The Express.
London, England, 1860-08-08 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCIJIT.--Gun.Dirozn, Atrover 6.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Special Juries.)
RIDLEY T. THE LONDON AND NORTH WINTINN RAILWAY
COMPANY.
This was an action to recover damages for injuries
to have been sustained through the negligence of the en-
dents' servants.

Mx Hawkins Q.C., Mr. Prentice, and Mr. Patchett ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. G. Den-
man were for the defendants.
This action arose out of an accident that took plans to the
mail train on the morning of the let of March last at Rugby.
.I:l3..nslaintiff was in the service of the Poet-office as mail
and he received somewhat severe injuries by the col-
'on. The defendants admitted their liability, and the
only question was the amount of damage.
After one or two witnesses had been examined, the parties
came to an arrangement, and a verdict was returned fur the
plaintiff, with 315/. damages.
WALLACR r. TIAN LONDON AND NORTH WY-STERN RAILWAY
COMPANY.
Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Prentice, and Mr.
Patchett were for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Bevil!, Q.C., end
Mr. Denman for the defendants. _

1n tai atet;;Lioenarrangemen t was made, and the same
cause wee taken in " Bennett v. the London and North
Waders Railway," both the latter came arising out of tho
some occident.

The plaintiff in this action was a young woman named
Rosanna Dupes Frey, and she sought to recover damage.
front the defendant, who is an Wormy, for having negli-
gently conducted an action she had brought against Lord
sod Lady Zetland and consented to an arrangement to stay
that action without her consent.
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had no ground
of action against Lord and Lady Zetland, and also that he
had acted reasonably and laudably as her attorney in the
matter.

XL Kennedy and Mr. Robinson were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Serjeant Parry, Mr. Joyce, and Mr. Jones Levi
aPgrtfor the defendant.
aeta connected with this matter have been so very
frequently before the public that it will not be necessary
to do more than to briefly allude to them on the present
°cession. It will be remembered that the plaintiff, who is
• respectable young woman, went into the service of Lady
Zeeland in June, 1854, as head lady's-maid, and that disc-
greemeuta took place in the family, and that she was sud-
denly discharged from her situation in the month of August
following. She then applied to Mr. Greenwood, a molicitor, who
was acquainted with her family, and be entered into com-
munication with the solicitor of Lori Zetlaud upon the sub-
ject of the treatment she bad received, and subsequently
another solicitor named Wilson, to whom the present de-
fendant was clerk, was applied to, and eventually the
plaintiff's case was placed in the hands of Mr. Voules, and
he brought two actions, one against Mrs. Potter, the house-
keeper of the Earl of Zeeland. for defamation of character,
and another against Lord and Lady Zeeland for detaining
clothes and trinkets, and money, the property of the
plaintiff. The first action was tried and resulted in the
jury giving the plaintiff a verdict with 1001. damages. This
verdict, however, was set aside and • new trial was granted,
and while these roceedings were pending the other action
was coming on for triaL The case on the part of the
plaintiff was that the defendant, who was then acting as
her solicitor, had, without her consent, come to an arrange-
ment with Lord Zeeland, by which a sum of 3001. was paid
to him to settle the actions against Lord and Lady Zeeland,
2501. of which was to be received by Mr.. Vallee as costa,
and the plaintiff was to receive the remaining 501. That
sum was paid to her, and she signed what she
imagined to be • receipt, but which document turned out to
be a ry note for 501., and she wee afterwards sued
by fir. Voules upon that note, but the jury found • verdict
iln bar favour. She then, it appeared, brought an action
against Mr. Voules for negligence, in which she was de-
feated ; and after this she brought an action against Mr.
Foster, the solicitor who conducted her case against Mr.
Voules, of the same kind, which was tried at the Croydon,
Assizes last year, and resulted in her being nonouited. The
present action, as above stated, was brought against Mr.
Voules for having settled the original action without his-
consent. The plaintiff, it will be remembered, was subse-
quently taken in execution for coots, and was for a consi-
derable time in Whitecrou-street Prison.
The plaintiff, Romans. Frey, was examined at consi-
derable length, and she detailed all the facts above nar-
rated, and declared that the believed, when the proportion
warn made respecting the 300/., that it solely applied to the
action spinet Mrs. Potter, and that she never had the
slightest intention of settling the action against Lord and
Lady Zeeland, as she considered it was absolutely necessary
for the vindication of her character, which was the principal
object she bad in view that this action should be proceeded
with. At seven o'clock on Monday evening the case was
adjourned.
A ucuer 7.

The trial of " Frey v. Voules" was proceeded with this
morning.
The plaintiff was cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Parry
at gnsat length.
Serjeant Parry said he was very anxious to all Mr.
Vendee as a witness, but he wee suffering from a severe
attack of the gout, and he wished the trial might be post-
poned for two or three days.
The Lord Chief Justice said be thought it was very
essential that Mr. Voules should be examined, and he saw
DO objection to the use standing over for two or three days,
when, possibly, Mr. Voules might be able to be present.
He thought, however, that the defendant ought to pay the
extra cost ineurrred by the plaintiff through the del"
This course was seceded to, and the further proceedings
in the cause were eonsequently postponed.