The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-06 00:00:00

THb "LFXRUESV'TUESDAY !INTEING, "'NOVEMBER v 6

Unibtrdith Entelltgarce.

CAMBRIDGE, Nov. 5.

ELECTION OF VICE-CHANCELLOR.—in congrega-
tion this morning the names of the Rev. Dr. Cartmell,
blaster of Christ's College, the late vice-chancellor ; and
the Rev. Dr. Atkinson, blaster of Clare College, were sub-
mitted to the senate for the election of one as vice-chan-
cellor fur the ensuing academical year. The voting was—
for Dr. Cartmell, ; for Dr. Atkinson, 16. Dr. Cart-
well WAS consequently elected for the third time.
Sr. J,i.'s CoctrGr.—The under-mentioned were this
day elected to fellowships at Bt. John's College :—Jasnes
Snowdon Rel., 8.A., 16th wrangler, sod llth 2nd class
classic, 1.:413 ; Crosse University scholar (theod logivall, and
xander
first Tyrwhitt's Hebrew scholar, 1865 ; an Ale
V. tith wrangler, 1865.

Ottbal Knit itiiiitztrp.

WOOLWICH, Nov. 5.

Yesterday morning at an early hour a laden brig
named the Enterprise, whilst drifting up the river, ran
foul of the Admiralty steam yacht Enchantress, which
arrived flout Portsmouth on Friday, and is moored in the
harbour, causing considerable damage to both vessels. A
portion of the smoking saloon of the Enchantress was car-
ried away, and the commander's barge much injured, the
total damage being estimated at 1301 ; whilst the brig
carried away her figure head. The captain and owner of
the 1 Ater vessel. which was clearly in fault. visited the
dockyard this afternoon to confer with the authorities re-
specting the accident.
Thr Lords of the Admiralty have sanctioned an official
trial of a new plan for mounting and dismounting heavy
ordnance invented by Mr. D. C. Grant, a clerk in the ship-
wrights' department of the naval service.

