The Express.
London, England, 1860-06-01 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-MAy 31.

Sittings at Nid Prins at Wadaninater.— (Before Mr. Justico
Hill and Common .1 unto.)
TRIP? I. BANDI2I/3.-HTEXIT ACCIDENT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation in damages, for injuries received through the
alleged negligence of the defendant. The defendant pleaded
not guilty.
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Field were counsel for the plaintiff;
Mr. Keralake and Mr. wain were counsel for thedefendant.
The plaintiff is a mining broker and about 5 o'clock in
the afternoon of the 22nd July be was ping No. 24, in
Weetbourne•terrace, when he felt himself fa linga manner
that deprived him of hie sews, sad on coming to him-
self be found one al his legs down a coal trap.
He knocked at the door and was seen by a young lady
who referred him to a Mr. Wo and the latter ragweed
him to the defendant. The defendant afterwards oiled o®
the plaintiff, maw him in his bed-room, sad expressed his
sorrow for what had happened. In a day or two after the
defendant called, saying Is had brought the workman who
had left the trap open, but plaintiff refused to see him.
The defendant, it appeared, was a builder, and bad anodic*
on the premises in question.
.The premises at the time of
the accident were under and the defendant was fre-
quently there, as if them.
In cross-examination the said he resided in the
neighbourhood of Wentlionens4enace • he did not shake
his Art in the lady's face, bat she sissimed the door in his
face—(laughter)--and would net give the name of her hus-
band. He had no doubt be ems mash excited, and that the
policeman told him to beep lined[ quiet. He kept his
bed for 25 weeks, and bad net bean well since. He now
enlaced from nervous debility, and he considered he had
ket upwards of 500/. from not being able to attend to his
bumbles.

- After some further evidenoe for the plaintiff,
Mr. Kerslake, for the defendant, contended there was no
evidence to prove his liability, and eventually the plaintiff
was nonsuited.

THOWAB AND ANOTBKR e. !IMAM

This was an action to recover 32/. 7s. for a surgeon's bill.
The defendant had paid 121. 10s. into court, including
IL 10s., u a sufficient remuneration for the sum claimed.
The plaintiffs were ns at Horsham, and the de-
fendant was a young `en of the same place, of inde-
pendent fortune.
The cue was devoid of interest.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—damages,
61. over the sum paid into court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—MAT 31.
Sittings in Banco.—(Befon Lord Chief Juatioe Erie and
Justine' William and Wei)

RICHARDSON T. DONL—FALSE REPRZSENTATION.
The plaintiff, being about taking a public-home of Mr.
Clifton, was referred to her friend, Mr. Baylis. The de-
fendant, • broker, afterwards represented that he had
applied, on behalf of the plaintiff, to Mr. Baylis, who said
that the takings in the public-house were 8/. • day, and
had been 101. The plaintiff thereupon purchased the house,
but soon found out that nothing near this amount of busi-
ness was done. He thereupon sued Mrs. Clifton for making
• false representation by the mouth of Mr. Baylis, but at
the trial it was said that Mr. Baylis had never made any
such statement, and that the statement was an invention
of Mr. Dunn for his own benefit. The plaintiff, conse-
quently, failed in his action against Mrs. Clifton, and he
now sued Mr. Dunn, not only for the loss sustained by the
public-house, but also for the costa he had incurred in the
suit against Mrs. Clifton. The trial took place before Mr.
Justice Byte*, when the jury found for the plaintiff for
5811. Be. 6d. Subsequently, a rule was obtained to reduce
the damages by deducting 181/. Ets. 6d., the costa of the
action against Mrs. Clifton • and the question now was whe-
ther this rule should be made absolute!

Mr. Ruddleetoe and Mr. blonde appeared to show cause ;
sad Mr. MAICOIII7 to support the rule.
The Court held that the rule applicable to this case was,
thst the defendant was answerable only for the natural and
prozinutte consequences of his act ; and they held that the
action against Mn. Clifton wee not the natural and proxi-
mate but only a distant consequence of what the defendant
had dono.
Rule absolute.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSES.-MAY 31.

(Before the Judge Ortlary, Mr. Baron Martin, and Mr.
Justice Willes.)

BACON r. BACON AND BACON.
The petitioner sought a divorce on theground of hissrife's
adultery with his brother. The issues having been foiled
in favour by a jury in November last,
Dr. Bpiaks (with whom was Mr. Francis) prayed that a
decree of dissolution might issue ; and that a provision
might be mimic for the children of the marriage nut of a
reversion.‘ry interest poisoned by the respondent.
Dr. Phillimore, Q. C., appeared for Mrs. Bacon.
The court granted the decree with costa against the cm-
reepondent ; and directed that two•thinla of the reversion
should be immediately settled on the children.

TAPLIW r. TAPLIN.—MAIMIAGZ FO ♦ •'LAac."

The petitioner was the wife of an engineer in her MA-
jeety's oar/, and she was clandestinely married to him
dunng a visit to London to see the Great Exhibition of
1851. He afterwards visited her at her home at Woolwich
in the capacity of a suitor, and the marriage for a consider-
able time remained unavowed. On the of February,
1857, the respondent married one Nancy Jones, at Malts,
and she had since had • child by him. With respect to.his
first marriage, he told his Meads that he had gone through
the ceremony merely as a "lark."
The court dissolved the marriage, with costa.