followiag guarantee on his behalf: " We hereby
indemnify the Nation and Provincial Bank of England
to the extent of 1,0001. advanced or to be ad.
valued to Richard Pinney • but the indemnity to
be at an cud when the said 'Richard Pinney shall have
paid his account" The objectior now taken to the guarantee
by the learned serjeaat on behalf of the defendants was that
it win given for an uncertain consideration, and it did not
say that the defendants were aware that any advances had
been made to Pinney, nor did it compel the bank to make
any advances, and further more it was urged
that the guarantee was bad, browse, even if
after the time when the document was executed no money
had Ines advanced, the defendants would still be
liable as the guarantee was worded in so indefini,e a manner.
Mr. Berjeent Channell also contended that the defendants
were madded to deduct the sum of 1791. 10c. 10d. from the
1,0001., se Mr. Pinney had paid that sum to the bank after
the guarantee had been given.
The Court granted a rule nisi.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Yurnumy.
RITMO, in BANCO.
Buss= v. ROOllll, CLIRIC..-411DUCTION.
This was an action for the reduetion of the plaintiff's
daught.r. It was tried before Mr. Justice Williams at the
last smiles of Exeter, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff,
with 1001. damages.
Mr. Greenwood, Q.O , now moved for a rule, calling on
the plaintiff to show sense why that verdict should not be
set aside on the ground that the damages were excessive,
and for a new trial on the ground of misdirection, and that
the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The facts
were disci:sod sun affidavits, which also stated that the
defendant was token by surprise at the trial. It ap-
peared the action was brought by Mary Brookes against
Charles Backe*, a clergyman and a married man,
at Exults. The declaration was in the usual form. The
pleas weill.—•" Dot guilty ; secondly, that the daughter wee
not the servant of the plaintiff; and, thirdly, the ammo 1
of limitstions." The eau, as it was presented to the jury,
depended upon the evidence of the plaintiff's three
delights's, a surgeon, and a nun: ruined Mary fibtpheed.
The principal witness was Mary Maria Brookes, the mem
woman whose seduction formed the [mend of action. She
stated that she went into the defendant's services first in the
month of September, 1842, and that she continued is it
until the following Novemb r, when she went bask 'to live
with her mother ; that during the time she was living with
the pastntiff the seduction took place in January, 1843- that
service went busk to the defendant's •TTICO again in Ms*,
1843, and remained there permanently until November all•
Mr. Baron Puke—When was the action brought?
Mr. Greenwood—On the 18th of DlB4B.
Sir P. Pollock, C.B.—When was th child'men ?
Mr. Greenwood—ln December, 1844. The witness staled
that the seduction haring taken place is January, 1844 s
miscarriage was the result. She aft. reside became isms
mutt, and gave birds to a child in the defendant's hire.
She was attended by her mother, who threatened to She
her away, but did not do sn. On the contrary, the phi hi,
sent another of her daughters, named Annie Brookes, about
17 yews of age, to the defendant's, and both the
young women remained there until the and of 1848.
Mary Maria Rooker rated that she oontinned her inter-
mune with the defendant until she was supplanted in his
affections by a person named Edgar. That she complained
to the plaintiff of her rival's infriugemtnt upon her rights,
und finally left the defendatt's ht use in November, 1848.
From thou Lets the I,,arned counsel submitted it appeared
that the action wet brought, not for the seduction, but ter dis-
continuing the connexion. In order to meet this SIN the
defendant made an affidavit positively denying that any SOW
nezion at all bad ever taken plus b:tween him and the
plaintiff's daughter, and that the young woman had boa la
his employment permanently for more than six years beige
the action was brought. The witnesses e :attained at the pfd
also deposed to the latter statenenit, and in metabolites id
their da
m's p 7 hordes were produce! in which entries alb*
defendant's payments of wages to his 'servants wan mess
sad their receipts. Amongst them the signature of the
shiner's daughter appeared from March, 1842, to Nev.,
lea Thom facts, it was submitted, were a completes
1 warmer to the action. The misdirection complained of wee
trituir
jlarnury teodttdcueentirly omitted
raised ,he
anti?
ptiteatritebt
Meg woman was not the servant of the plaintiff. That 1
pilot was urged apes the burned judge, bat be said elk
while ems tamed upon the s'atme of limitatioes, and he
took that view of the ease dueler the trial.
Mr. Baron Parks—What wa: t^e hoe of antes alleged ?
Kr. Greenwood—When the "eduction to3k place it was
said the young woman was living with her, mother, and a
sheerriage was the ceougucce.
Mr. Banes Parke—There might be a disability arising
from the few days' illness during the miscarriage ?
Mr.etessa
when thewood—Yes y, it was 114 put as to bring it withia 1
lee pedaloung woman was living with her I
mem. It was said the miseerriage and seduction both
look pigs sheaf. That was to be in January, 1843, bat
the dellimillt show& that the young woman was is his sir 11
plop2lllslllSiebtuary ec March, 1842, permanently, bruit,