The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-26 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Stamp in Banoo.—(Betor• Mr Julio* Will. and Mr
Joanne Keating.
The eouri sst this niersieg fer tbe porpoise of giving their
assisiess ia outs nbiob stood over for Judgment.

INDIIIIKAUZ D. DAYS& -
The plaintiff in this case wee a jourasymas gas.
titer, and the defendant was a sager redeem is badness
la the neighbourhood of Whiteehapel. The plaintiff
eat to the defendant's premises to me how a patent gas
mutate( which bad been pat up acted. He was meow-
puled by his employer nod • man in the defendant's esr-
Tim woes before them carrying • light. The plaintiff did
sale work so a burner. and the party went on to another
rat of the precnima. Almost immediately the plaintiff
Ncellected that be had left his pliers where he bad
lees at work and went back to fetch them. In going
in join the other two persons, be did not follow the path
they had takee, but took a short out acre. the floor. In
doing so he fell through s. hole in the floor which was
uad fee hoisting sar from one part of the building to
mother. He suffered fearful injuries anti now sued to re-
cover damages upon the ground that the accident had
comrred through the defendant's negligence. At the
trial it was proved that the hole was not teemed
gm lighted ; but that in all sugar refimmies there
ins a precisely similar hole. The jury found that the
*stiff bad not himself been guilty of any negligence,
and they awarded him 403/. damages. The question now
vas whether • role should be made absolute to enter a
Nosed or for a new trial.
Mr. Jostice Wilke said that the facts would not warrant
them is bolding that there was no evideam of neglect of duty
on the part of the defendant or his servants, sod upon this
Foot eatcring • nousuit; nor was there such clear fieldmice
11 contributory negligence on the part of the 'plaintiff as
would justify the court in ordering a new trial. The judge
had not reported that he was disestisfied with the verdiet,
and the court ought not to grant • new trial without m-
ovable ground for believiog that another jury would And
differently.
Rule disabused.

EIDSTOBB IP. TH/ BWPRB MASDri INSDRAIVCZ COMPAILIT.
This was an action epos a policy of imam:* upon the
height, valued at 5,C301., of the ship Sebastopol, from New
Zealand to South Anierloa, end thence to Elegised. The
risk wee "Warraated free from web:mime average." Tte
@ergo consisted of guano. The ship encountered severe
weather sad had to put into Rio de Janeiro io so dam-
qed • slate that there was a soostructive total lose
of the ship. The guano, however, was pot on shore, and
was subsequently placed on board smother ship, end in that
way the voyage wee completed sod the freight mined.
The question sow raised was whether the charges for land-
ing, hominy, he., came within the meaning of the term
"particular avenge" for which the underwriters were not
lo be liable.

Mr. Janice Wines siid that the expenses mooned were
recoverable ander the "sttiog and labouring" datum from
the underwriters, es the expanse of averting a pending
total logs, for which the underwriters would have been
liable. The matter was one, however, of such great coon-
gasses that the ooart would next time state the precise
grounds upon which their judgment wAs band.
Judgment for the plaintiff.