The Express.
London, England, 1858-04-26 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.—Aram 24.

(Sittings at Nisi Prhu.—Before Mr. Justice Coleridge and
Common Juries.)
Burnt o. COLLII.-ACCIDENT.

This action was brought to recover compensation for in-
juries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence
of the defendant's servants. It appeared that the plaintiff,
Mrs. Sarah Smith, is an old woman about 70, residing at
Camberwell. The defendant lea builder, in Moorgate-strcet.
On the let of October last the plaintiff wu in Wyndham-
road, Camberwell; obi was about to cross the reed, but, at
the moment, a cart belonging to the defendant, driven by a
boy, came up at a rapid pace. The boy pulled tho left rein,
the eart struck her, ebe was knocked down and seriously
Waved. The same evening defendant sent her 10e., and did
so kr some weeks, paying altogether 31. 2s. 6d. She wu
kill unable to dregs herself without assistance. lier
son was meeaenger to the :commiseioner of Urea for
Bloomsbury. He made her a email allowance, and
she gained something by selling matches and other light ar-
ticles. She herself and the first witness called for her stated
that at the time of the accident there was no other cart in the
road. She had her beck to the out and stepped off the pave-
smut the moment it came up, and almost knocked against the
bores.

Mr. Justice Coleridge said he did not see how the plaintiff
could recover ; she had no business to step off the pavement
the moment the cart was coming up. He would tell the jury
that if she materially contributed to the accident she could
not recover.

The Foreman of the jury said it did not appear ahe was
•aware the cart was coming up.
At the close of the plaintiff's case,
Mr. Justice Coleridge again stated that he did not think
the plaintiff could recover. She had been guilt 7 of grosa
want of care in attempting to cross without looktng about,
but ea the pow woman had suffered severely be thought ahe
ought to get some recompense.
Mr. Sorjeent Sallentine said he had offered, if the plaintiff
would withdraw a juror, to give her 61.
Mr. Temple would be satisfied, with the casts out of pocket
in addition.

Yr. Justice Coleridge said the deleadiat had better double
his offrr.

Aher some dlactirsio• • juror was withdrawn, the de.
Pendant to pay the plaintiff IW.
Mr. mattes Coleridge, addressing the jury, said be was one
of time who thought it of very great importance to preserve
the right of foot passengers to cross the road, especially at
whet were called crossings. The law wee very senrible In
theuiseemect, If
lea men brought an action for injuries
by the alged negligence of some other person. be
wee bound to show that the sot wag not done under Noah eir-
comstanors as that he by his own negligence had mate-441y
contributed to it. Everybody anode, • road was hound to
look around and see whether any oftMee who were in legal
occupation of it, on hones or in canines, were coming along.
If they were, he ought to stop. 80 on the other hand, when
they came to a crossing, drivers of omnibuses, carriages,
&c., were bound to look out for foot passengers, and if there
were any such persona crossing the driven ought to atop.
It appeared to him that the plaintiff in this case did not take
proper cares and it was no anawer to say she did not see the
cert. lie thought it impoesible for her to recover in point of
law.

COURT OF COMMON PLF.AB.—APRIL 24.
(Sittingi in Beano—Before Mr Justice Crowder.)
The court only eat to hear motions, and soon aftenrarda
adjourned, two of the judges having to sit In the Court of
Criminal Appeal.

(Sittings at NW Prism in Middlesex—Before )dr. Justice
Williams and a summon jury.)

PIDDINOTON O. Till 1101ITII EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

THE CONTINENTAL PARCEL TRADE:

The plaintiff is a carrier, who has been for some years en-
gaged in collecting and forwarding small parcel. to the Con-
tinent, and he sued the railway company to recover certain
small sums of money which he allepd bad been charged
Ice the carriage of parade in excess f what was the proper
rate. The alleged overcharge bad been made upon what are
celled
er et packseisasareel. that h, parcels containing in them •
amb
my. Look,QC., awd Mr. Q. Browse appeared for the
plaindE sad Mr. Hugh Q.tbe defendants.
It was stated that there had been an agreement that the
should cerry the plalatirs parcels at
a tonnage rats
of ewe, cwt., but net year the company gun notice that
they would themselves undertake the collection and
of small parcels. The plaintiffconsequently refused tocarerotr
nue the merman:it to pay 10s. per cwt., mid he put an end to
it. The company thereupon pi.tlieLed a fresh scale of
charges, according to which they ...barged double price for
packed ; and the question was whether such soak
was . It was admitted that the 133rd section of their
act gave the annenny power to make each arrangemeats
as to them might seem proper in reference to the carriage of
email paresis; but then it wu said that this wu restrained
by another enactment that the charges must be equal to all
mum, whilst this extra chirp hr packed parody maid
Mien carriers only. According to recent &Mims it mak'
he for the jury to say whether the charges were equal for all
=ggessad whether then wee any greater expense, risk, or
i neekmm in conveying pecked parade so as to entitle
the company to amp extra for them.
Evidence was laid baba the Jury to.establiah the negative
of these
Fur thtr=te it wan submitted that the price charged
was ressostable on two grousda, the lownen of the charge,
sad the extra risk, for it bad been decided fa "Puked v.
the ()teat Wanes Railway," that in the meat of tkokem of