The Express.
London, England, 1860-11-17 00:00:00

eat. *Megrim.

the negligence seethed to the dofenclants to fix them with
liability ; in other words, their mmisnlion is the* the
damages are too remote.
Kr. Lush, Q.C. (with him were Mr. liekehn and Mr.
Heave appeared for the comiLia% sadace enitsodad that
beall the decided oases enstaieed masi
be to be the natural ooesequence the &Nadia*
• Now It was quite consistent with this
ration that the owner of the intermediate lnui
easily have prevented the Ars from riding be
premuws ii QW4III, at all wan* to have been alleged that
ern 'Z'ralbq'ttence of the ezplosioe, and without any ,sooe
on the part of the intermediate owner, the fire reached the
plaintiff? house and consumed it. But even then, he should
contend that the fire upon the plaintiffs' premises was not
in the eyes of the law the natural consequence of the ex-
planes upon the defendants'.
The Lord Chief Justies—lf seek an allegation as you
contend for would improve the declaration, and if the
facts juatlfied the plaintiffs in freeing the owner of the
intermediate boon from all blame, the judge at nisi
• would at owe give the plaintiffs leave to amend, by
nob an allegation.
nrlrMiwklne—Why, the whole injury was done within
an hour, and it took us 1,0001. to repair.
The Lord Chief Justice mid that although the court,
I were very far from considering such a claim to be unsup-
portable,_ yet it wee not noonnery to decide the point thee,
as the defendants could raise precisely the same question
under their plea at sot guilty. And if the defendants could
prove negligence on the part of the hawse/diets oweer,
the ddence now urged by Mr. Lush would be upheld by
Yr. sawldas, Q.C., and Mr. Clifford appeared for the
plaintiffs, but were not said upon.

the neighbourhood of Clapham, end in the coons of his
trade he published • handbill offering to pwohase • great
number of artides wills& were mantkinedia agoe. A copy
of this bill got into fk Lad, 11,.. Aiderman Mumphmy,
who, lOW sertnination of the public business at Guild-
ft•oisitued the bill and made some comments upon it,
o_ticrtbing the system as one offering great inducement to
percolate to rob their roasters and ruietreeses. A true report
'of them oteervatione appeared in the paper ; and
utheequendy there was • leading article upon the
headbill. The plaintiff complained of the report
in the first count, sod of the leading article in the second,
alleging that each of them was • libel. At the trial before
the Lord Chief Justice the fury found • verdict for the de-
fendant, but afterwards a rule wee obtained for • new trial,
upon the grounds of misdirection, and that the verdict was
against the evidence. It was contended that the publica-
tion of Mr. Alderman Humphery's remarks, which were
unauthorised, voluntary, and extrajudicial, rendered the
defendant liable in thu action, notwithstanding that the
report was correct. If this were so, then the duty of the
jury was simply to aver damages upon that count, and
that his Imdahip ought so to have told them ; but instead
of doing so be never put the first count distinctly
before them, but left the matter to them pi-
nerally. His lordship, in summing up, laid down the
law as it was laid down by Lord Elleoborough, in
" Carr v. Hood," which was an action against a review for an
alleged libel contained in an unfavourable uotice of • book,
and it was contended by the plaintiff's counsel that the law
in reference tokeviews of books did not applytoobeervatioas
in reference to • trade blink(' the one in question.
The rule now came on for argument.
Mr. Edwin James (with whom was Mr. Loth and Mr.
Manley Smith), in showing cause, said that it was a 'mistake
to say that his lordship lied not directed the attention of the
jury to the first count, for it was plain from the short-hand
writer's notes that he had especially plead that count
before them. As to whether the publication of Mr. Alder-
man liumphary's remarks was privileged, it was never
attempted to put the are upon that footing, but upon this:
that the remarks were fair comments upon the handball, and
therefore needed no privilege. It was submitted that it
was clear that the mine principle applied toe criticism upon
• handbill as upon • book, and it was asked what ground there
was fordrawing anydisti action between the two cum. Again,
it was difficult to say what was the distinction between trade
bills and books, for some of Moans. Hoses and Son's trade
publications were done up in the form of books containing
poetry and other literary productions.
Mr. Justice Meador said, in commenting upon a book it was
not allowed to impute improper motives ; but such motives
were imputed in the publication of the alderman's remarks,
the head-line being " Encouragement to servant, to rob
their masters."

COITIT Of QIIIIINI BENCH.
(Vs= hat zilches Gazette.)
btlettaelmei 'Term, fah Victoria, Thursday, 14th November,
1110 —llale court win hold @Minot on Tuesday, the 47th, ace
Wednesday, the Illh days of November log , and win at euch
eittlode proceed In Ilepoing of the rime then pending in the
Crown end npeetal Fawn —By the Court.

