The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-19 00:00:00

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Niue in Nliddleses.—(Befote Lord Chief
Justice &mill and a Special Jury.)

GINAON T. THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON MAIIIIAY COMPANY.
The plaintiff in thiscase resided in Somers-town, and his
counsel said that he had for some time carried on the
business of a zoolette-table keeper, at Jersey, where such
business was lawful. and on the 4th of August he arrived
at Brighton with his table. This table was a few days
afterwards used at Brighton races, and on the 10th of that
month he came up to London. The table was packed up
fiat, and a porter asked what it was, and was told that it
was a roulette table, and that care must be taken of it.
The porter also ticketed the article, and gave the plaintiff
a corresponding ticket for delivery of it in London. On
arrival at London-bridge, however, the table could not be
found, and had not sine been heard of. The action was
to recover damages for the low of the roulette table.
Mr. Besley and Mr. Grantham appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. liawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Hannon for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff was called in support of his case, and do-
poaod to the above facts. He resided at Somerstown, and
the table cost him altogether 521. He and his " partner"
came to town from Brighton together. His partner's
name was Cain, and be was a " working partner."
Mr. Hawkins—You mean a "bonnet," I suppose? Yon
know what a "bonnet" mean', I suppose!
Witness—No • I never heard tho term "bonnet" except
as meaning a hold-dress. (Laughter.)
. . .

The Loral Chief JustieeLYA never heard of the term
" bonnet"!

Ifilia;ssLl don't understand what the gentleman
means. (Laughter.) He never played the pea trick, nor
the three-card trick. He lived in St. Pancras parish, in
Somers-town, in Middlesex-street-ST.
Mr. Hawkins—And occupy a house•, or a room in it.

Witness--A room. lam only a single man.
Mr. Hawkins—Oh no ; you have a partner. (Laughter.)
Is the single room the top lack
Witness—Yes. (Laughter.) He never told tho railway
people that the Hat parcel contained joiners' work, which
he was going to tit up at a gentleman's house; nor did he
tell them afterwards that the table was worth 241. 10s. The
gentleman who made the inquiries went to the person who
made the table. It was the table, the centre, the cloths,

and other things that made up the price 521.
Re-examined—After he told the porter that the parcel
contained a roulette table he ticketed it, and gave witness
a ticket for " passenger' luggage."
Cain was called, and he said that at Brighton the
porter desired to know what was in the flat parcel, as
they would not be answerable for more than IW. unless
they saw it. Nothing was said about it being joiners'
work.

Cross-examined—He and him partner might be termed
gamblers. (A laugh.) They went about to races, and
when that was over they dealt in fish and fruits. He had
not so dealt within the last six months. He had been
gambling with " race-hones " and other things.
Wm. White, a greengrocer, said that he saw the plain-
tiff at the Brighton station on the 10th August, and said,
" What have you got there ?" and he said, " A roulette
table." lie was at that time giving the parcel to the
porter, and told him to take care of it, for it was very
valuable.
Mr. Hawkins submitted that there was no case for the
plaintiff. It was clear that this table was sot "
paseen-
gen' luggage," and even assuming that the description of
what took place with the porter was correct, there was no
authority in the porter to enter into a contract to carry
such an article as passengers' luggage.
The Lord Chief Justice declined to stop the case.
Mr. Hawkins then addressed the jury and said that he
should show that some of the circumstances stated by the
plaintiff and his witnesses were not true ; and from this he
asked them to infer that the other statements were not
trustworthy. He should show that the parties told Mr.
Wright, the inspector, when he made inquiries, that they,
having deposited the table at the cloak-room on the 4th
August, did not afterwards take it to the race-course, but
that it was taken straight from the cloak-room on to the
platform on the 10th for conveyance to London. He could
not directly contradict what was said to have taken place
with a porter without calling every porter at the Brighton
Station, but he should show that though full inquiries
had been made no trace of what was said to have taken
place with the porters could be discovered.
. .

• A
juryman ailed how Gibson got the ticket for "pea.
wingers' luggage."
Mr. Hawkins said that he should be sorry to be called on
for everything posseseed by Gibson • ' and without saying
that he would be guilty of a dirty or dishonourable act
he submitted that he did not come by the ticket in a
proper way. He should also show that no evidence could
be discovered of the roulette table having ever been upon
the line at all, and further that when the parcel was in-
quired for it was described as containing joiners' work.
[The case was proceeding when our report left.]