The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-27 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 27, 1848.

new, stated that what was deemed as new and of appellant's
invention was the mode of preparing stripes of silk, cotton, &c.
in such manner that the welt or lateral fibres of both cut
edges of each stripe were all brought up on one side and into
close contact with each other, and the reweaving of such
stripes with the whole fur or pile uppermost into the surface
of carpets, &c., at the same time that a groundwork was
woven for the same. The respondents denied that most of
the process for which the patent was granted was new, and
that they were guilty of infringing what little was new in the
invention. The ruling of the judge was in favour of the pa-
tent, and the judges of the court declared the ruling to be
erroneous, that the specification eovered too much, and that
a new trial ought to be greoted.—Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Butt
were now in support of the appeal from that decision.—The
Lord Chancellor said he did not think it necessary to hear
the counsel on the other side, es he was of opinion that the
judgment as to the too extensive scope of the specification
was right. He would not, however, decide the cue in the
absence of Lord Campbell, who had a little before left the
house, after hearing most of the arguments for the ap-
pellant.
Another appeal—Wood (or Wilcox) r. Young (or Farrell)
—was called on, but no counsel or agent appeared for the
appellant, and Sir F. Kelly, who was for the respondent,
asked that the judgment complained of he affirmed, which
was ordered accordingly.

guiehed shareholders of joint stock companies from the cue
of ordinary partners. The connexion between provisional
committeemen was sui generic. There wu no room for sav-
ing the statute had been complied with as regarded the
present defendant. —Rule for nonauit absolute accordiogly.
NtAt PAWL—Before Mr. Juntas Mantle and a Special Jury.
WOOD v. Moleclorto.—BltGACH OP CONTRACT —in 1846
r the defendant stipulated to supply the plaintiff with a high-
presser° engine boiler, to be made of the best boiler plate, at
the rate of 231. 10a. per ton. A boiler wu completed on the
18th December, and sent to Mr. Wood with an invoice
charging him 2981. 2e. for a boiler weighing 12 ton, 14 cwt.,
2 qrs. On its trial it was found to be improperly constructed
and not made of the best materials, and that the rivets of
the boiler allowed the emission of steam. A communication
to :hat effect having been made to the defendant, men were
tent to make the boiler right. Montford then died, baring first
received 1001. in part paymentoftheoriginally-contractedsum.
His widow, the defendant it the present action, married the
deceased's brother, and sued for the balance due, and ob-
tained a verdict in her favour. The present action was in-
stituted to recover damages for the breach of the original
contract. —Mr. Serjeant Ryles (with whom was Mr. l'icker-
ing) appeared for the vaintiC, and produced several wit-
nesses to prove that the boiler was not a hi A-pressure boiler,
that it was badly constructed, that it was not made of the
best iron, and that it weighed only eine tons—Mr Serjeant
Cbannell (with whom wee Mr. Lush) *u for the defendant,
and pleaded that there wu no contract entered into, and
that the boiler was . a good a one u was expected to be made.
He produced some witness's in his support. The case
having closed, the jury intimated to his lordship that it
would he unnecessary for him to sum up, and returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages 300/.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
hitting. at Mai friars.
SMITH V. TER NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.—
TUE ACCIDENT NEAR WOLVERTON. DAMAGES or
2,0001. UNDER Lotto CAMPBELL'S ACT.—This was an action
under Lord Campbell's Death by Accident Compenaation
Act. The declaration stated that the defendants were the
owners of a certain railway; that a person named Henry
Smith was a passenger thereby ; and through the negligence
of the defendants he was so grievously wounded thee. he died.
The defendants pleaded not guilty, u n which issue was
joined. The damages were laid at 10,1111.
The Attorney General, with whom were Messrs. Wataon
and Cowley, stated the cue. The present action was brought
by Mrs. Smith, as ad min ist ratria to a gentleman named Henry
Smith, as well as on behalf of her infant son, for the injury
which she and her son had sustained by the death of Mr.
Smith under the following circumstances:—On the 6th of
June last, Mr. Smith took his seat in a second class
mail train from Huston-square to Birmingham. The 'rain
proceeded on its journey till it arrived near the Wolver-
ton station, when the person in charge of the siding
turned the train off the main line into the aiding. The con-
sequence was that the train came into violent collision with
several waitrons then standing on the siding, which resulted
in the death and serious injury of various persons, amongst
others of Mr. Smith. With respect to the cause of the
accident, he believed no question would be raised, as the
coroner's jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against
the person in charge of the siding, who was afterwards con-
victed.
Witnesses were then called in support of the plaintiff's
case. Mr. J. S. Gent, a surgeon, and who was a passenger
on the occasion referred to, described the accident. He had
no doubt that the death of Mr. Smith was caused by the
collision.
Mr. Thomas L. Burney, linen merchant at Kirkham, was
well acquainted with the late Mr. Smith, who married his
wile's sister. Witness was a part proprietor and one of the
managing committee, and one of the auditors, of a company,
owners of various steam-vessels plying between Fleetwood
and the north of Ireland. Mr. Smith was the general
manager of the company, and received a per centage on
the cargoes of the vessels. In 1815 his earnings were
1,0191. 15.. 2d. ; is 1846, 1,1001. 19s. He had been engaged
from the formation of the company—about five years. He
was a man of great experience, and hie position was likely
to be permanent. Ile was in the 61st year of hie age, and
was marritd on the 9th of July, 1846. Mrs. Smith was 33
years of age, and the child was posthumous, and born on
the 13th of October. Mr. Smith was a frugal man, in good
health, and of temperate habits. He was employed by
various railway companies as a traffic statist, and in addition
held the appointment of government inspector of steam-
boats fur the district, which yielded him about 50 guineas
• year.—ln crou-examination by Sir F. Kelly, the witness
stated that Mrs. Smith now resides at Kirkham.
She had 2,0001. settled upon her at her marriage,
and she has besides about 2,0001. of her own. He
should suppose she possesses an income of from 1501.
to 2001. a year. Mr. Smith held some shares in tb3
Prince of Wale; steamer. Mr. Smith's accounts with the com-
pany were settled every six months, at the meetings in April
and September. The half-yearly meeting took place atter
his death, and there was no settlement of the last six months'
account. At the half-yearly eting the proprietors gave
Mrs. Smith time t pay the amount. From 2001. to 3001.
remain unpaid, and there is a sum due from the Fleetwood
Railway Company which will more than cover it. Mr.
Smith left property which has not yet been realised. Wit-
ness supposes that at the time of his death he was worth
from 1,0001. to 2,0001. over and above that settled on Mrs.
Smith. Since the d ath of Mr. Smith the commission on
the outward voyages was reduced one half, namely, to 21
per cent. He had an mem office also at Preston.
Stephen Burridge, chief clerk to Mr. Smith, proved the
above facts. and stated that he had no reason to believe that
his income would fall off, but the contrary. He was much
respected by the inhabitants of Fleetwood, and his services
were in great request as a railway statist —ln cross-examina-
tion he stated that the deductions from Mr. Smith's Mecum
were about 2101 , for clerks and offices rent.
Mr. Joseph Bray, of I'reston, solicitor; Mr. Robinr' of
Clithero, solicitor ; and Mr. Main, parliamentary clerk to
the Messrs. Bannatyoe, of Glsegow, the railway solicitors,
severally stated that they hail availed themselves of Mr.
Smith's valuable service' belt). e parliamentary committees
on railways in 1815, 1816, and 1847, and they were of opi-
nion that 3001. was a fair estimate of income from this
source.

