The Express.
London, England, 1860-02-04 00:00:00

The pithatill lea surgeon ; the defendant is the son of •
gentleman of fortune in Gloosseenshire, and formerly in the
army, but now attached to the ormaular service.
Mr. Huddle.ton stated the case. The plaintiff was a
gentleman who bad been premising for some years as •
surgeon in London, although balding a foreign diploma. He
had many patient.; some in London, some in the country;
and amongst the latter, patients residing at Glumestar. Mr.
Hill, the defendant, was a gentleman of coneldusble pro-
party, residing in Green-street, Grammar-num. with ea
estate likewise in Gloucestershire. On the 12th of September
hot Mr. Perry was returning to London by the
=preen train which left Gloucester about mid-day,
• train which only stopped three times on the
journey. Mr. Perry bad been suffering for some time
from a very painful inflammation of the bladder, sad
when the train reached Cirencester, having inquired how hog
it would stop, he war told • minute or two. He then asked
the visa to direct him as to where the urinel was, but in
tonesquenes of the quantity of luggage that was heaped up
on the platform, and the number of pamengers that were
passing to end fro, Mr. Perry was unable to make out when
the urinal wee. He therefor* east to the and of the platform,
and having turned mend the owner, availed himself of the
angle formed by the end wall of the platform sad a paling
outride to acquit himself el a very pressing function. In
that position he was sideways to one or two COMI4OII, which
obtruded beyond the end of the platform. Mr. Piny was
then making his way as hates he could towards his carriage,
when he was amend by the guard of the train, whotoldalla
that • gentlemen in one of the carriages wished for hie card.
This gentleman subsequently turned out to he the delesdaat,
who was travelling with his wits up to London. Mr. Perry,
thinking that the gentleman merely wished to exchimo
cards, said In answer to the application of the
guard that he would have no objection to give his card, pro-
vided the gentleman referred to gave his card in return.
Mr. Perry then got Into his carriage and again the train
stopped at Swindon. Hers spin thewliintiff was called upon
for his card, and he handed it over his address written
upon it is pencil. Mr. 111111, however,i refused to consider
this a sufficient guarantee for the respectability of the plaintiff,
and so he determined upon riving
_ him in charge to the in-
sputter of police foe hay thdenthil7 exPlied his ?awn to
• lady at Cfratoester, although, in addition to having given
his card, Mr. Perry mentioned the same of sewed pelmets '
whom he attended, endow aver:6lly who required his pre-
noes that very day in Lomita. He (Mr. Perry) was ac-
cordingly takes to the gaol at Swindon, the dehadeat pro-
ceeding onwards to London. He slept in the gaol that night,
and next day (Tuesday) he was brought before the magis-
trates, but was remanded until Thursday, In conisequesce
of the non-appearance of Mr. Hill. On Thursday
he was brought before the magistrates, sad the case having
been gone into in presume of Mr. Hill, it was at ones die-
, end Mr. Perry was discharged. On the 19th the
*hairs solicitor wrote to the defendant, requiring both ma
and compensation, to which the Medea' solicitors
that being folly Informed of all the circumstances,
they could not advise their client to make say oonmenastion
to Mr. Perry." Under these chameleons, no alternative
remained but to bring this action. The may fact in dispute
was as to the distance of the angle in which Mr. Peery had
taken refuge from the carriagee—Mr. Perry assertbg that
be was then eight or nine yards from the cartiege—the de-
fendant, on the contrary, asserting that he was only from two
to three. There was goo, however. some difference an to the
degree of hurry evinced by Mr. Perry when moving down the
platform towards the assess.
Oa behalfof this dehadent,it was admitted frankly that there
wen now no grounds for berieving that Mr. Perry had in-
tended to perpetrate the menage with which be had been
. Of Inures the defendsat had no means of
charged
tutdwas suffering at the titer from the inflaromatior 50t7112.
However, there was nn doubt Mrs. Hill's attention had been
a.tesotieteby the plaintiff coming almost immediately under the
=liege, end In full view of everyone in it exposing himself
in the moat thoughtless and inconsiderate manner. At the
mime time, the taking the plaintiff into custody was in reality
as much the act of the police authorities as of the defendant.
The defendant had not appeared at the meeting before the
magistrates on the Tuesday, in onsequence of the neglect of
the railway authorities to telegraph to him to be in attendance.
In summing up his lordship told the jury that now that
the charge against Mr. Perry was unsustainable. the qoestUn
which they had to consider was this: was Mr. Perry wholly
blameless. It was plain a lady's &Wines had been outraged
by what had occurred, and while making due allowance for
the painful dram/tames in which the plaintiff found hiei-
ng( at the moment, the Wimp of Mr. Hill, the husband of
the lady, must not either be overlooked. Perhaps the gen-
tleman had acted with tome precipinstios, but it wee not •
011.0 for vindictive damages.
The jury then found for the plaintiff—damages 1001.; •
verdict in which the Chief Justice expressed his entire con-
currence.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Fais. 3.

sittings in lissoo.—(Bake Justices Williams, Willes,
Bytes, and Keating.)

GAILDNIIIt O. CIiAPMAX AND OTERSII.-DZID OPMANG!.

KIWI'.

This ease was before the court upon demurrer, and the
Plisa robed was whether two deeds of arraugeoteet,
by siz-sevesthe is number sod vales of the oredi,we
eire. James ll'lleary and Co. and Mews. Chapmen
sad Anderson, were valid.
The ooart, after heariog the ease argued is rehreem to
as. of the points raised, took time to welder the matter.

Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesex.—(Before Lard Chist
.1 astir* Erie end a Special Jury.)