The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

After Term. Nisi Print sittings at thuldlutll.—(l3efore

the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
q•'TLEIR ANU WIFE r. THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY

COMP NY.

This was an action to reoover compensation for personal
iejurioa
Mr. Serjeent O'Brien and Mr. Bridge were counsel for
th, phintiffs ; Mr. Powell. Q.C., and Mr. Fhilbrick were
Counsel for the defendants.

The plaintiff is a hairdresser residing in the Barking
toil. On the 13th November last the plaintiff's wife took
a ticket from Barking-creek to Stratford.bridge. When
she arrived at Stratford-bridge two females, who
were in the same compartment, got out of the
Iron and Mrs. Gotleib was about to follow them.
She had got her foot on the step when there
was a sudden jerk of the train, and she was thrown forward
with much violence on the platform. The stationmaster
came up and told her she had to thank heaven she had not
fallen between the platform and the carriage, or she would
have had her legs smashed. The plaintiff's wife was
enciente at the time. She returned home with great diffi-
culty, an.l li.ul to call in a medical man. She was unable
to leave her bed for three months. By the skill of her
medical man premature confinement was prevented. She
hail. however, been ill ever since. The station-
master took her nanie andaddress. Two letters were sent
to the company asking for compensation, but as no notice
was taken of the first, and the second referred the plain-
tiffs to the defendants' solicitor, the defendants were
served with a writ on the lith of December. Ten or twelve
days after the writ was served the defendants summoned
the plaintiff's wife, and charged her with having offended
,inst the bye-laws of the company in leaving the train
whilst in motion. She was too ill to attend, and the hear-
ing of the summons was adjourned, and has not yet been
beard. Plaintiff's wife denied that the station-master or
any of the officials called to her not to get out before the
train stopped. She was so excited that she did not know
at the time she had been injured. She denied that the
station-master told her he lad cautioned her not to get out
of the train. If she had recovered within a week or so, the
action would not have been brought.
. .

For the defence the explanation offered with respect to
the summons was this. A letter was written to Mrs.
I lotleib the same day, to the address she gave to the sta.
tion•anabter, stating that she had violated the bye-laws in
alighting whilst the train was in motion, and asking if she
had any explanation to offer before proceedings were taken
ag.dost her ; but it was returned through the dead-letter.
(Ace. The company could not therefore take out the 'sum.
mans, but as soon as the writ was served and the real
address was known the summons was taken out
The Lord Chief Justice asked if the summon was im-
mediately taken out
Mr. Bridge said no, not until some days after.
The Lord Chief Justice said be thought it was a very
lame explanation. But it had nothing whatever to do
with the case.

The defendants rested their case upon this, that as the
train was coming into the station in the usual and ordi-
nary manner, the station-master and one porter who waa
on the platform raw the door of the carriage open and Mrs.
t;otleib standing on the step to get out. They called loud
to her not to get down before the train stopped, but she
did so whilst the train was in motion, and the consequence
was she fell and sustained the injury complained of. The
station-master and other officials were called in support of
the defendant's case. They denied that anyone got out
of the carriage before her. The train stopped at Stratford.
bridge station for the purpose of collecting tickets. The
evidence wan of the usual contradictory character, and it
was urged that this was one of those accidents where pas-
sengers sought to make a railway company pay for inju-
ries received from their own negligence.
The jury• ultimately returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CHArYAN ET CXV. TOULMIN NT 01.

Dr. Spinks, Q.C., and Mr. Thomas for the plaintiffs ;
Serjeant O'Brien and Mr. Beresford for the defendants.
The testatrix, Esther Barwood, died in 1865, leaving pro-
perty worth about 609/. She had been the confidential ser-
vant of Mrs. Strolldale, Mrs. Totdmin's mother,from 1805 to
1849, when the last of the family,except Mrs. Toulinin,died.
She had executed • testamentary paper in favour of a
lunatic sister but at her death she made the will in dispute
by which she gave her neice Mrs. Chapman VW., and left
the residue to Mrs. Toulmin, who had paid her a pension
of 10/. a year, since 1849, and whose husband, • surgeon
at Clapton, she appointed her executor. She died in 1865,
at the age of more than 80. Probate was resisted on
the ground of undue influence.
_ _

[ibe cue wee not concluded when our report left.]

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIB DAY.)

BOW-STREET.
PCINT-OFFICE At/BRUIT.

Samuel Dunstall, • young man, who had been for ten or
twelve years in the service of Mr. E. Hoedley, grocer, and
Post-office receiving-house keeper, at 1, York-place,
Brighton, was charged with stealing a number of fonts
and forging and uttering Post-office orders to the extent
of 401.

