The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-02 00:00:00

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.--Juirz 30.

Sittings at Nisi Prium for London.—(Before the Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn sod Special Juries.)
OLDFIELD C. PRICK.

This was an action by a bookbinder, formerly carrying on
his Wainer at 17, Devonshire street, Queen-square, come-
bury, Mr. Thomas Price, secretary to the General
Life and Fire Assurance Company. The declaration con-
tained two counts—one in trespass, for wrongfully entering
the plaintiff's house, evicting him, and seizing hiaigoods ;and
the other in trover, for converting the goods to the use of
the defendant.

The case at first promised considerable interest, as it
seemed to raise the important question whether insurance
companies, in the absence of a clause in their policies
authorising the exercise of such a power have a right to
enter upon premises after the happening of a fire, and retain
posseasion of them with a view of ascertaining the amount
of the salvage. However, as the defendant, by paying 25'.
into court on the first count, to cover all trespasses between
the 254 of February, the date of the fire, and the 25th of
March, when it was alleged the premises were no longerheld
by the plaintiff, but were given up to the landlord, admitted
himself to be a wrong doer, the point was not raised.
The fire in question took place on the 2nd of February,
1859, and next day the of ice took poseeesion. At the time
of the fire the plaintiff declared lie had about 1,250 en-
graved tools on the premises, and the amount of his claim
on the company was for 994/. 9s. 7d. The company deeming
the claim an exaggerated one disputed it., and ultimately the
matter was referred to arbitration, when an award was
made in favour of the plaintiff for upwards of 600 i., besides
the salvage. But pending the arbitration the company held
possession of the premises, and likewise of the salvage, not
surrendering them until the 2nd of October, and then not
to the plaintiff, but to his landlord, Mr. Taylor ; and it was
on account of this detention, whereby the plaintiff affirmed
he was prevented from exercising his calling during a period
of over eight menthe, and likewise because of the removal
off the premises of a Large quantity of tools which ought to
have been included in the salvage coming to the plaintiff,
that the present action we brought. An action had been
brought against the company by Taylor, the landlord, to re-
cover rent for use and occupation of the premises from the
25th of March until the 2nd of October, and they paid
51. on account of the tame.

The defendant having paid 25/. into court denied his fur-
ther liability-BM, because the plaintiff had been allowed the
full value of his tools by the arbitrator ; and secondly, be-
cause after the 25th of March the plaintiff was not entitled
to the possession of the premises.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages, 75/. beyond
the sum paid into court, while they considered that after the
25th of March the plaintiff had no claim to the possession
of the premises, he haring surrendered them to his
landlonl.

Mr. Serjeant Parry ►od Mr. Joyce appeared for the
tiff ; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Clarke for the defendant.

SECOND COURT.

Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn and
Common Juries)
TEI P. MYERS—ACCIDENT.

The plaintiff in this action is a nursemaid in the service of
Mr. Attenboroegh, silversmith of the Strand, and the de-
fendant is Mr. Myers, the well-known builder. She sought
to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of the
negligence of the defendant's servant., who were erntrnicl
is the erection of the building for the Metropolitan
of Works, at Spring gardens. The plaintiff was coming out
of St. Jaaarde-park, accompanied by her master's chil-
dren, when a arge brick fell from the scaffold as her
head, covering her with blood, and causing such injuries
that she had to be taken home in a crib, and was since
not able to attend to her duties in the usual manner.

The defence was that every promotion had been taken to
guard against accidents, guard boards being put up to
prevent anything falling down, and ropes being placed
round the acaffolding for the protection of the workmen.
When the accident occurred the wind was very high.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damage., 2W.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Juma 30.
Bitting at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before Lord Chief
Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)