Mr. Morgan, actuary to the Equitable Life Assurance
Company, said he calculated the value of an annuhy on Mr.
Smith's age of 50 of 1,2001. at about 13,0001. He calculated
it at 4 per cent.--This was the case for the plaintiffs.
Sir 1.. Kelly (with whom was Mr. Boyd!) said he had
one or two pinto of law to submit to the court before the
case went to the jury. He would submit, in the first place,
whether the care of a posthumous child came within the
m. ening of the act ?
The Chief Baron thought there could be no doubt on the
subject atter the celebrated decision of the House of Lords,
which was given in opposition to the opinion of all the
judges. The child was as much in ease as if it bad
been born. . .

Sir F. Kelly thought that the very fact that the opinion of
all the judges had been in favour of the point justified him in
submitting it. There was another point to which he wished
to direct the attention of the court, namely, that there was
no evidence is support of the alleg, tion of the declaration,
that Mr. Smith had met his death from want of care on the
part of the company.
The Chief Baron said that the fact that the train, instead
of going straight on, had run into the siding, showed that
there must have been negligence. The company was hound
to have some person to take particular care and direct the
carriages into the stations. Ile, therefore, thought there
WSW a sufficient case for the jury.
Sir F. Kelly then addre-sed the jury in mitigation of da-
mages. This, he contended, was not the case of a person
with a permanent income, hut one uncertain in the extreme.
lie remarked that no evidence had been given, to show what
Mr. Smith's circumstances were anterior to 1845, end con-
cluded by observing, that he thought that three, or at most
tour years' purchase, would be amply sufficient as compen-
sation.
. . .

The Chief Baron, having briefly summed up, the jury,
after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages, 2,0001., which they apportioned thus-1,2001. for
the child, and 8001. for Mn,. Smith.
MOROAN v. BEET.—CRIM. CON.—This we understood to
be an action for crim. con., but none of the particulars of
the case were stated. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff
by consent.—Damoges, 3001.