WINTER cnicua or MI JUDOWL
The Judges appalled to proceed sad hold the enaalae Winter
holm el Ow sad grime sae potent jail dell very la atwl
smelt semellesr SOW sad Wales where the returns of the
macaw sere allefileat awasber to jointly the haring of a coal.
line fags their Baal arrangements as to the days and
Wages bq wade swilve4 proceed and told such salsas.
The judos ana—M. Fraawell, Mr. Jostles Biles. Mr.
Puttee an Mr. Jasilee Blackburn, Kr. hello* [mow, and
Mr. SEM WOK Sol tit tollorrlas an the arrangement@
:

IMPOIM XL Baurwns..—Ldesulanblre—Mooky,
Dee. 0, at IMensa. Ihantaamm—weaLeALL Dec. 11, La-
na Northimorldro—lloaday, Dec 10, st Northamakm.
Warwlefoidro— Monday. Dec 12, at the Castle at Wandal.
Byris—Wedreaq, Das. 111, at Chelmsford.
Immo Ma Juana Brum —Nest—aatarday, Dec I at
Noloilass. Meaty of Southampton—Newts,. Dee. S. M WM-
shiolor. Dmandre—amarday. Dec 10. at the Caen at Rohm
Mom ML /min Dual Itn.h—Nortbamberlaad—Nonim,
Ikea 11.,5a N.M.wton Yortuagro—astastko, Dec a, at the Cr-s

Dams ML 'Min DUczliinol.—Clhisidre—Wednallay,
Deal at Ye Castle at Clostar. City et Obertes--Thander.
Dia a at Me (handbell at the City.
limas Ma. James Ciamo.—Dertaar—Wednaiday, Dia
at Dubai. Lirealtbe—Tuciday. Dec 11. at LlrerpooL
lea KL Bum Mum —Glatunrian, Saturday, Dec 1.
Dinemiar, 1/4eraig. Dee. t. Worcester, Saturday, Dee. S.
aloft,* Widameday, Des. It
Ile Mare are Me eeby places la 'Rich a Wißillf IM OD w be
bill

TOM MORAL PAL&CI COMPANY P. INN LONDON AND
. lIMPOITON RAILWAY 001IPANY._ _

EQUITY OOURTB.—Nov. l&
(Man the Lord C'hanorflor.)
?RI NORTH 'Amax_ WIMAT corrairT O. ELLJOTr,

This was • medal ow arising oat al ea motion brought by
the plaintiffs to recover • sum a/ SAM from the defmd-
ante under an award of the late Yr. Robert Stephenson, the
celebrated slights... The award plait the defendant.
wee for not erecting an babas Gad a hoist for the woof the
plaintiffs, theording to agreement. The ewe was not con-
cluded when the court roes.
Yr. Boyd", Q.C., and Yr. Hawkins, Q. 0., were for the
plaintiffs; Yr. Lush, Q. 0., Yr. flaunty, Q.C., Mr. Spinks,
sad Mr. Denman for the dsfeadmate.

Thu 1;;;a; appeal !coos Vise-Cbaadlbr Wood. The
bill was originally Fled to Termain the defendant front re-
moving the coal or water beneath the soil over which the
Dunn Junction Railway pmen, sad which was necansty
to the stability of a bridge the Victoria- over
the River WOOL Myth* ink mum ef the act au
the nermwelien ef Ibe Meths= inn= Railway, rbeM
sled thin mirmels were exemnd out cif all purchase of land
tabs. by the eanipany, the owners and lemon of the minerals
thing WI any to work under the railway or other works
of the sumpaay, eo that no damage or obstruction should be
°ermined to the line. By section 28 it wee provided that
whenever the mining works should approach within tweedy
yards of any masonry or buildieg belonging to the ninny,
notice was to be given to the company. After service of the
once the company might deliver to the mine owner a de-
e/anion that they reqnired the on or mineral under such
masonry or building *plying within twenty vary thereof, in
which ne the company should purchase the coal. In case
the company should not deliver such declaration, the
owners ought work or get the minerals under the masonry
or buildings, provided the same were worked in the usual
and ordinary manner of working mines, and that no
avoidable damage were done to the masonry or buildings.
In 1836 the Durham Junction Railway Company com-
menced building the Victoria-bridge for carrying their line
over the river Wear, the abutments and foundations does
end of the bridge resting upon land purchased by the com-
pany from a Mr. Boulcott Under the surface of this land
there were strata of coal which had been partially worked,
but abandoned linos 1791, the works being filled up with
water. The Victoria-bridge wee completed in 1838. All
the property and rights of the Durham Junction Railway
Company had been vested in the pressed plaintiffs, who, in
1854. received the name of the North Eastern Railway
Company. In 1859 the defendant, who bad ebtaieda
mining lease from Boulcott, began operation neer the :a-
way, with a view to pumping out the water from mdse.
neath the surface occupied by the abutments of the bridge,
and served the plaintiffs with notice of his intention to work
the mines. The plaintiffs warned the defendant that the
coal or water couM not be removed from underneath the
land in question, or the immediately adjoining land, with-
out en angering the Victoria-bridge. and causing peed and
irreperabLe damage to the plaintiffs ; and they filed their
bill to restrain the proposed works. Evidence woe brought
forward as to the state of the mine, and the support affid
to the surface by the strata of coal and the hydraefalie
rare of the water with which the mine is now tiled. Irwyea-
s
dated that If the water was drawn off the
coal was likely to shrink and muse the surface
to subside. The question involved was the legal right of
the plaintiffs to the support of the surface, and whether the
worlds( of the mine would not do damage to the bridge.
The Vim-Chancellor was of opinion that the injunction
prayed by the plaintiffs ought to issue, but he gave no meta
on either side. The present appeal was then brought.
Mr. Holt, Mr. Dickineon, and Mr. Hannan, of the com-
mon law bar, were for the appeal. Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr.
ilobbouse. and Mr. Mellish, of the common law bar, were
on the other side.
Judgment was postponed.