THE FRENCH EMPEROR AND THE REBEL

kali) Entriiivare.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 5.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Justices Mellor, Shee, and
Lush.)
DOVER R. TOWSIL—SNOKING IN RAILWAY CARRIAOIN.
Mr. Serjeant Robinson said this was an action for an
assault, tried at Guildhall before Mr. Justice Lush. The jury
found on two issues for the plaintiff, but on the third and
substantial plea they found for the defendant. The plain-
tiff and defendant were passengers in a railway carriage,
and the assault in question arose in consequence of the
plaintiff refusing to desist from smoking when requested
by the defendant. The defendant by his third plea stated
that the plaintiff having refused to desist from smoking, he
thereupon to abate the nuisance necessarily assaulted the
plaintiff. The learned serjeaut contended that the plea
was baiL It would never be held that if a man was an-
noyed he had a right to assault another.
Mr. Justice Mellor—Did the defendant use more vio-
lence than was necessary in preventing the smoking ?
Mr. Serjeant Robinson—Yes ; he knocked the cigar out
of the plaintiff's mouth. There was no doubt a bye-law
againstsmoking,and *provision how to abate it,but smoking
in a railway carriage was not such an offence as to justify
an assault. A stranger had no right to interfere as the
defendant had done.
Mr. Justice Lush said the bye-law against smoking pro-
vided that the offending party after having been warned by
an officer of the company " may be" removed.
Mr. Serjeant Robinson said the plaintiff was not warned
by the company's servants, nor was the defendant one of
the company's officers.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf you get the verdict on a new
trial, do you think you would get more than a farthing
damages? Was it made a point at the trial that if the
plaintiff bad puffed the smoke in the defendant's face it
would have been an assault ? Some of the circumstances
by which assaults are &aid to be committed are very
subtle.
Mr. Serjeant Robinson said it was not. He could sup-
pose the case where a puff of smoke in a man's face who
was exceedingly ill might endanger life. But here all the
defendant by his plea said was that be was annoyed by it.
A man might be said to be annoyed in the street by a man
smoking in front of him, but it was for him to get out of
the way.
Mr. Justice Mellor said a man was bound to cease
smoking in a railway carriage if it annoyed any one. A
farthing damages would amply compensate in this case.
Mr. Justice Lush said there was no great violence used.
Mr. Serjeant Robinson said he complained of his lord-
ship's ruling at the trial in not allowing him to give evi-
dence of excess of violence on the part of the defendant
without a new assignment.
Mr. Justice Shee—What did the defendant do? Did
he take the cigar out of the plaintiff's mouth and throw it
out of the window?
Mr. Serjeant Robinson said he believed no blows were
struck other than by the defendant.
Mr. Justice Lush said the plaintiff's evidence was that
the defendant struck him on the face, which had the effect
of knocking the cigar into a lady's lap, and the fusee with
which the plaintiff was lighting it into a gentleman's
whiskers. (Laughter.) The lady's husband then took up
the quarrel, and beat the defendant with his umbrella.
(Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice said it would appear that the
defendant got the worst of the beating. If the husband
had a right to beat any one he regretted he had not beaten
the plaintiff, who was the smoker.
Mr. Serjeant Robinson said a man was not justified in
committing an assault except in extreme awes, such as
defending his life and liberty.
Mr. Justice Lush said ho slid not think the learned
serjeant was very anxious to have the jury assess the
damages.
Mr. Serjeant Robinson said he was very anxious to have
the verdict entered for him on this particular issue. He
contended this was not such an offence as justified the de-
fendant in assaulting the plaintiff.
The Lord Chief Justice said that if a man persisted, con-
trary to all good manners and breeding, to smoke to the
annoyance of his fellow passengers, and one of them took
the cigar out of his mouth and threw it away, he doubted
if a jury would give more than a farthing damages for the
assault. At least he should hope not. The plea could
not stand, and the better way would be to grant a rule to
enter the verdict for the plaintiff non obstante veredicto.
Mr. Serjeant Robinson concurred, and expressed a hope
that nothing further would be heard about the case.
Mr. Justice Lush said the plaintiff desired the defend-
ant to go into another carriage, but the defendant said he
had been to two or three before, and he could not find
room. He objected to smoke because it affected his eyes.
He declined to have the window open.
The Lord Chief Justice said that where passengers
found others had been smoking many would go into another
carriage, but when that could not be done it was another
matter. He thought the better way would be to enter a
stet processus.
Mr. Serjeant Robinson said that probably that would be
the result.
The Lord Chief Justice said the learned counsel was en-
titled to a rule non obatante veredicto.
Rule granted.
The court having disposed of several other motions
proceeded with the cases in the new trial paper.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 5.

Sittings at Nisi Priva.7(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a

,
Special Jury.)

This was the first day of the sittings in the present
term. There were nineteen entries in the list, only four
of the cases being marked as undefended.
nAm..)i% r. THE lIIETROPOLITAN AMID WT. JOHN'3-W 0011

RAILWAY COMPANY.
This action was brought to recover 3,0001., being the
amount at which the plaintiff's interest in a certain house
at North-bank, Regent's-park, taken by the defendants
for their railway, bad been duly assessed.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. H. T. Cole for the pl.in-
tiff ; Mr. J. Brown, and Mr. Horace Lloyd for the de-
fendants.
The house in question, together with other property,
was left by the plaintiff's uncle to trustees, to pay the
annual proceeds to the plaintiff and his wife, with a pro-
viso that they might occupy the house during their lives
if they liked. The house was required by the defendants
for the prosecution of their works, and in 18(4 they took
possession of it under the compulsory powers granted to
them by parliament.
For the defence it was contended that the plaintiff had
not shown a legal title to the property, and that he was
merely a tenant-at-will.
Mr. Brown said the company wish( d to act straight-
forwardly in the matter, and only sought to avoid paying
the money twice over. He submitted that the trustees
alone were entitled to recover.
Mr. Baron Martin held that the plaintiff bad a valuable
interest in the house, and that the company had no right
to deprive him of it without adequate compensation. He
then directed a verdict to be entered for the plaintiff for
3,1001.

