The Express.
London, England, 1865-12-05 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 5, 1865.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURTS.—Du:. 4.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Stuart) 1
BARNICIT V. LIOCHABB.—PHARAOH'S szanarrs.
This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the de-
fondant from eellisg in boxes bearing the plaintiffs' labels
any serpent', or other similar enjoin', which bad not been
manufactured or sold by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, in
their bill, stated that they were the inventon of the new
firework called " Pharaoh's Serpents," for which they had
obtained a patent in France, and protection in this country.
The article in question was in shape a small cone, covered
with tin foil. The plaintiffs' boxes hoes the following
label :—"Serpents de Pharaoh. Evoqnis. Per Bartlett.
Btf. &G. D.O. Pour la France et r &maga% Paris.*
Then followed the iostructioos for producing the serpent.
The label was surrounded with a wreath of serpents, and
bore at the bottom the name of the minters :—" Imp. S.
Robinson et A. liounceetais, Perla." The bill then stated
that the plaintiffs ori the 7th of November Brat discovered
that the defendant had sold articles similar to those of the
plaintiffs, in boxes of theirs, which boxes the defendant
had bought ; and that those articles so sold by the defend-
ant in the boxes of the plaintiffs were not the articles of
the plaintiffs, or manufactured by them ; that each conduct
was injurious to the plaintiff., and an invasion of their
rights under their patent.
Mr. Malin., Q C., and Mr. Owen appeared for the
pleintiffs.
Mr. W. H. Morris appeared for the defendant, and argued
that he wss in the habit of selling articles similar to those of
the plaintiffs, sod that hiscustom when imbed sold them
to pot them, at the purchmen' request end to accommo-
date them, is the boxes which had the plaintiffs label,.
He bad also sold some of the plaintiffs' serpents. which he
had placed in the boxes with his own, but that he never
intended to injure the plaintiffs or deceive the public.
The Vino-Chancellor granted the injunction moved for,
but without costs, as the defendant lad ceased to sell any
of the articles complained of when bed had notice of that
application.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Dsc. 4.
Sittings at Nisi Priui is Midelleseu.—{Edur• L,rd Chief
Justice Erle end a Special Jury.)