From the evidence produced by Mr. Peacock, it appeared
that the prisoner absconded from his situation on the 27th
of June last, but nothing was missed until his em-
ployer received a telegram from London, which in-
duced him to examine his blank form books. He
then discovered that eleven forms bad been torn
out of the middle of the book, and the orders now pro-
duced corresponded with them. It then transpired that
the prisoner had filled up some of the orders in the name
of Albert Brown, the payer being " E. Smith," and the
amount 101. Four of these had been made payable to
other offices at Brighton on the morning of June 27, and
he succeeded in getting the cash before leer' the town.
Other orders had bees made payable in Yor , and
the prisoner applied forthe money, 101., at the York office,
hut the postmaster said there was an informality
which must be rectified, and desired him to call again.
la the meantime a telegraph was sent to London, and it
being ascertained that the prisoner was returning to
town by the Great Xorthern Railway, the Post-office con-
stable,
Wm. Smee, went to the Loudon terminus to
await his arrival on Friday. Ha attention had been
directed. by telegram, to a particular carriage, and on
the arrival of the train the prisoner stepped out
of it. Smee accosted him, and asked if his name
was Brown. He replied " No." The prisoner was then
asked if be bad any luggage. He said he hail a bag,
which was in the charge of the gamed. On being told who
Smee was, and the nature of the charge against him, the
prisoner said, " I expected as much." Subsequently, on
being asked if he bad any of the forms left in his palace-
rioo, be replied, " You may as well have the lot," and
produced the remainder from the inside of his shoe.
The prisoner had 141. 10s. in gold and 78.3 d. in silver in
his pockets, and he said he had received 401. at different
offices at Brighton. He told Smee that he meant to have
gone to Harwich and from thence to the United States.
The prisoner said he had no answer to make to the
charge, except that he was guilty.
Mr. Vaughan committed him for triaL

MARLBOROUGH-STRUT.
• STREET OUTRAGE-STRANGE CONDUCT OF A CONSTABLE.
Wan. Walla, a painter, of No. 45, Stanley-street, Chel-
sea, was charged before Mr, lyrwhitt with assaulting two
females, named RebeccaChaetf and Lucy Kavanagh.
Rebecca Chant said—l reside at May's-buildings, Down-
street, Piccadilly, and yesterday I was walking along
Piccadilly, having been to look for my son, when the pri-
soner struck me a violent blow on the nose, without say-
ing a word to me. My nose bled, and I said to the pri-
soner, " You have made my nose bleed ;" and he then
struck me in the mouth. I spoke to a constable, but be
would not take the prisoner into custody, and the prisoner
then turned round and deliberately struck another female.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—Wby did the constable not take the
charge ?
Complainant—He asked me if I would be sure to be at
the court in the morning, and I said I would ; and he then
asked the other female Halle would attend the court, and
after stating that she might not be able, as she had, to go
to a rehearsal, he would not take the prisoner.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—Were you quite water
Complainant—Certainly ; but I do not think the
primmer was quite sober.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—There must be an inquiry into the police-
constable's conduct in the matter. Was the prisoner
taken by another constable for striking the other female?
Complainant—Yes ; the prisoner struck her on the eye
without any provocation whatever.
Mr. Tyrwhitt— How do you get your living!
Complainant—l char at the Duke of Grafton's, and
other noblemen's houses.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—ls the other female who was struck in
tit anlance ?

Cie;l;nant.-I,the is not.
Police•constable Middleton, 96 C—While passing along
Piccadilly, with the section, I was told by the sergeant to
to and see the coulee of a number of persons collecting. I
ks, the complainant crying and bleeding from the nose,
sal another female. who had also been struck. On the
"tPlainant and the other female pointing out the prisoner
L 51155 assaulted them, I took the prisoner into cus-
1. The prisoner said that the parsons had been mob-
Lis.. 1,-

Tyrwhitt—Was the other a poorish female?
t'ou,dable—Yes. She promised to be here this morning.
Prisoner—l was going along Piccadilly when I was
l"hed, my hat knocked in, and I put up my hands to de-
mi,' mrelf.
Complainant—There was no one near him when he first
drua me. The crowd collected when his brutal conduct
was oto.r-rved.
Str- Tyrwhitt said it became the duty of a magis-
trate to be extremely sharp in these cases of un-
warrantable assaults. There was no ground for
the Prisoner's act, except a low, brutal spirit which
some persona possess. It was a great pity the prisoner
bad not struck a man who in return would have marked