The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-05 00:00:00

served that the master had been discreet tot exercise
mar-
of
hie diecretion ; and that the words "
by force
to a
of
to a the l
riage " which occurred in the act must be held ppy
taking " jure Mitriti," and not to an interctthe acquiwite.—redThe by
the exercise of a power of appointment by
ueeption therefore wu overruled.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings at Nisi Prim.—heroes Jasties Wightman and a Common
Joey.
HOOVER a. SMITII.—LIAtiiLITY OF A PROVISIONAL
Costurrreestaw.—Mr. ft. Gurney, Q.C., and Mama
well
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. E. with
whom was Mr. Pigott, were counsel for the defendant.—This
was as action brought by recover an adverti.ing agent,
resolver the
ing on
business in nevi/ s-inn, against an attorney, to
sum of 80k for advertisements insertei in several Loudon
and country papere, with reference to the Great Western,
South-Eastern, Ipswich, and Southampton Railway. It
appeared that in the month of October, 1845, the defendant
applied by letter fur shares, and authorised his name
to be put on the provisional committee, but that
he never attended any meetings of the committee, nor did be
take up the shares allotted to him.—Mr. James, on the part
of the defendant, said that he should not dispute the amount
claimed if the liability of his client could be established.—
The advertisements M question having been prayed to have
been inserted in various newspapers, and the letter of the
defendant applying for shares having been read, Mr. James
submitted that the plaintiff must he nonsuited, inasmuch as
the particulars of demand were from the 17th September to
the 11th October, and the defendant had not applied for
shares until the 13th of the latter month. In support of this
objection the learned counsel quoted the well known case of
" Wyld v. Ropkins.—Mr. Pigott followed on the same
side.—Mr. R. Gurney then endeavoured to prove that some
advertiaements had been inserted in the newspapers after the
13th, but he failed to do so, upon which the learned Judge
directed the plaint/if to be nonsuited.
COLLETT V. CVRLINO.—KEEPING A WITNESS OLT or
TUE WAY.—When this case was called on, Mr. O'Malley
said that he had been instructed on the part of the defend-
ant, when the case was to have been tried at Westminster
last week, and he merely wished to say that he objected to
an order which was made by the judge at nisi prius, at
Westminster, postponing the trial to the sittings at Guild-
halt ite was not instructed to sppnr on the present men.
lion for the defendant. —Mr. Justice Wightman said if the
plaintiff elected to try the case it welshd be at her own peril.
—Mr. Bushell, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that his
client would go on at all risks, and the learned
counsel then proceeded to address the jury. It ap-
peared that the action was brought by a hlies Celia tt,
residing in Waterloo-place, refainst Mr. Jessie Cur- I
ling, to recover the sum of 2031. upon • bond under the '
followin,e circumstances:—in the year 1846 the plaintiff
brought an action against Mr. John Curling, an attorney,
and son of the present defendant, for 1201 , being the amount
due to her from Mr. J. Curling for the rent of some cham-
bers which he had occupied in the plaintiff's house. On that
action being tried a verdict was found for the plaintiff /or
the full amount. Subsequently, however, Mr. J. Curling
obtained a rule nisi, which was afterwards made absolute,
tor a new trial on his undertaking to give a bond to secure
the debt and costs of the first trial. The defendant in this
action—Mr. Jessie Curling—together with some other
parties, gave the neceseary bond ; and it was upon
that instrument that the present action was brought.
The case wai again tried in July, 1817, end the
plaintiff on that occasion also obtained a verdict. The
learned counsel in the course of his address observed that he
should not be able to produce the attesting witness es the
bond, inasmuch as he was a servant of the defendant's and
was kept purposely out of the way ; but he would produce
evidence to show that every endeavour had been made to
I obtain his attendance. To prove this fact, Mr. J. Barber,
clerk to the plaintiff's attorney, was called, and he stated
that he hail made every effort to precure the attendance of
'themes Ludlow, who was the attetuag Riffle' to the nand
in question. Ludlow had attended at Westminster on Fri-
day anti Saturday last, but was not in the way when the
Cattail was called on, although the witness had
cautioned Lim not to go away. lie was then in the
company of Mr. John Curling, the present detendant'a
attorney, and two persons in his service. Witness went to
the attendant'e house at Bermondsey last Saturday evening
to serve a subpoena upon Ludlow, directing hitnto appear
at Guildhall on Monday last. On that occasion he first saw
a female servant, who said Ludlow had not come in. Ile
then saw the defendant twice, who, on both occasions, called
him an impertinent rascal, and told him to go about his
business. Witness also saw a son of the defendant's, who
said it was no use for him to wait as he could not see Thos.
Ludlow. On Saturday morning List, witness hail procured
a cob to take Ludlow to Westminster, when he suddenly
left witness and went iato the defendant's house, sa..igning
an Sr. excuse genie trivial reason, and did not return.—Mr.
Justice Wightman said he wished to take the opinion of the
jury as to whether they thought the defendant was keeping
the witness, Thos. Ludlow, out of the way ?—The jury at
once returned an answer in the affirmative, and found a
verdict fur the plaintiff for the full amount-2031-