Jainin—lt must depend upon the nature of the book
whether it would he justifiable to impute tad motives, and
besides the question whether the comments were Liz was
one for the jury, and they had decided it.
Mr. Ribton and Mr. Lawrence_
appeared
...
Mr. 11114100 saC"lc r rain IsewainlVV:don ithat the
rule should be discharged. He could see no distinction be-
tween • hand-bill or advertisement published to all the
world and • book, and in his opinion both were subject to
the same kind of criticism. The form in which the docu-
ments appeared made no difference; all books were
originally published in the form in which this
advertisement appeared, and many advertisements
were now published in the form of books. If
this were so, then the document in question was subject to
fair and reasonable comments, as lied been frequently laid
down, and he had asked whether any ease had extended the
same liberty to oral criticism, but no such ease was produced.
His opinion was that the document was a legitimate subject
of criticism, whether written or oral. It yea conceded that
Mr. Alderman Humpliery's comments were not privileged
by reason of being delivered in a court of justice, and they
stood therefore upon the same footing as if they had been
the comments of any private individual. The comments,
however, were privileged in Mr. Alderman Humphery's
mouth, if the jury thought them of a fair and reasonable kind,
not redacting upon the plaintiff's private character. The
same doctrine applied to the criticisms of the paper itself,
and the question as to both counts was precisely the same.
There was, therefore, no objection to the direction. Then,
as to the question whether there should be a new trial upon
the ground that the verdict was againettlt• evidence. Actions
of libel stood upon a peculiar footing. The act of the 33rd
Geo. 111., which was • declaratory set. said that the judge
"should " (which Mr. Justice Littledale interpreted
" might") give his opinion as to what was a libel, but the
question of libel or no libel was for the jury alone. The true
question having been left to the jury, it was not necessary
for him to say whether he should have come to the same
conclusion as they arrived at, for it was impossible for the
court to take upon themselves to withdraw such a
matter from the jury. He might, however, say that Mr.
Alderman Humphery's comments were, in his opinion, fair
and laudable, indoor future jury could not give more than
nominal damages. to discharge the rule upon this ground,
therefore, seamed to him to be mercy to the plaintiff him-
self.
Rule disclaimed.
1

COURT OF EXCREQUER—Noy. 16.
Sittings in Beam —(Bstors the Lord Chid Baron and
Barons Bramwell, Mansell, and Wilde.)
AMMON V. DINHT.—.CONPOHISION WITH mincrrons.
In this ease, which was tried yesterday,
Mr. Overmd, on behalf of the plaintiff, who bad been
nonaulted, moved for a role nisi for a new trial, the ques-
tion being whether the plaintiff could recover 50i., which
he had mid, on his suspending payment, to the defendant,
with a view of enabling him to pay his other creditors
under a deed of oompum' it being contended that this
was a fraud on those creditors who had accepted the lower
composition of ss. in the pound.
The court granted a rule nisi.
The sittings at Nisi Prim were devoid of cases of interest

r:77 • -, • ••
THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 17, 1860.

placed, he should hero felt hieLsolf compelled to send the
Pri.°Dare but, 'Quer all the cricumstanoes, he
should not take that course, but should order them to be
imprisoned and kept to bard labour for two months, for the
unlawful posteenon of the property.

GUELDHALL.

Lewis Robert Poole, a partner in the late Brat d Poole
and Bryan, boot and shoe manufacturers, of the towngel
Northampton, sod of New Oxfordetreet, London, was
brought up before Alderman air R. W. Carden, charged
with unlawfully concealing goods to the value of 1,20 W.
and upwards within three months of his l'ankruptcy, with
intent to cheat and defraud his creditors.
The ease was remanded till to-day.