The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-28 00:00:00

six weeks after the first issue. I bad
▪ to do with the expense at iiiirintiaing. I published
„ similar book in Dublin on my own behalf. There is Dr.
iponaer's redbook for England ; my green book fot Ireland ;
og the blue book of Dr. Wines in Scotland. (Laughteffl.)
ishengbt green a very appropriate colour for Ireland
tir .
Kerslake—I think so too. Each colour I think
.try aPPP3PIi"e'
witliese—l only knew Dr. Wiles for a very short time.
gis book follows the same division of subject, and there is •
similarity in the form. I adhere to the facts, but
5; language is my own. I have one chapter entirely new,
• acute bronchitis.
Mr. Kerslake—And that leads to consumption, unless
Ike Patient has recourse to inhalations
Ni oases—Yes. (The learned counsel read certain pu-
mp/ in the two books to show their similarity.) The same
aub *Luberpaper ps übsh
Irish book and advertised it in the
Irish , thli eTuna, Freeman's Juanita, and the
Wanier. I have not paid the expense of ad-
„Awing them ; I believe Dr. Hunter has ;he told me
when I was going to Ireland that he would assist me in
may way to further bis views, but it is no partnership.
K book has not gone through the first edition.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf it bad been as successful as
lay own, who would have had the profits ?
Witness—Dr. Hunter. The expense of advertising in
Ireland is less than in England. I commenced practising
is Dublin on the Ist of December, 180. My experience of
the treatment was from Ju1y,1864, until October, 1865. I
us chiefly sedatives,
astringents, and other things.
/ do not give more details in my book than
are so be found in Dr. Hunter's. Plaintiff has no interest
ia the practme in Dublin ; he has so far been • loser in
Arial me assistance. It has made considerable p
ri inland, but it bin not been so successful as in 4CI
:1
pit many reasons—for instance, they are not so nch •
people. (Laniihter4
Mr. R. Curtis, manager to Mown Corbyn and Co., drug
merchants, proved that hie firm supplied the plaintiff with
drugs. The first year he had 800 f. worth. They were the
ordinary drugs used by medical men. He was not sup-
plied with any drugs of a special character. They
'applied him with drugs from the American pharmacopoeia
bat already in use in England. The American preparations
were not for the purpose of generating oxnea.
Cross-examined—He had supplied him with oxygen-
asking drugs. He used all the pharma-
ceutical preparations. They first supplied chlorin acid
is November, 1864. He must have had 201. worth of
Mono acid in twelve months. It was not ordinarily used
..it was rarely used ; it was a known chemical compound,
sea was supplied to him undiluted. He did not know of
say other medical practitioner besides Dr. Hunter who
reed it.
Be-examined—lt produces large volumes of oxygen.
By the Lord Chief Justice—The oxygen oould be evolved
ay adding heat or another acid, the ehloric acid.
Er. Orlando Edwards—l am manager of the
spading and Hertford Branch Bank, and reside at
Stamford. I was acquainted with the plaintiff
st Ottawa in Canada • be was living there as a private gen-
tlemen, apparently in good position. I understood he had
is interest in a practice to New York.
Mr. S. Selby—l am swine merchant in Fenchnrch-street,
I knew the plaintiff from 1857 till 1860. I was living at
Toronto. He was living there as • gentleman en his own

Po
The i; rd Chief Jnetice—l do not see the relevancy of
ail evidence.
Mr. Coleridge—To ebow that he had plenty of means,
Ina had no occasion to become an impostor and a wionndrel.
The Lord Chief Justice—l do not much see the force of
the evidence.
(The case was proceeding when our report left.]

