The Express.
London, England, 1860-12-11 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCE —Doz. 10.

Elittinp at Nisi Priva after Term for lifiddleser..—(Haloes
the Lord Chief Justice and a Common Jury.) •
NATLI T. ELLIOTT.

This was the last day of the sittings; and no less than
Sr. hours were occupied with the trial of this trumpery
case—for so his lordship in summing up designated it.
It WA an action for two trespasses on the plaintiff's
dwelling house, and ejecting him therefrom. The plaintiff
is a gresegrooer, in the occupation of the house, 10, Skinner-
-Bt. Pancras, and the defendant is a oheesemonger in
the Edgware-road, and the landlord of the house, 10, Skin-
neralireet. Hearing that the plaintiff was about to remove
all his good' from the house, the defendant placed • dia.'
trees warrant in the hands of • broker on the even.
lag of Saturday, the 20th of July, for • quarter's
rent then due. The broker's men arrived at No. 10,
before four o'clock on the Monday morning, just in time to
prevent the goods from being taken away in the cart of the
plaintiff's father. One of the men then advanced into the
shop, which was open, and acquainted the plaintiff, who
was there with his wife, hie sister, and • young lad, with
the purpose for which he bad come, whereupon the plaintiff
collared him and sent for • large dog to aid in expelling him
from the premises. The broker's representative being •
very diminutive little man, this was effected without mach
difficulty, the plaintiff's wife scratching his face into the
bargain. However, in acting thus under the authority of a
warrant, the man MIS charged with being a trespass.,
and with all but causing the death of the plaintiff's wife,
through the noise and uproar which the proceeding gave
rise to. The second trespass was stated to have been com-
mitted the same night close upon 12 o'it
when the broker's men, finding the bowie
closed
them, removed the abutters, and forced their way
in. Next morning the plaintiff endeavoured to get into his
house, but he was refused admission by the men in_poeses-
and he was so kept out until Wednesday. The de-
fendant's case was that the man was lawfully in the house
to levy • distress for the quarter's rent when he was forcibly
ejected. Subsequently, in the course of the same day, the
warrant was withdrawn by the defendant, although the man
who had been ejected might have used force to re-enter ;
therefore the second entry, end what took place under it,
was unauthorised by the defendant, nor had he approved
of the acts of the men after • knowledge of them reached
him.

His lordship, in summing up, said there was not a shadow
of doubt that the intention of the plaintiff was to have re-
moved all his goods off the premises.
The jury found for the defendant, but in order to avoid
all risk, in obedience to his lordship's directions, they
assessed the damages, on account of the plaintiff's ejection
from his house for two days, at one farthing. This was to
meet the contingency of the plaintiff moving the court upon
the finding.
Mr. Cr:Eta represented the plaintiff ; Mr. Shaw the
defendant.

With the trial of the above cause the sity were
brought to • conclusion, the list in each court being
During the fortnight they hated forty.four causes were
tried.

To-morrow (this day) the court sits at Guildhall for the
London aittinp.
IMOOND COURT.

Sittings at Nil Print at Westminster.—(Before Mr.
Jurtire Crompton sad Common Juries.)
JOHABOA V. 111111111.—A88AOLT.

Mr. Francis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Huddle,
for the defendant

The plaintiff in this case, a bricklayer, brought this action
spinet the defendant, who was his late landlord, for a
Manus and assault. It appeared that in the summer of
the present year the plaintiff contracted with the defendant
to do some main, and in order to do so he rented a room
in one of the defendant's houses at 3s. per week. In July
the defendant quarrelled with his wife, who ran into the
plaintiffs room for protection, upon which the defendant
insisted that his wife and the plaintiff should leave his
house. The plaintiff refused, and a is ensued, in
which the defendant was thrown down. The defendant
then left the room, but shortly afterwards returned with a
gun, and threatened to shoot the plaintiff, who pushed him
out of the room, upon which the defendant made such a
noise outside that the plaintiff could not sleep.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 20s.

00IIRT OF COMMON PLEA/EL—Die. 10.
Sittings ►t Nisi Prins in London.—(Before Lord Chief
Justice Erle and a Special Jury.)

MANUS W. MAGNUS AND OTHISS.—DRZACH CDP CONTRACT.
The plaintiff in this ease was a merchant in London, and
the defendantiNvere coal merchants in business near London-
bridge. In 1856 the plaintiff had entered into • contract
to supply about 18,000 tons of coal to a gam company at
Toulouse, and in consequence he entered into a contract with
the defendants, by which they undertook to deliver at
Bordeaux 12,000 tons of Welsh gas or coking coals at the
rate of 1,000 tons • month, the first shipment to be in No-
vember, 1866, and the price 20h. 6d. a ton. No coals were
delivered in November, and in December there were only
514 tons ; January, 636 tons ; and February, 338 tons. After
February no coals were delivered. Those sent in December
were not of proper quality, and were refused in France.
Under these circumstances the plaintiff claimed damages,
for the supply having been deficient in quantity, and for
part of those sent having been of inferior quality.
Mr. Lush, Mr. Holtman, and Mr. Turner appearegor the
pindantsaintiff,. and Yr. Hawkins and Mr. Simon for the de-
, fo

Afterhewing some evidence an arrangement wu come to,
end a verdict wee taken by consent for the plaintiff —de-
mega, 300 i.
SEOOND 00IIRT.