V. DOWNIS.
This was an action to mover damages for vary serious
personal injuries.
Mr. Serpent Bellantine and Mr. Raymond aorunrod for
the plaintiff ; sod Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Criffits
for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a journeyman gasfitter, and 00 the 28th
of June, 1864, he went to the defendant's supr refinery is
Goodman's fields to do some work. Whilst going along one
of the floors be mimed his plyers, and went back a few
steps to get them. In the course of returning to join the
party to which he wee attached he fell down • hole in the
floor which was used for the purpose lifting sugar from
floor to Boor. The distance the plaintiff fell was 29feet,and
'I
Mr. Adams' the senior surgeon at the London Hospital,
stated in the witness-box that the plaintiff's spine was frac.
tared by the fall, and there were all the symptoms of Injury
to the spinal marrow. He remained paralysed down to the
present time, and in all human probability he would sever
recover the use of his legs. The plaintiff, in order to give
his evidence, had to be carried into court in a chair.
The grounds upon which the defendant was sought to be
made liable was that the place was insufficiently lighted,
there being only two jets of gas upon that Boor ; and that
the hole was not properly fenced.
Mr. Haddleston submitted upon the authority of the
case of " Wilkinson v. Fenn. Hu, and Co., " that there
was no duty cut upon the defeadaut to fence and light this
hole, which was used for the purpose of his business.
The Lord Chief Justice slid he would reserve the point
for the full court.
Evidence was then given for the defendant, that before
the plaintiff went upon the premises be was cautioned
by Mr. MllaraVOS, under whose control he acted, that
sugar houses were peculiar places, that they did not allow
candles or Inciters there. and. therefore, that they must
keep their eyes open. Mr. Hargraves added, that they
would have • man with % lamp with him, that he should
' follow that man, and that the plaintiff must keep close to
them. It was further dated that the place was in fact suf•
ficiently lighted,that there were five gas lights,aod that the
hole could be seen by anybody who exercised reasonable
care. It was also closed in on two sides.
• The jury, after considering the matter for half an hour,
! found a verdict for the plaintiff--damages 4001.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Drs. 4.
Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Biros Bramwell and
• Oommon Jury.)
SECOND COURT.
TOM r. ROBINSON.—BIIRAciI or P6OIIIBE or ILLIIRIAGT.
This was an action for breach of promise of marriage.
The case was undefended.
Mr. 8011, who appeared for the plaintiff, said his client,
Susan Yenta, was • widow, 35 years of age, and the de-
(midget, Themes Robinson. was • muter bootmaker, who
had carried on business for 15 or 16 years is Birmingham.
The defendant, after they bad been acquainted some tune,
promised to marry the plaintiff, but in duiog so asked her
to wait for what be called • "dead year." The marriage
was consequent) y postponed ; but unfortunately the de-
fendant prevailed upon the plaintiff to allow hint in the
meantime to act as her husband, and in August last she
gave birth to twins. Although he made repeated promises
to marr the plaintiff, shortly before her confinement he set
her at defiance, and married another women. The learned
counsel said it was for the injury to her character asd repo-
Wit)°, sustained under these circumstances, that she brought
this action, but he did not ask for any large amount of
damages.
Charles Ilerriman—l am the plaintiff's father, and she
lived with me in Birmingham. During 1864 the defendant
mine frequently to my house, to court my daughter.
I have frequently seen them walk out arm in
aim together. As • respectable tradesman be
courted my daughter. The defendant is a lady and
gentleman's boottuaker, and keeps a shop, and is thirty-
five or thirty-six years of age. My daughter's husband
was killed in the lodise mutiny, and she has been a widow
ever since. She had three children by him. In August,
1864, she gave notice that I must provide for another
housekeeper, because she was going to be married. I then
went to the defendant, and asked him what his intentions
were towards my daughter. He replied, "To make her
my wife, as I promised at tint." I said, "When will you,
Thomas?" and be said, "On Christmas Day." In Novem-
ber I saw him again, and said, "If you fulfil your pro-
mise, you will find • prudent, honest, upright, md in-
dustrious woman for a wife." I also said I would do my
utmost to make them comfortable.
Mr. Cheshire—l am Mrs. Yenu's first husband's brother.
In May last I left my situation, and went to live a abort
time with her. In company with her I called upon the
defendant. and asked him when he was going to be mar-
ried to Susan; and he said, " Before lone' I mentioned
that she was in the family-way ; that it would be a great
disgrace to her, and that be ought to marry her. He re-
peated that he would marry her. iHe did not deny that
he was the father of the two children. Afterwards be
married • nurse,of the Birmingham hospital. It was because
I heard he was courting the nurse that I west to him. He
said, " I don't want her at the hospital, and I'll fulfil my
promise." My sisterdn-law was afterwards confined with
twins, but they died shortly after birth.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—What did your sieterdodaw say to
the defendant ?
Witness—Sbe spoke about her confinement, and said she
hoped he would be honourable to her.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—What did he say
Witness—He said, "I will, Susan, if you will wait."
She burst into tears, and then I left, Before doing so I
said—" I'll see Mr. Robinson soother day."
Mr. Baron Bramwell—Was that all he said !—Yes ; he
said be would behave honourably, and make it all right.
Mr. Holl—Tbat, my lord, is the plaintiff's ease.
Mr. Baron Ilramwell—lt is certainly • rather meagre
case. There are so letters, and the last witness does not
appear to have seen the defendant until after the mischief
had been sustained ; still the promise is sworn to by the
father, and I don't see any reason to disbelieve
him. One cannot help thinking it would he very
undesirable if be assumed a promise was made
because the woman had got with
goodise there
would be taken away that security for conduct which
happily now exists ; but although the last withers does not
speak to any promise before that event, the father does,
and coupling the statements of both, there is a confirmation
of the alleged promise. It you (the jury) are satisfied that
• promise was made, then comes the question of damages,
and that is entirely for you. You have no account of the
means of the defendant except that he keeps • shop, which
is sometimes a very good thing and sometimes not. There
also does not appear to have been that intimacy between
the two families that use commonly sees in them actions.
This use is certainly left as bare as it can well be.
The Foreman of the Jury—We should like to see the
plaintiff herself.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—That the law does not allow. In
these matters the law prohibits the plaintiff and the defen-
dant from being called, and &wording to the opinion of the
legislators it does so wisely, twelve last missies of parlia-
ment a bill was introduced into the House of Commons for
the purpose of altering the law in that respect, and the
house refused to read it a second time. You must, there-
fore, get on as well as yon can without bearing the plaia-
tiff. I cannot help thinking that these are actions which
ought not to be encouraged. If people change their minds
it is better that they should do se before marriage than
when it is too late. I Lave only to repeat, however, that
the matter mats entirely with you.
she Nwas beo doubt the plaintiff
the
is not so marriageable a person as fore, and if
defendant had married her, she would have become abetter
women, because her diagram would have bun • little got

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCIIIT.—OxFuItD, DE c. 4.
Mr. Jostles Keatbag tack hie seat in the Crown Court at
11 o'clock.
Six prisoners charged with rick-burning pleaded guilty,
and were severally sentenced to Sys years' penal servitude.

DARING BI3IIOLART.
Robert Burns, aged 26. arid described in the calendar as a
ship steward, was charged with burglariously breaking and
waterier the dwelling-hose' of Oaptsin Hoary Braddith
Yule, at Osford, on tbe 10th of Sept. lest.
The primmer pleaded sot guilty, and was undefended ;
Yr. Grippe appeared for the prceseutioe.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and a previous con-
viction of burglary, far which he bad bees eesteseed to six
jean' peoe. servitude, wee admitted by him ; ha was now
sentenced to 12 jean' penal servitude.

WESTERN ClRClllT.—Teurrotr, DEc. 4.
(Before Hr. Justine Wilkie.)
Arringernio TO ISTOWt moan.
Henry Rodman, 20, labourer, who wee convicted at the
summer swims held in August Lot, but whose motes°, bad
been respited until certain questions of law had been decided,
was now brought up for judgmeot. The offence of which
the prisoner bad been found guilty was threatening one
Robert Leroombe to accuse him of an abominable offence
with • view to extort money. His lordship, is
palling sentence, said the prisoner had been found
guilty by a jury of his countrymen of the hateful offence
of attempting to extort money from a bey's father ander a
threat that be woad charge the boy with an abominable
mime, and be bad gone so far as makieg the charge against
the boy, which might have cost him his liberty for a long
period. The boy was brought before the =Oatcake, but
they detected bis (the prisoner's) falsehood, discharged him.
and sent him (Radmen) for trill. The learned judge mid
he had, on more than one occosion, sentenced perilous con-
victed of • similar offence to penal servitude for life ; sod
the only moon the court abstained from doiag so then wee
that the matter was found out so speedily, end the boy's
character wee so entirely cleared, and it was hardly name-
rosy for his protection to par so severe a sentence even on
so bed a man as he was. The acetones of the court was
that be he kept in penal servitude or
the period of ten
yew.