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Prins in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Smith and a Special Jury.)
!norms e. MACNAbIARk.
This cue was tried yesterday ; it was an action of slander
for calling a MD a wimp and a thief, and his lordship
directed the jury that they must find for the defendant if
they thought that the words were merely words of abuse,
and did not impute to the plaintiff that he had committed
en indictable offence. The jury found for the plaintiff—
Damages., one farthing.
Mr. Daly, for the plaintiff, now applied for a stay of
elocution upon the ground that the verdict was an incon-
sistent one. If the verdict had been for the defendant
then it would have been apparent that the jury did not
think that felony had been imputed to the plaintiff ; but
as they found for the plaintiff surely the damages should
have been greater.
Mr. Hawkins, for the defendant, had no objection to
the verdict being made consistent by being entered for the
defendant (Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Smith was of opinion that there was no im-
putation upon the plaintiffs character. The jury no
doubt thought the words were hastily used, but not that
they really imputed felony. The meaning of the finding
vim that it wished to save the plaintiff from the payment
of the defendant's costa. He could not interfere to dis-
turb the finding.
•
Application refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Baron Martin and
Special Jury.)
MMUS' r. METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action for injury sustained on the defen-
dants' railway.
Mr. Serjeant Atkinson and Mr. Thomas for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Charles Pollock, Q.C., and Mr. Henry James,
for the defendants.
On the ..2nd of September last John Brierly, the plain-
tiff, an omnibus proprietor at Lisson-grove, went to the
Chapel-street station of the Underground Railway, near
Edgware-road, for the purpose of proceeding to Peering-
don-street. According to his account, as he had his
foot on the step of a third-class carriage the train was
suddenly put in motion, and he was thrown down on the
platform with considerable violence. lie was picked up,
sad, thinking be was not much hurt, entered the next
train, which arrived a few minutes afterwards, and went on
table destination. On reaching the F►rringdon-station, he
told the ticket collector, whom he identified as a man
named Otway. that they had nearly killed him at the
other end of the line. Afterwards his knee became stiff,
and for several weeks he was unable to drive his omnibus,
re superintend it. It appeared that the first time he
brought the matter to the notice of the company was on
the lith of October, when his solicitor wrote a letter to
the secretary, asking for an arrangement which would pre-
vent litigation.
Four persons who were on the station at the time in
question corroborated the evidence as to the plaintiff fall-
ing from the carriage.
For the defence all the ticket collectors and porters at
the Chapel-street station were called, and they stated that
they had no recollection of such an accident having oc-
caned, and that no complaint was made to them in re-
ference to it by the plaintiff or any other person.
Otway, the ticket collector at Farringdon-street, denied
baring any remembrance of the plaintiff, or of his having
told him that he bad been nearly killed.
Mr. Baron Martin said the case was a very important
sae ; but it was entirely for the jury to say whether the
alleged accident did really occur or not.
The jury, after a few minutes' deliberation in the box,
found a verdict for the plaintiff--damages, 401.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
LAMBELI. V. BELL OTHERWISE JONES.
This ease raised a rather curious point. In 18433 Richard
4tabell, a seaman, died, leaving arrears of pay amount-
mg tont. in. 43. His widow, the defendant, took out letters
administration, and she had been cited tobring them in
that they might be evoked on the ground that at the time of
her marriage she was already the wife of one James Jones.
It was admitted that in 1944 Jones hail married at Alvem
stoke Elizabeth Bull, the daughter of Richard Bull ; and
that in 1849 Lambell had also married, at Portses, Mira-
bath Bull, daughter of Richard Bull.
Dr. Wambey said that the identity of the names was ,
mare coincidence, sod he called the defendant, who swore
that she had never been married to any one but LanabelL
lisr evidence was also confirmed by her father.
(The case was not concluded when our report left.]

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)

IN RH JOHN CHARLES WILSON.
The bankrupt was described as a colonial engineer, of
Lirne•street, City. The case has been before the court
since July, 11tki, there having been repeated adjournments
for additional accounts. The aggregate liabilities are
44.63.5 t. ; assets about 1,7001. ; property held as security,
consisting principally of goods and machinery consigned
abroad, and a mortgage on a steamer called the Kate,
27,171 d.

Thßiwas an adjourned sitting for examination and dis-
charge.
Mr. Phelps appeared for the assignees, and Mr. Bagley
for the bankrupt. At the last sitting the official auignee,
Hr. l'arkyns, was directed to report on certain items in the
lainknipt's deficiency account ; and he now reported that
an amount of 6011. ought to be charged to a prior defi-
nency account.
Mr. Bagley said the bankrupt denied the accuracy of
this account, and handed in another, which varied the
figures considerably.
Mr. Phelps said he should allow the bankrupt to pass
his examination, but would oppose the order of discharge,
on the ground that the bankrupt had contracted the debts
of Mr. Marshall and others without jrobsble means of
Payment.
Mr. Hedpath also opposed for Messrs. Bland and Smith
on the same ground.
The bankrupt was examined at considerable length, and
admitted that be bad begun business without any other
capital than a very large experience in 1861. He had
lillPPed machinery, and had been constantly in
„,.alla habit of obtaining advances on the goods.
!11l Present accounts showed that he wu
RI
.11 deficiency of 4,9001. in 1864. He had been
obliged to get bills renewed in 1864. In July of that year
be had borrowed 4,5001. from Mr. Courtauld to Pol
Previous mortgage on the " Kate." Sine, that
Parted his consignments had amounted to 11,1211., and in
July, 1865, he presented his petition.
Some further evidence having been given, the sitting
was again adjourned.