The Express.
London, England, 1866-12-06 00:00:00

*parting intelligence•

'BESS, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 6, 1866

tido intelligence.

Evidence was given on the part of the plaintiff in sup-
port of thus facts.
Mr. Chambers submitted that there was no case for the
jury. He stated that the warrant to distrain was dated
the 15th October, when the rent was unpsid, and therefore
the defendant was not answerable for what took place
after he signed the warrant. He also contended that it
appeared by the correspondence that the plaintiff had
authority to pay Mr. Williams the rent only upon re-
ceiving the defendant's own receipt ; that no such re-
ceipt hadn fact, been obtained • and indeed it appeared
that Mr. Williams's authority had been withdrawn before
the payment was made to the clerk. Under these circum-
stances be argued that there had been no payment of the
rent before the distrus was pnt in, and therefore that the
distress was regular.
The Lord Chief Justice said that he should leave the
case to the jury.
van for the defendant in re
Some evidence was then gi
-
ference mainly to the points which had been mentioned by
Mr. Chambers.
The Lord Chief Justice directed the jury that the fact
of the warrant having been signed before the payment of
the rent did not exempt the defendant from responsibility.
Further, even if there was a withdrawal of the authority
of Mr. Williams to receive the rent, that withdrawal
would have no operation in law unless it were oommuni-
ceted to the plaintiff. Another circumstance was, that
the defendant bed authorised the payment of the rent by
cheque, and, in reference to some objections of Mr.
Chambers, they would say whether the cheque in question
was one that came within the authority.
The jury found that the letter of the 10th October wan
an authority to the plaintiff to pay. the rent without the
production of the defendant's receipt, and they said that
their verdict was for the plaintiff—damages 5M
Execution was stayed, in order to enable the defendant's
counsel to raise the question whether the defendant was
exempted from responsibility by reason of the warrant of
distress being signed before the rent was paid.
PARSONS r. THY NORTH WISTZRN RAILWAY COMPANY.
The plaintiff in this use was a wholesale boot and shoe
manufacturer at Northampton, and last Whitmonday he
took a ticket by an excurron train from oneNorthamp
London. Near Watford station the train came
lision with the abutment of a bridge, and a very serious
accident wu the consequence. The plaintiff continued
his journey to London,. but he soon found that he
wee very severel,y injured. Since the accident
he had been unable to attend to any business,
and at the present time he was in a state of great prostra-
tion. There was continual pain at bath ends of the spine,
sleeplessness, numbness of the left arm, and other symp-
toms of a very distresiing nature, which showed that there
was great injury to the nervous system. His business, also
which had produced between 7001. and 8001. • year profit,
had fallen off one-half, and he had been put to medioai
and other expenses amounting to 2301. Under theme cir-
cumstances he sued for damages, and it was stated that
the liability of the company was admitted.
Mr. Hudilleston, Q.C., and Mr. Grantham appeareddants for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., for the defen.
The plaintiff was called into the witness-box andthat ac-
commodated with a seat, his condition being such be
could not stand.
Before any evidence was given, however, the counsel
consulted together, and e
vent result was that a verdict was
taken for the plaintiff by oo—damages 1.0751.
RIIIINET AND WIFE V. THY LONDON AND BRIGHTON
RAILWAY.
This was an action to recover damages for injuries sus-
tained at New-cross Station on last Good Friday, and
the only question was the amount of damages to be
awarded.
Mr. Seijeant Ballantine and Mr. ark appeared for
Cl
the plaintiffs and Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and Mr. Hannan
for the defendants.
Mr. Romney was a tailor in a good way of business at
Stoke Newington, and on the day in question he was
with his wife at New-cross in a train which had come from
Wandsworth. Whilst the train was standing at the
station, aCrystalralace train ran into it, and the plaintiffs
were thrown violently backwardsand forwards. The plaintiff
had suffered since from sleeplessness, pains in the back,
stomach, and head, and the doctors thought there was
concussion of the spine. Since then he had been able
only imperfectly to attend to his businss, and
and it w
as
believed that he still required six months'e rest change
of air to completely restore him. As to Mrs. Rumney,
in
her case also there was an injury to the spine, and in ad-
dition she received a blow upon the mouth which broke
off one of her teeth, and so loosened four or five others
that they had to be removed. About a month after the
accident Mrs. Rumney was confined, a month before
her time, and her health had been much affected
since. In addition to this there had bee andfound a
it was
small
cavity in the right apex of the lung,this
thought had followed from the accident and the conse-
quences of it.
Mr. Manisty called no witnesses for the defence, but
addressed the jury upon the question of the amount of
the damages.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the statement before
the jury was that Mr. Rumney had to pay, one way or
another, `250/. for expenses consequent upon the accident,
and that, in addition, he had lost 1001. of profits in his
business since the accident, in consequence of his loss of
energy and power. The jury would take into their
consideration these circumstances, and also the pain and
suffering of the plaintiffs, and the time which would
pass before they perfectly recovered their health.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs—damages

