The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-30 00:00:00

go through • performance, during which the sego fires
off three pistol. Jimmie went into the den on the evening
in question, and began the performance. At that time the
plaintiff was standing in the place appointed for the specta-
ton, and when the second pistol wen tired felt that he was
shot. He fell down and was carried out, and was taken to '
a chemist's shop. and then to Mr. Stafford's surgery. On
Mr. Stafford making an examination of the plaintiff, he
found that some substance, which turned out to he per
used instead of wadding had entered his eye, and was so firmly
embedded in it that it required considerable force to
extract it. The plaintiff suffered rely, much, and has lost
I the sight of the eye. On behalf of the defendant it was
contended that there was no negligence, and that the
pistol west off by accident ; there were openings at the top
of the no in the direction of which the pistols were always
fired ; and Macomo, when called, said that he was ' to
lire the second pistol when he saw a lion which had it •
at Norwich coming at him, which obliged him to change his
position, and as the lion sprang past him the pistol went off,
but that his linger was not on the trigger at the time, and
that the pistol meat have gone off in the wrong direction
owing to the lion having hit it as he passed.
Counsel having been heard on both sides, and the learned
judge having rammed up, the jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages 150/.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—ExarER, JULY 28.
(More Mr. Baron CbannelL)

VLVNER r. PARTIUDGL-BRZACII 01, TROKISZ 01, MARRIAGE.

Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Kamlake were counsel for the
plaintiff ; and Sir F. Slade and Mr. Gurney appeared fur the
defendant.
This was an action to recover damages for breach of
promise of marriage. The plaintiff was a young woman in
humble cirenmstanoes, aged about thirty, and the de-
fendant was a farmer of good position, residing
at Netheridge, in the north of Devon. The plain-
tiff went to live with the defendant's father when
she was 16 years of age, as a domestic servant. Shortly
afterwards he paid her a good deal of attention, and she was
induced, it was alleged, to abandon her engagement with
anotheryoung man on the defendant's promising to marry her
on his father s death. The defendant kept her company for
some time, and ultimately he seduced her, and took lodgings
for her. She was confined, and during her confinement de-
fendant visited her, behaved affectionately to her, and
repeated his promise of marriage. This was ten years ago,
and the plaintiff had ever since waited, in hopes that the
defendant would fulfil his promise. He had not done so.
but a short time ago had married a Mi,s Huiah. The
learned counsel for the plaintiff said she had had
letters from the defendant, but that she had destroyed
them. He called several witnesses, however, who said
they beard the defendant make the alleged promise.
}or the defendant, Sir F. Slade made an energetic and
amusing speech, contending that there was no real proof
that the promise of marriage bad ever been made.
His Lordship having summed up,
The jury consulted for some time, and being unable to
agree, they were locked up. After an absence of twenty
minutes, they returned into court with • verdict fur the
, plaintiff—damages, 1001.