The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-01 00:00:00

A. gentleman from the office of the Registrar of Joint Stick
Companies, and Mr. Bustin, who ha.l been secretary to the
railway companies, proved the connexion of the defendant
with the provisional committees, and his presence at meet-
ings of the bo ird when engagements were made ant instrue.
dons given to the plaintiff. The principal defence to the
action was, that the plaintiff had been sufficiently remune-
rated for his scrviees.—Mr. Brunel, the engineer to the
Great Western Railway Company, and also engineer
to a competing line with that of which the plain-
tiff was engineer, wan called. From his own exa-
mination of these plans, he could state that they
were camiLlly and accurately executed. He had also exa-
mined the plaintiff's accounts, and the principle of the
charge was perfectly c avant. He thought that 10 guineas
a day was a fair charge, oonsidering the demand for eogi.
neera and surveyors at the time. The plaintiff was proceed
log to prove the various items of charge in his bill—a mo.t
voluminous document—when a suggestion was thrown out
by the roust that, to save the time which must mei:leerily be
wasted by this procedure, this was a proper ease for reference.
—Mr. Martin, for the defendant, was of the lame opinion ;
but, in the absence of his client, he could not consent to this
step.—The further hearing of the cue was then adjourned
till yesterday morning, when Mr. Martin stated that his
client would not consent to a reference.—After a lengthened
discussion, it was resolved by the Attorney.Oeneral, in order
to save time and expense, that a verdict should be taken for
the plaintiff for 5001.—Verdict accordingly.
Srouo O. COLLITT.—FALILII IMPRISONMENT.—This was
an action to recover damages for false imprisonment —Mr.
O'Malley, in the absence of Mr. }turnkey, stated the Ghee.
The plaintiff is a clerk in the employment of a Mr. Curling,
an attorney, who occupied apartments in the house of Miss
Collett, a sister to the defendant, who is a court milliner and
dreesmsker in Waterloo-place. The plaintiff was in the
habit of going to the house in question for his employer's
letters, and on the 23rd of October last, u he win going or,
stairs for that purpose, he was met by the defendant, who
prevented his going up, and ultimately gave him into the
custody of a police constable, on a charge of being found in
the house without lawful excuse, and using threatening lan-
guage. He was thereupon taken to the Vine-meet station,
and kens that before the sitting magistrate at Marl-
borough-street, by whom he wee theeh•egoel 'Thou
facts were proved by the evidence of the police-
constable, inspector, and the clerk of the police
court—Mr. Cockburn (with whom was Mr. E. James),
for the defendant, contended that this was part of a system
of annoyance to which the ' rof the defendant had been
subjected by the plaintiff and his employer. The latter had
taken apartments in the house of Miss Collett, who had not
only received no rent for the same, but had been subjected
to great expense in vexatious legal proceedings in reference
to this rent. It was urged that Mr. Curling had relin-
quished possession of the apartments prior to the date of the
alleged filer imprisonment. The learned counsel also con-
tended that this was an attempt to get up, with the
costs of other legal proceedings, a set off to a sum of 3001.,
due by Mr. Curling to the defendant's sister.—A number
of witnesses were called in support of this case —The jury
ultimately returned a verdict f.,r the plaintiff—damages, one