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Dsc. 5.
After Term Nisi Prins Sittings at Westminster•—alalace
the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
HYAMB V. THE NORTH LONDOE RAILWAY COMPANT.
This was ausetion to recover compensation in damages
for injuries received through the alleged negligence of the
defendants' servants. The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. H. 1. Lewis were co.an-
sel for the plaintiff ,• Mr. Prentice, Q.C., and Mr. White
were counsel for the defendants.
The plaintiff is a clothes salesman in the neighbourhood
of Bishopsgate-street. On the evening of the 3rd January
last plaintiff accompanied a friend named Cohen to deli-
ver glass shades, &c., in the Caledonian-road. They took
return tickets at the Liverpool-street station, and when
the train got to the Osledonmn-road station the carriage
in which the plaintiff and his Mend was stopped short
of the platform, and in getting out he fell down,
smashed the shade be bad in his hand, and
severely struck his leg. He was obliged to return by the
next train, and had to be conveyed from the station to his
home in a cab. He was confined five or six weeks to his
bed, matter having formed in the leg, and to the house for
ten or eleven weeks after. Re claimed special damage
from being unable to attend to his business for some
months, during which time he paid a buyer on an average
3/. per week by a commission of 21 per cent., and his son
21. lOs, per week as a " renovator." The plaintiff said
that whilst he was ill the travelling inspector of the com-
pany called on him, and said he was a very fortunate
man, because if the train had gone on he must have
been killed. lie wished the persons in the room to be sent
out, as he wished to speak to him, but the plaintiff refused.
Abiock, the inspector, then said, " Suppose, Mr. Hyams,
you make some offer. I have been sent here by the com-
pany to makeyou some compensation;" and he gave him an
instance wher a man had refused 1001. offered by a rail-
way oompany,going to law, and getting nothing. Plaintiff
said he had incurred 2001. expenses, having been obliged
to take six new laid eggs,brandy, and wine a day, and his
doctor's expenses were 201. ss.
The defence was that thin was an crate
claim,
and that the accident was of a very ' • character.
The plaintiff was cautioned about getting out before the
train started. Alcoek, the travelling inspector, was called,
and said he went to the plaintiff at the request of the
secretary. He told the plaintiff that without admitting
the company's liability, if he was any way reasonable in
his demand, he would give him something in charity. He
was often employed to go about to settle these cases, and
he frequently carried cheques and money with him, and
receipts, to be filled up. He asked plaintiff to make an
offer ; he was empowered to give him what he (Alcock)
considered reasonable. lie could not say how many such
eases he had visited.
The Lord Chief Justice.—What, are your accidents so
numerous that you cannot recollect them?
Witness—We have not more than any other company.
The plaintiff's stock and furniture did not appear to be
worth more than 20/. Dr. Gill, who saw the plaintiff for
the company, described him to be a very nervous and weak
man, and that the wound in the leg was of a superficial
character ; and Mr. Prentice, in addressing the jury, said
the plaintiff might well exclaim, "My wound is great
because it is so small !" The plaintiff's doctor described
hihowever, as a strong healthy man before the accident.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the de-
fendants.

1,0001.

