The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-06 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

After Term Nisi Prins Sittings at Westminster.—(Before
Mr. Justice She. and a Special Jury.)
[URNS r. NTORKS.

Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr.
Naimyth were counsel for the plaintiff ; the Solicitor-
General, Mr. Prentice, Q.C., and Mr. Hammen were counsel
for the defendant.

This ease was this morning brought to an unexpected
termination.
Mr. Coleridge put in the tion of Sir Henry Storks
taken under the crown mission. He stated that he re-
ceived from his brother, the defendant, a detailed ac-
count of the reasons which had induced him to place the
plaintiff in the asylum at Charenton, and also those of
the medical men, viz., that she was violent, that she had
put dirt into keyholes, that she suffered under hulluci-
uations, and was under the apprehension of being
poisoned, and that she had threatened acts of violence
towards the defendart. Sir Henry stated he had seen
nothing in her to induce him to believe that she was
suffering from insanity, neither did her letters lead to
that supposition. She was a woman of a sharp temper
and very excitable. She always had a wildish appearance,
and it was more marked now she was older.

The Solicitor-General said he bad had the deposition of
Sir Henry Storks read before he made a statement to the
court. He was happy to a' the ease was at an end. His
loniship would not have failed to observe that the impu-
tation made against the defendant was that he had
imprisoned the plaintiff for the purpose of preventing her
from giving evidence with reference to the will, and that
when she was released it would be on the terms that
she should live in the wilds of Ireland, so that she should
not be available either for or against the will. Letters
hail been put in which his learned friend (Mr. Seymour)
had admitted to him in the conference that had taken
place, entirely got rid of that part of the charge. They
had therefore come to the arrangement that, as far as
poesible, the plaintiff should be put in the same pecuniary
position that she was before the action was brought.
She would receive her annuity which would be placed
under the control of trustees. The defendant from the
first was most anxious that the plaintiff should not suffer
any detriment by what she had done. He would not
further enter into the question of sanity or insanity, but
he was authorised to state that the defendant had
acted with the most perfect bona fides, and under
the advice of the most eminent men who had
an acquaintance with insanity, viz., Dr. ,
and Sir J. Orliffe. Notwithstanding the statement
which had been made by the plaintiff, Sir Henry
Storks and Mrs. Hoare bad allowed the defendant to prove
the will without any caveat being entered or a retract/.
tion of the probate being asked for. Under the circum-
stances it bad been agreed to withdraw a juror.
Mr. D. Seymour said that, fully agreeing in the views
expressed by the learned Solicitor-General, he wished to
say nothing that could by possibility disturb the harmony
that then prevailed. With regard to the course he had
taken in opening the plaintiff's case, he still adhered to
the opinion that the defendant had used a little too
much precipitancy in acting on the views expressed by
the French physicians, who were not justified in certifying
to the plaintiff's insanity. The effect of the arningeu:ent
that had been come to would remove the stigma or pain
which would be associated with the idea that she
was at any time deranged or subjected to hallu-
cinations. As to the question of the motives which
it had been alleged had operated on the defendant's mind
in placing her in a lunatic asylum, he must say that
when he opened the case he had no knowledge from copies
of letters or otherwise which had been put in of their
contents, and therefore he could not say what effect that
conespendence might have bad on his mind ; but
certainly he should have hesitated before he so
strongly expressed his opinion on that subject
as he hail done. Ile must now say that there were
ground. for the defendant to say that lie had acted under
the impreasions entertained by the doctors, and not from
those motives which he had attributed to the defendant.
He was therefore authorised to withdraw that charge. 14
the terms which had been arranged the plaintiff would be
secured an independence for life, which would enable her
to live in comparative ease and comfort for the remainder
of her days.
. . .

The SOlicitor-General said the defendant was most
anxious to convey that he never wished anything other-
wise towards the plaintiff. He entertained for her now
the same affection he ever had for her as • most
dutiful a:rvant to his father and the family, and that,
from first to last, like Sir Henry Storks, he had only been
desirous that she should be amply provided for, and taken
care of. The defendant believed he hail only discharged
his duty in acting as lie had done.
Mr. Justice Shee said he was glad to hear the case had
been settled satisfactorily to all parties.

The juryman who insisted nix:a putting the question
yesterday to the plaintiff as to where the money came
from for carrying on the action, wished the learned judge
to ask the plaintiff if she was satisfied with the arrange-
ment that had been ewe to.

The Solicitor-General said he hoped his lordship would
do no such thing.

Mr. Justice SCce—l cannot for a moment believe that
such an arran,,etuent could have been come to without her
knowledge and consent.
Mr. Digby Seymour—Tbe whole matter ban been laid
before the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Shee—Mr. Seymour, you need net say a
word. . . .

Mr. Coleridge—The question ought not to have been
asked.

The Solicitor-General—l cannot allow it to be pat.
Mr. Justice Shoe—l cannot allow the question to be put
or answered. I cannot conceive it possible that learned
counsel would stand up in court, and in the presence of
their clients and their attorneys state that a case had been
settled to the satisfaction of all parties when it was not so.
I have known the learned gentlemen engaged in this case
for many years, and I cannot believe they would he parties
to any such a course of proceeding. It would be injurious
to the honour of the bar, and no one would be safe if
learned counsel could not be trusted to that extent.