COMMON PLEAS—GrIrnIIALL.
Before Chief Justice Wilde.
MONAGHAN V. WALTEIt AND KEASLEY.—PARLTAMENT-
ART REPORTER:I.—THE MORNING ADVERTISER" AND
THE LICENSED VICTCALLEK.V SOCIETY. This was on
ution brought against the defendants, as proprietors of the
Morning Advertiser newspaper, for improperly dismissing
the plaintiff Croce the employment of reporter to that
paper before the expiration of a year, for which it was al-
leged be was engaged. The defendants pleaded non as.
surapsit, and that they dismis>ed the plaintiff for misconduct
in absenting himself without leave. No evidence, however,
was given under the second plea, nor was the slightest
attempt made throughout the case to impeach the plaintiff's
character or conduct. For the plaintiff, Dr. Sheridan stated
that he was editor of the Morning Advertiser front 1811 to
1845. The plaintiff was for some years engaged on the
paper, at first as casual, afterwards as annual reporter. In
the latter capacity be received 4 guineas per week. In the
year 1841 ho resigned. Subsequeetly he applied to
ness to be re.engarted, but whether at the ed of
1814 or beginnirus of 1845 witness was unable tonstate.
Witness informed him that there was no vacancy at that
time, hut knowing the value of his services, he offered the
plaintiff employment for a year, at two guineas per week,
hiding out to him as an inducement that at the end of that
time he would be continued at his former salary of f. ur
guineas. The witness could not state positively whether the
et gagement was to run from the 1•t of January or from the
commencement of the session of parliament on the 4th of
February ; but as he did not make engagements without
the &auction of the committee of the Licensed Victuallers'
Society, who managed the paper, he referred to the book in
which the mieutcs of the committee were kept.—Mr.
Smalley, the secretary of the committee, produced the book,
in which was an entry nude by himself on the 23rd of
January, 1815, showing a resolution of the committee on
that day, appointing the plaintiff " sessional parliamentary
reporter," on the recommendation of Dr. Sheridan, without
stating from what day the enasgement was to run. The
plaintiff's witnesses stated that a sessional parliamentary re-
porter would be one whose engagement was for the session of
parliament only, and that union there were any stipulation
to the contrary he would be dismissed at the end of that
period; that all who were not engaged for the session were
engaged by the year, and that Mr. J. J. Scott, in whose
place plaintiff was appointed, was a sessional reporter. It
was proved, however, that the plaintiff was not dismissed at
the end of the session, but continued to be paid his aalary
from Feb. 8, 184.5, until Jan. 3, 1846, when he left in pur-
suance of a month's notice. To connect the defendants with
the case, the register from the Stamp office was produced,
in which the defendants eeclued themselves to be proprie-
tors of the Morning Advertiser, and it was also proved
that they had been on the committee of management,
but had gone out of office before plaintiff* engagement.
Upon this evidence, Mr. Serjeant Byles, for the defendants,
submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited-Ist, because
no hiring for a year was proved, but for the session only;
2ndly, that if the hiring was for a year, to commence from a
day subsequent to the engagement, then that the contract
would not he completed in a year, and was therefore void
under the Statute of Frauds, not being in writing.—After
much discussion, however, the case was left to the jury.—For
the defendants, the charter of incorporation of the Licensed
Victuallers' Society was put in, in which it was recited that
the proceeds of the Morning Advertiser were applied to the
purposes of the society. Upon this, after a forcible reply
from Mr. Serjesnt Wilkins, for the plaintiff, his lordship left
it to the jury to say, Ist, whether the plaintiff's engagement
waster the session only, or fora year ; 2ndly, if the engagement
was for a year, from what day ; 3rdly, whether credit was
given to the defendants, or to the general body of the
Licensed Victuallers' Society, in their corporate capacity.—
The jury found for the plaintiff, that he was engaged (or a
year from the 4th of February, when the session commenced,
and that credit was given to the defendants.—Leave was
„ given to defendants to move the court to enter a uonauit.
of

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—GUILDIIALL.
Jin4 l'sur,—Before the Chief Baron and a Common Jury.
CROSS V. PAUKER.—FADE IMPHIBONMENT.—This was
an action to recover damages for false imprisonment under
the following circumstances : Mr. Martin, with wham was
Mr. Davin, stated the case for the plaintiff, who, with a per-
son of the name of Barclay,was in the employment of Messrs.
Morewood and Rogers, of Thames-street, in the month of
April, 184 G. The defendant was a clerk in the mime esta-
blishment. On the occasion referred to, vie., the 30th of
April, Barclay, who subsequently died, and the plaintiff
Cross, were employed to convey some machinery from the
' premises in Themesatreet to the South Western Railway
Station. At the same time they were furnished by the
defendant with the " delivery book" of the firm,
the entry and signature in which were evidence
of the delivery of the machinery at the railway station. The
plaintiff, it had appeared, had been drinking during his
absence on this businirs ; and on his return to his employer's
premises, in Thames-street, the delivery-book could not be
found. This was reported to the defendant, who interro-
gated the plaintiff on the subject, the result of which was,
that defendant, believing that the man knew where the book
was, and they refusing to go for It unless they should be
specially paid for co doing, he called a policeman, into
whose custody the plaintiff was given and conveyed to the
station in Bow-lane, where he was detained till nest morn-
ing. He was then brought before the sitting magistrate at
Guildhall, who dismissed the charge preferred against the
plaintiff of unlawfully detaining the book. It appeared.
from the evidence that the book was afterwards picked
up in the streets, and forwarded to Messrs. Morewood and
Rogers's place of business.—Mr. M. Chambers (who with
Mr. Jones appeared for the defendant), in his address to the
jury, dwelt strongly on the fact that a whole year had been
allowed to elapse from the time of the alleged false imprison-
ment before the present action was brought.—The Chief
Baron, in summing up, said the only question for the conai-
deration of the jury was the amount of damagm—The j•
immediately afterwards returned a mita for the plaintiff,