THE SPECIAL JUST SYSTEM.
In the coarse of the day complaints were made of the
way in which special juries were summoned ; in fact, few
days pass without some such complaint being made.
The Lord Chief Justice said that as the law at present
stood the names of special jurors were taken by ballot, so
that it was a matter of chance whether a man was sum-
moned every day, or not for years. As he had before said
the matter was now under the consideration of the goad a-
meat, and he hoped that another session of parliament
would not use without a remedy being attempted. lie
might add that if the body of special jurors would sugs
any improved plan, the country would be very much
indebted to them.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Dtc. 5.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
SMYTH AND ANOTHER r. wit.soN AND OTHERS.—
SPECIAL JURY.
For the defence it wax contended that no evidence had
been given to show that the testatrix, at the time of mak-
ing the will, knew and approved of its contents.
The jury, however, without hesitation, found for the
executors, and
The Judge decreed probate, but, considering that the
litigation had been entirely caused by the procrastination
of the deceased, g kve the costa of the defendants out of
the estate.

COIJRT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Dec. 5. i
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE JOHN PARKER.
The bankrupt was a lamp manufacturer, of Barge-yard,
Bucklersbury. The case has been before the court up-
wards of a twelvemonth. It will be remembered from the
circumstance of the bankrupt having, from ill health, en-
trubted the management of the business entirely to his
son, who, by a course of pledging goods and other miscon-
duct, soon brought his father to bankruptcy. The debts
are fi,:100/. ; assets returned at upwards of 2,0001.
This was an adjourned sitting for discharge.
Mr. Bagley, for the assignees, said that toey had great
reason to complain of the way in which the bankrupt's
business had been conducted ; and in ordinary cases they
would have opposed under the misdemeanour clauaesof the
act. But there were peculiar features here. In April,
IS4I thebankrupt had an attack of paralysis, the manage-
meui of the business devolved upon his son, who grossly
misoonducted it, and everything went to ruin. It would
be for the court to consider whether the bankrupt, under
the affliction with which he had been visited, could be
hell respononsible for his son's misconduct.
Mr. Brough appeared for a creditor.
His Honour said there was no reason to doubt that the
bankrupt had acted honk fide in selecting his son to
manage his business ; and having regard to the serious
illness with which he had been visited, the court could not
r punish him for his son's misconduct, either under the
penal or the misdemeanour section. The order would,
therefore, be granted.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.--EITAITOItD, Dso. 5.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
Mary Brown, 22, no occupation,
was indicted for the
wilful murder of her female child, in Wolverhampton.
Mr. Motterany, with whom was ldr. Young, prosecuted;
Mr. Harrington defended.
The evidence against the prisoner was at most entirely
circumstantial, and was to the effect that on the 21st et
August last she was admitted into the Wolverks femalempten
union, where she was confined the sense day of •
child. The prisoner remained in the union until the 3rd
of September, when she left, taking with her her child,
which was dressed in clothing damned with the work-
house mark, and carrying also a beaket containing a
piece of muslin, a number of pawn tickets, and a card of
battens. At six o'clock in the evening of the same day
she was observed by two men in Lear.Lne, • thoroughfare
near to • field just out of Wolverhamptoby one of the
men to be standing near • heap of bricks, and by the other
to be sitting on them. On the following day she was taken
into custody on a charge of felony,.and she had not got her
child with her then. A magisterial: inquiry resulted in
the prisoner being sent to gaol for six weeks, and she was
therefore taken to Stafford to serve her term of imprison-
ment In her basket were found several articles of child's
clothing, marked with the union stamp ; bed, as
the police had received no intimation of •
dead child having been found, no suspicion
was aroused. On the 25th of September, however,
two men proceeding early to their work, passed through
Lear-lane, and their attention was attracted to some rap
protruding from a little mound of bricks on one side of
the road. Upon removing the bricks they discovered the
partially decomposed body of • female child, aged appa-
rently about a fortnight, covered with the piece of muslin
before referred to. The skull was fractured, and that
injury seemed to have been the cause of death. The pri-
soner was subsequently charged with murdering the child,
but she made no reply. After being examined before the
magistrates in Wolverhampton, she was asked by a
female searcher there why she had murdered her
child. She replied, I did do it. I don't
deny it. The devil tempted me." She afterwards
admitted her guilt to • fellow prisoner, adding that she
did not kill the child by fracturing its skull, but that she
strangled it whilst it lay on her knee. (Sensation.)
When before the coroner, she said, pointing to the last
witness, who had been relating her confession to the jury,
" that she had nothing more to say than what she told

