The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-04 00:00:00

labs iattellisnut.

COURT OF COMMON I'LEAFL-MAT 3.
!Attila. is Banco.—(Betas Lad Chid Justice Eris, sad
Justices BA.* sod Yeasting.)

PRICE T. BRAW.•

LIEN.

The plaintiff being the owner of three hunters had
entrusted them for training to a person named Hotham,
who took them and also two boys to the Star Inn at
which house was kept by the defendant. TheyBlllA
same mouths, and at the end of that time one of the horses
was left with the defendant, who claimed a lien upon it for
his bill. Subsequently the plaintiff brought an action of
trover for this horse, and at the trial at Reading before
Kr. Baron Bramwell he told the jury that the question in
the cause was whether this wee the case of an innkeeper
and a traveller, for if the defendant had received the horses
as • liveryotable keeper there would be no lien. An innkeeper
had • lien upon goo& such as a guest ordinarily brings with
bun, and he left it to them to say whether this was the
ordinary cam of a traveller going to au inn. The jury said
that it was sot the ordinary cue of an innkeeper and tra-
veller, nod thereupon a verdict was entered for the plaintiff.
BabsgOsstly► rule fora new trial was obtained, upon the
that the judge had misdirected the jury, and that
verdict was against the evidence. To-day cause was
shown spinet this rule being made absolute.
Mr. Serjeant Pigott appeared to show cause, and Mr.
Huddleston and Mr. Matthew' to support the rule.
The Lord Chief Justice, at the conclusion of the ergo'.
ment, said that he could find no grounds fur making this
rule absolute. As to the alleged misdirection, he was of
thatopinion . the
As t jinhdeg: bad left
bleelt the gotvetzinetk=tice to
the they
had been asked where was the specialing as
contract which
deprived the defendant of his ordinary lien ; but the answer
was, that in the transactions of life matters were generally
managed without any explicit contract in the vast majority
of mass. In this cue, though there was no express con-
tract, still the defendant might have inferred from the
circumstances that Hotham took the horses to his house not
as • traveller but in his capacity of trainer. It was his duty
not to disturb the verdict, unlees he could see that the jury
were clearly wrong, and with the best attention which he
could give to the case he could find no ground for disturbing
the verdict.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—MAT 3.
Sittings in Baoeo.—(Before Use Load Chief Baron and
Barons Martia, Basmwell, and Wilde.)
NIAINION o. 1110111.—DINKILL DILATINDre CAST-
ne arguments in this ome for a new trial were resumed,
and had not concluded when the court race.
Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—(Before Mr. Baron
Channel] and a Common Jury.)
DOVER r. HICHARDBO/I.—DUACR OP PROMISE AND

This was an ration to recover compensation for a breach
as
of promise of The defendant pleaded that he
did not promise as
Mr. Edwin James, C., and Mr. It. Scott were counsel
for tbetplaintiff ; Mr. . appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Edwin James, in stating the case to the jury, said it
was an action to recover damages under painful and dis-
tressing circumstances. The plaintif was the daughter of
a very respectable tradesman, a currier and leatherseller,
who carried on businembefore him death at TempleSowerby,
in Westmoreland, and the defendant was a farmer of the
same neighbourhood, but had left for New Zealand. He
was, however, • mason of considerable property, and was
capable of making recompense, so far as money was eon-
oemed. The plaintiff was about 16 years of age when she
was introduce' to the defendant at a bell in the neighbour-
hood lathe latter part of 1854. The defendant, who was now
about 27 years of became enamoured of her, paid his at-
age, tentions to her, end was sonsrated as her suitor. In 1859
the defendant was sent by his Mem& to study at the Ciren.
caster Agricultural College, and during his stay there he
corresponded with the plaintiff in the most affectionate
terms. It turned out that the defendant had taken advan-
tage of the confidence reposed in him and had seduced the
' plaintiff, who was confined on the 14th of last April. In-
stead of making her his wife, as he ought to have done, he
had left the country for New Zealand, leaving to the
plaintiff the necessity of coming into a court of law to en-
force pecuniary coat
Witnesses having Miaraltd in support of the plaintiff's
case, as opened by the learned conned,
Mr. Price addressed the jury in mitigation of damages,
the defendant calling no witnesses. He denied that there
was such a contract of merrtegs between the parties as en.
I titled the pLiintiff to recover damage.. She was fully aware
of the consequence that meet result from the seduction, and
it was unfair to introduce it into this action in order to
catch a verdict and swell the amount of damages. An
action might have been brought for the aeduction, an which
case the plaintiff must have been called and examined,
when the facts of the am would have been thoroughly
sifted. The plaintiff, he costuaded, had not made out the