FRFACO C. KAT.- LIBEL

The plaintiff in this-case was • surgeon dentist who
bad carried on his business in George-street, Hanover-
square, and in Oxford-street, and the defendant, Mr.
Bowen May was an attorney. The action was to Toyer
damages for the following alleged libel which had been
written by the defendant, and published in the Medical
Ciresdarenthel6thlfarch, 1850—" Quack dentida, on Mon-
day, Mr. Bowen May,ae solicitor to the London Medical
Registration Association, applied for and obtained a sun , mom
from the magistrate, at Bow-street, against Andre Fresco,
of 9, George-street, Hanover.square, and 513, New Oxford.
street, calling himself a surgeon dentist, for obtaining money
under false pretences from • Mrs. Jones. the pretence
being that is was recognised by diploma of Dr. Edward
Cock, principal surgeon of Guy's Hospital, as set
forth in his advertisement, whereas Mr, Bowen
May produced a letter from Dr. Cock, stating that he
knew nothing of the man except his impudent and faint
statement in the advertisement, and which his solicitor had
endeavoured to put a stop to. Mrs. Jones also stated that
the defendant had endeavoured to obtain a further sum by
his violent conduct in coming to her house and using strong
The summons is returnable on Monday, the
language.int. We are glad to see that the society is still
following up the quecks." la answer to the action, the de-
fendant pleaded not guilty that the plaintiff was not a
surgeon dentist, and a justification.
Mr. Huddieston, Mr. Lush, and Mr. Barnard appeared
for the plairtiff ; and Mr. Macaulay and another learned
gentleman for the defendant.
The case lasted the whole day, but the following is • sem-
inary of the principal facts :—ln the spring of 1859 Mrs.
Jones applied to the defendant in reference to a transaction
she bad had with the plaintiff about some teeth, and the
defendant seeing that the plaintiff in his advertisement said,
"Andre Fresco is duly recognised (by diploma) by Dr. Ed-
ward Cock, the present principal surgeon of Guy's Hos-
pital, and by InalllV other eminent medical men," ap-
plied to Mr. emit, who wrote as follows :—" I have
no knowledge whatever of Mr. Fresco except from his ad-
vertisement, end the use which he makes of my name is
au impudent falsehood. I have in vain attempted to put a
stop to the imposition, and Mr. Taylor the late solicitor to
Guy's floapiLel, at ray request, wrote him repeated 'Was
on the subject, to which no answer was returned. I was
advised that legal prooeedinp would be probably fruitless,
and certainly expenaive,luel so the matter dropped." The
defendant thereupon obtained the luminous at Bow-street,
but on the hearing of the summons is appeared that in
1849 Mr. ruck hail given the following certificate:—" I
have examined the diploma which A. Fresco received
from the Medical Commission at Dort, and find it to be to
the heat of my knowledge correct and authentic is every
particular. ft declares that he has passed • satidactory
examination before a legally enthralled hosed, and that he
has been found in every way skilled to practise as a surgeon
dentist." Mr. Cock, however, had entirely forgotten the
circumstance until the paper was shown to him. The ma-
gistiate dismissal the summons, but no report of this termi-
nation of the application was published in theMeolieul Circular,
though the proprietors of the paper did a week ortwo &Ne-
wer& offer toineert the fact. Premonstotheapplication tothe
magistratetheplahetiff had taken steps to bring Mrs. Jones's
ease before the Bloomsbury County Court, and a long re-
mit of the trial appeared HS the Medical Circular, in which
there was also a short comment epos it. The present plain-
tiff sued Mr. Yearley, one of the proprietors of that paper,
for libel in consequence of the publication of the report and
the comment, when the jury awarded the plaintiff 40e. in
respect of the comment, but held that the report was
privileged.
In the course of the evidence to day it was mid that the
defendant had volunteered to write the statement now in
question, whilst on the other hand it was said that lie had
only written it at the request of Mr. Yeirsle , and had
furnished it to that gentleman in strict co . The
plaintiff and that he had before the libel earned aliont
1,0001. a year grin.. and that his business had been ruined in
nieq nce of the libel. He however admitted that he-
cconsequence
fore the libel he was frequently summoned for small
amounts in the county court ; and he hail raised money
by getting bills discounted. He stated also that before
the libel he had no money, but he denied that he was in.
solvent.

e Lord Chief Justice said in his opinion the article in
question was • libel, and therefore the point for considera-
tion was what should be the amount of damages. Accord-
ing to the case of " Lewis v. Levy," the publication of wis-
liminarooredings at police courts might or might not be
privileged, but the publication of the
_preliminary proceed-
ings which inculpated the party, and the omission to pub-
liah the subsequent proceedings which exculpated him,
nevercould be justified. If the object of Mr. and the
association with which he was contacted was to prevent
unqualified persons from obtaining the money and ruining
the health of their patients they deserved credit for their
motives ; but if they infringed the rights of any person they
must do so at their own risk.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages 450 f.
The defendant's counsel applied for • stay of execution,
upon the ground that the article in question wee privileged,
and that the damages ware excessive.
His lordship refused the application.

COURT OF EXCREQUER.—JuzIz 30.
tn:Nisi Pdm g (adore Mr.
Martin sad Special awl Common Juries.)
There were three special juries marked in the day's lid.
Two were wigglers's, and in the third, which was tried and