hiru.'i
Mr. Harrington having addressed the jury,
Ms lordship summed up at considerable length ; after

which
and at
The jury retired, the lapee of about five minutes,
returned a verdict of GusUy, but recommended the prisoner
to mercy.
[ Sentence of death was passed in the usual form.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT. —MAwarzeTER, Dze. 5.
CROWN Courr.—{Before Mr. Julio. Blackburn.)
John Sherlock, 22, was charged with having wilfully
and unlawfully slain and killed Harriett Kew.
Cobbett was for the prosecution, and Mr. B. Jones
was counsel for the defence.
The prisoner, on being placed at the bar, asked how it
was he should have been brought there before being taken
before a magistrate !
The Judge said he had before complained of persona
being committed on the coroner's warrant without being
examined before a magistrate. He did not think the
prisoner should complain of it because it would probably be
more in his favour than against him.
On the first witness being called the prisoner again
interposed. He said he did not want any witnesses there ;
be was before God and the Son of God.
His lordship (stopping the prisoner) said be had better
elect whethae he would defen t his own case or allow Mr.
Jones to do it ; he could not allow both.
The Prisoner—Who engaged him ?
Mr. Jones said his lordship would probably see the
unfortunate state of the prisoner's mind. He had been
engaged by
_the prisoner's friends to defend him.
His lordship said he had nothing now to do with
that question. It might be a question whether an issue
should not go to the jury along with the present issue, as
to whether the prisoner was in a fit state to be tried. He
would advise the prisoner to allow Mr. Jones to defend
him, but he must decide for himself.
The prisoner said his lordship would be able to answer
that question as well as himself. He wished to correct
what he had before said. The woman was the mother of
God, but he was not the son of God. God the Father
was not his father, but his father's father.
His lordship here exchanged a few words as to the con-
duct of the prisoner in gaol with one of the officials of the
prison, and then directed the jury to be sworn upon_a
second issue as to the state of the prisoner's mind.
The case then proceeded.
The deceased woman and the prisoner lived next door
to each other, in Worth-street, Rochdale-road, and on the
29th September prisoner was standing on his step
at the front door, and had some quarrel with the
deceased, who stood on the stone flags of the
an
street in front of him. He ordered her away, d struck
her under the chin. He afterwards hit her under
the ear, and she then staggered and fell. This was in the
morning, and she went about her work in the afternoon.
Next morning she was found to be seriously ill, and died
during the day. On a post-mortem examination by Mr.
Worthington, surgeon, he discovered injuries of the brain,
and was of opinion that they might be caused by blows
and a fall such as the witnesses described.
The ease for the prosecution was a very short one.
For the defence Dir. Ernest Jones called witnesses who
showed that deceased was drinking and quarrelling with
people after the assault described by witnesses for the pro-
secution, and that she had been struck and knocked down
in consequence of her violent conduct.
The prisoner's sister said the deceased had come into
their house before the assault which had been described
and struck their mother. It was for that the prisoner
pushed her from the door. He did not strike her or knock
her down. This witness described seeing deceased very drunk
at a beer-shoplate the same night, where she quarrelled with
a man and the man knocked herdown. Witness and another
woman picked deceased up and caned her home after that
blow, and found her almost helplessly drunk.
At, the conclusion of the defence Mr. James Ogden
Fletcher, M.D., was called into the witness box and ex-
amined by the judge. Mr. Fletcher said he was medical
officer to the Manchester borough gaol, and had attended
the prisoner twice while in the gaol. On both occasions
he had pretended insanity, but had afterwards thrown off
the pretence and done his work cheerfully enough. He
(Mr. Fletcher) had no doubt about his perfect sanity.
In charging the jury his lordship again alluded to the
fact of the prisoner not having been committed on a ma-
gistrate's warrant es well as on a coroner's warrant, but
said he had no power to punish such conduct except by
disallowing the prosecutor's coots, which he should do.
The jury found that the prisoner was sane. On the
principal charge they found the prisoner or y,
but re-
commended him to mercy on the ground that the offence
was committed under a good deal of provocation.
Sentence deferred.