Another Juryman —lt is only the expression of opinion
of a single juryman.
The Solicitor-Gener►l—l eao fully understand that. I
have been painfully conscious of it from the first.
(Laughter.)
A juror was then withdrawn.
The court rose shortly after 11 o'clock, i connequence of
the non-attendance of special jurymen in the causes called
on. The absentees were fined 101. each.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesex.—(Beforo Mr. Baron
Martin and Special Juries.)
GOULD r. SI /17H FAHTERN RAILWAY C. 'IMPART.
. . . . . . . .

This MRS an action tor bodily injuries alleged to have
been sustained through the negligence of the defendants'
servants. . .

Mr. Serjeant Tindal Atkinson ►nd Mr. Bromley were
for the plaintiff; Mr. Serjcant Ballantine and Mr.
Joyce for the defendant.
The plaintiff was an omnibus driver in the service of the
London General Omnibus Company. On tke 26th Novem-
ber last he took a return ticket as third class passenger
from London•bridge to Dartford, for the purpose of looking
at a business which was to be disposed of there. He was
accompanied by a friend, and on the return journey by an
evening train, be said there was a violent jerk of the
carriage shortly after leaving the Crayford station, which
had the effect of throwing him against the side of time com-
partment and injuring his shoulder. Afterwards the train
put back to the stet ion and the plaintiff and other passengers
were requested to get into another carriage. The suggestion
was that the accident arosefromsoineilefect in the coupling
irons, but no evidence was given on that point. The plaintiff

--- - -
said be had since been unable to follow Lis occupati ~ . . but
he expected to he ht for duty in about a fortnight. It
also that his medical bill amounted to about 10/
raitatted in cross.examination that be had brought a.n.
action against the same company for injury sustainol by
his child, who had caught a cold by being exposol for two
hours at a railway station which had no covering, awl NI%
Serjeant Ballautme said the company had given him 10.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case,
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine submitted that there was no
evidence to go to the jury.
Mr. Baron Martin—ln my judgment there is no evi,lence •
but it has been decided by the Court of Exchomer, in two
cases, that if a railway accident happens it twist be
nuained that there is evidence of negligence, an,l that the
matter
should be left to the jury, and I 'oust be oiled
by those decisions,. _

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine said he would tender . bill of
exceptions to his lordship's ruling. The learned
having addressed the jury,
Mr. Baron Martin, in summing np, said before the jar•;
could find a verdict for the plaintiff, they must be sati.fie'd
that negligence on the part of the company 11.,d
proved. He reminded them that the only duty cast on the
company was to use reasonable and proper care iu C./liVey.
ing passengers, and that they were not insurers, like the
tamers of goods.
. .

The jury could not agree in the box ; but aft: r tan
minutes' absence from oourt, they gave a verdict fur the
defendants.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
r. DIXON AND ANOTHER.-SPECIAI-I'RN.
Mr. Richard James, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Br.
Swahey for the plaintiff the Queen's Advocate, Dr,
Slinks, ()X., and Mr. Robins for the defendant.
This was an important probate cause, but it was roil,
promised, and the court having heard the evidence a 3I r.
Horsfall, a solicitor, at Leeds, to prove the due exec' tios
of the will, decreed probate.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commiorioner Goulburn.)

IN RE W. RILEY.

The bankrupt was a builder, of Old Kent-road, fon .t,ly
of liethnal.green. l)ebts, 1,8411. ; no assets. This was the
sitting for examination and discharge.
Mr. Chidley stated that a proposal had been made for
taking the ease out of court on payment of a certain com•
position and this had been assented to by nearly the whole
of the creditor..l In order to complete the arrangement, a
short adjournment was desirable.
Adjourned for a month.

The bankrupt was a wholesale jeweller, of Hakes.
garden, and Holloway-road. Debts 4,15 V., of which
I 2,1101, s due to unsecured creditors ; assets stated at 110 f.
Mr. Sykes, for the official assignee, stated that the
bankrupt had pledged goods to a large extent, and an
adjournment was neoe to ascertain the value of thole
goods, and whether it mig t be desirable to redeem them.
After healing Mr. Buchanan for the bankrupt,
His Honour directed an adjournment.
IN RE QUINLAN.
The bankrupt, described as secretary to &public am.
pany. applied for his discharge from debts of 8-29 f., 7421. of
which were in respect of accommodation bills.
Mr. Sykes appeared for the official assignee.
The bankrupt, examined, stated that he had accepted
the accommodation bills for a Mr. James De Lacey intii,en,
whom he then believed to be in a good position. He did
so through friendship. Did not receive anything for giving
his acceptances. Hs now considered it was an act of fully.
The Commissioner—lndeed it was.

Bankrupt said he had been in prison six weeks, but was
let out by a detaining creditor, with whom his friends had
made some arrangement. They had done it to prevent
him losing his situation as secretary to the Milan Improve.
meat Society, but he had lost it.
. .

His Honoii; inquired if any creditor opposed, and being
answered in the negative, granted the order.