lost, and which the said the police had robbed her of.
The landlord (Mr. Parry) mentioned that a woman an-
swering the des:ription had been thinking in his house ou
Saturday night; and he bad received her watch and chain
to take fare of them for hoz. She then left his house_ 2
and took * cab to drive to the railway station. She could
have the watch and chain on application.
Mr. Vaughan said this showed how little drunken
people remembered facts, and how little faith should be
attached to their statements. He should fine her Is.
The prisoser paid the fine, and went to receive her
property, evidently glad to be relieved from her hallu-
cination.
THAMES.
Mr. Parker, the master of the Stepney Unfon•workhouae,
at Bromley, in Middlesex, waited on Mr. Paget, and stated
that he had been placed in • situation of some difficulty
owing to Mr. Partridge haiing committed two boys to the
union-house, to be detained there seven days while in-
quiries were being made respecting them. There was no
prison or look-up in the union-house, and the yards and
boundary walls would not keep anyone in that was inclined
to escape. He had locked up the boys in a room. He
was afraid the only alternative was to take away the
clothes of the boys and put them to bed if any
more were sent to the union for detention. The
act of parliament empowered and required him
to detain children. He was not desirous of doing any-
thing to weaken the authority of the magistrates of that
or any other police court or petty sessions, but he could
not help feeling that a great responsibility was thrown
upon him. He had locked the boys up in • room which
was not very high, and there were skylights. All that he
could do for their safe custody had been done, but it was
very possible they might escape. He wished to know if
he would be liable to any penalty if the boys escaped.
Mr. Paget said he would be very sorry to give an
opinion off hand whether the master of • union workhouse
was liable to a penalty or not if a certain event took place.
Re was not qualified or required by law to give an
opinion on an ex parte statement. He would first ascer-
tain what the act of parliament said on the subject. There
was no doubt Mr. Parker was bound to produce the boys
before Mr. Partridge or any other magistrate that might
be sitting at the court on Friday next.
Mr. Parker said he would do so, but if many children
were committed to the union-house, and be had to pro-
duce them at the police-court every day, • new officer must
be appointed.
Alr. l'yer, the chief clerk, said that difficulty could be
easily met. The police-constable who arrested the boys,
and had charge of the case, could call for them, and bring
them to the court.
Mr. Paget read the clause in the Industrial Schools Act
as follows : " Two justices, or a magistrate, while inquiry
is being made respecting a child, or respecting a school in
which he may be sent, may, by order signed by them or
him, order the child to be taken to the workhouse, or
.r-house of the union, parish, or combination in which
e is found or resident, or where (in Scotland) there
is no such poor-house, or the poor-house is at an
inconvenient distance, to such other place, not being
• prison, as the magistrate thinks fit, the occu-
pier whereof is willing to receive him, and to
be detained therein at the cost of the union,
parish, or combination, for any time not exceeding
seven days, or until an order is sooner made for his dis-
charge, or for his being sent to a certified industrial school,
and the guardians of the poor for the union or parish, or
the keeper of the poorhouse, or other person to whom the
order is addressed, are and is hereby empowered and le.
quired to detain him accordingly." Mr. Paget, in conti-
nuation, said he could see the difficulty which the new
law would make. He would mention the case to his col-
league, Mr. Partridge. The boys must of course be de-
tained until Friday. If any large number of children were
sent to a workhouse for temporary detention there must
be a large place built to keep them in. He would take care
that no unnecessary hardship should be inflicted. The boys
were not detained in the Stepney union house for punish-
ment, hut for safe custody.
Mr. Parker—l cannot accommodate large numbers, and
if the system is pursued to any considerable extent a new
officer must be appointed.
Mr. l'aget was glad the subject was mentioned by the
master of the Stepney union, and requested him to attend
again on Friday, when Mr. Partridge would be present.