Sittings at Nisi Prins in London.—(Before Mr. Justice
Willi:sands Common Jury.)

SWANN r. COCITRANIC AID CYTHLitB.-DILAPIDAIIO/18.
This action was brought under the following circum-
italaCPi. The plaintiff was tenant of a wharf and promises
at Backside, Southwark, the landlords being the Tallow-
chandlers' Company, and in 1856 the plaintiff let the wharf
to the defendants, who subsequently pulled down some
sheds and a stable standing upon the wharf. The Tallow-
chandlers' Company made • claim against the plaintiff for
dilapidation, and be had to pay 2501. He now claimed
against the defendants in respect of the old buildings which
they had pulled down.
The principal contention on the part of the defendants
woe that they had the leave and license of the plaintiff to do
as they had done.
His lordship directed the jury that in the event of
their finding for the Plaintiff they must bear in mind
that the plaintiff's liability for dilapidation we, greeter than
the defendants', the plaintiff being a leaseholder, and hav-
ing entered into • stringent covenant to repair, and the de-
fendants being simply tenants from year to year.
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 1001.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Dze. 10.
Sittings at Nid Prins at Guildhall.--(Before Lord Chief
Baron Pollock and a Special Jury.)
This was the first day of the after teroknisi prim sittings
at Guildhall. The list contains eighty awns, eight of which
are rewenete.

GRIST V. COLTrit.

This was an action to recover certain sums of money for
the working, &c., of Ntents for manufacturiog casks under
certain agreements. The defendant pleaded that he had
performed his part of the contract.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Macnamara were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Manisty, Q.C., end Mr. Banes were counsel
for the defendant.
Mr. Lush, in stating theca.* to the j said—The plain-
tiff resides at Old Ford, and the defendant is a cooper,
carrying on business in Leman-street, Goodman's-fields,
Whitechapsl. In 1853 and 1864 the plaintiff invented
certain machine. for manufacturing casks (all except hew-
ing them) without manual labour, except what was neces-
sary to work the machines, the effect of which would be
to materially hewn the wet of production. In 1864 the
defendant applied to the plaintiff with a view to purchase
the inventions, which resulted in an arrangement to work
them. The plaintiff, in consideration of 2001., to be paid
by instalments, assigned the patents to the defeelia
stipulating that the plaintiff should give his undivided
attention to their completion, and that the defendant should
forthwith proceed to carry than out in a cooperage on a
large scale. The plaintiff was also to have a salary
of 1001. a-year for the first year, 1501, for the
second, sad so on, with 15 per cent, on the
profits on the saving of manual labour reaulting from the
working of the patents, and 50 per cent, on all lemmas to
work the patent. ; the defendant finding the money requi-
site for perfecting the patents. In 1855 and 1866 the plain-
tiff mode further improvements, and other patents were
taken out, which were assigned to tile defendant upon cer-
tain conditions. la 1867 the defendant pot up two or throe

of the machines which proved satisfactory ,but the plaintiff
contended the defendant had not fulfilled his part of the
agreements. The matter was then submitted to the cowl-
&ratios of Mr. Bruner, editor to the Meeitantee Magazine
who is flopi., 1859, said that if he wss called u .n make
an award, he should order the paymentef 1,111 . within a
month from that date in full satisfaction of all claims, and
350/. more for his interest in the 15 per cent, on all licenses
granted. The defendant approved of it, and sent it to the
plaintiff, who subsequently agreed to it, when the defendant
gave notice of abandonment.
At this stage of the proceedings the learned counsel con-
ferred together, and informed his lordship that they had
agreed to a verdict for the plaintiff for 4001., subject to
Stoma

The jury accordingly returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for 4001., on terms.

lULET T. BAIIEEDALE.-ACCIDENT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, administmtrix
of her deceased husband, to recover compensation in da-
mages from the defendant, the extensive carrier, carrying
on business under the name of Pickford and Co. The decla-
ration stated that the deceased was a servant in the de-
fendant's employ, and that the defendant exposed him to
unneoramry risk and danger in the course of his employ-
ment, contrary to the terms of his agreement, whereby he
was killed. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and that the
deceased was not a servant in the terms mentioned in the
declaration.

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Dutton were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and another learned
counsel, were counsel for the defendant.
Mr. M. Chambers in stating the plaintiff's case, said the
plaintiff brought the action against the defendant to recover
compensation for a fatal accident that happened to her
husband, who was a porter in the defendant's service. It
was a question involving the liability of employers, and was
one of considerable importance. Unquestionably under the
common law a master was bound to employ competent
persons in the discharge of his ordinary business, and not to
expose those in his employ to unnecessary danger. On the
12th of March the deceased was engaged, with others, in
lowering a very large truck of goods to the defendant's
premises from the railway, and in consequence of its ex-
treme size, when it was on the turn-table, and beinglowered
down, the deceased was crashed to death between the
buffer and the wall of the warehouse.
The Lord Chief Berea said he was not aware of the doe-
trine laid down, viz., that a master was liable, under the
circumstances, for the incompetency of other men in his
employ.
Mr. Chambers said the master had caused a truck to be
on the L turn-table, which he knew could not safely
done. He contended there was an implied contract be-
tween muter and servant, that the latter should not be
exposed to unnecessary danger.
The Lord Chief Baron said he was of opinion there was
no such implied contract.
Mr. Mellor said the deceased had worked the turn-table
and the truck in turn for four years.
The plaintiff wee ultimately nonsuited.