The Express.
London, England, 1860-06-30 00:00:00

PA_MING TOLL&

Mr. FENWICIC asked the of the Board of
Trade what were the intentions of the government in re-
feree°, to the subject of pawing tolls!
Mr. M. (I SON said that it lied been the intention of the
government to bring in • bill for the abolition of these and
other dues upon shipping, but the pressure of other business
rendered it highly imicubable any such bill could pus
during the present session. Me bad no doubt, however,
that in the course of nest session the government would
feel it their duty to introduce a measure to deal with the
subject in a oomprelsessive and satisfactory manner.

I'ONSTITUTIONA l. RIGHTS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. COLLIER pee notice that on Tuesday next he
shoold move the following resolution :—"That it being the
fundamental right of the Commons alone, accenting to the
ancient tulip, of the constitution, to determine the taxation
to he levied oe the people, as to the matter, the measure,
nod the time ; the rejection by the House of Lonls of • bill
repeal* • tax which the respoosible ..lvisers of the crown,
and this house, have coacurrist in deeming unnecessary to
newt the supply granted by this house to her Majesty for
the morrice of the year, is • breach of constitutional
urge,
wad an encreaciuneut on the proper functions of this
bows.

JAMS pre notice that on Monday next he
should pot a sporstino he the noble lord the First Minister
ots the eseeidershlen el the report of the *.iumitte• on Tex
Hills, es te whet seers it less proposal the house should
in futons take whoa tax bill, were *rot up to the Lrds.
SUPIRANNUATION OF POOR-LAW OFFICLItS.
Mr. WATLII!OTON asked the Vasa:kat of the Paw-
law Beard 'MOW her Majesty's goverment had had the
quinine of the soporanowatioa of Poor-law °Seers wader
onsisiderations, ,ad whether they intended to introduce any
measure the subject during the present session
Kr. VILLII3B said that the Poor-law Coniniussioners
hal h.ut the station untie' their consideration, but that it
w..eld b. impewible to bi ins in a bill in reference to it this
seesimi.

GOVERNOR OF CEYLON.
lar W. GALLWEY mike the Under Secretary of State
for the Colton, whether a Governor would shortly be ap-
pointed for 1.4,14 •
Ka YoRTEICUR said he was not able to tell the hon.
baronet whom the Secretary State for the Colonies would
appoint a. Governor of Cejloa, bat he should be able to do
al is a few days. Is the immetinim however, ho could
wun, the h• gentleman that his elk friesd had in view
the I,llprvrtant id.piet to whi h refeeeneo had been made.
end Move all the important mot ddb., qt question of the
Ceylon

THY. NWT OFFICE.
Mr. HOWYISR 4.1 gal Vae rieeretare to the Treasury,
report a th.•
.et the meoagetneet
of the p.t.esee would be 4441 ',rhea the report
;meld be IS the tattle of the h0.0.e Jq whether the ev.
dews weleid be hitt A the tehle pr AM!
Kr. LAIIW replied ttu,t the rele.rt erouiel tateatl, within
week ea twe dare et the pr.eeht time. but both the re•
wort esti the widows twain aadreeeed to the Peatelea.n.
bows?* weeld be aseeettry tor them to be sebeetted to
boa tbe lbet inotesee.
NCH

IN_ EIC_OTLAND.

Ile. DALOV/111eaked the Lard Adyncate W he Warhol
to bring in a bill fare alto/Air of the terrier prorial
screarietsre is 11004101 are mi of otter to Whs.
The LORD ADVOCATE solithat in crimper, el the
bete perial of Ur arias it would be nearly impossible to
Joel with the seiret this der.
VOLUNTEER CORN (IFELAND).
Color! FRENCH beard to ask whittler the germ
war treaded tokisimanitrpo to facalwar the forerien
a ...Nosier amps as
Mr. DEASY rid tb=rolioers of the crown wets of
.., °plows 'lre ' SI the taw &Wreak to Weed, the
rove might accept eerier a volunteer. bet worst
her so power, r it in to woke rules fen
ennteolling or them. Edieland%de.those einommisaces

it Iran not the intention of the 'averment to prepare auy
ammo oa the subject.

DOCIIYARD LADOIIB.I.It3.
Sir S. NORTHOOI7 Natal the noble lord the Secretary
Ma tits Adirafty whiaha it wee true that some labourers
2=14 at Amhara Dockyard bad boss discharpg
lard ZTlrramimad It was quite true that seven ordi-
may labourers had bora discharged from the dockyard la
Miwithout oupwaanuatios. The act of 1559 did sot
simefaing allowasors to those who had not beau previ-
ously maga! to them, sad ordinary labourers had not
beat arm the year 1833 so estate&

THE EXPRESS

-~

fortunate one, and the climate debilitating instead of bracing
for invalids. _ _

A somewhat lengthy discussion took pies% w*oh wee
asked ia the lint lanai= b Mr. fietreeniti" tift
that the catholic ' the teem el Reed-
am-
=la the county of Galway, are denied • Idle hiss a suit-
able haw et worship, and the ceilidh per ittes Wised to in-
cise titasimailies of the law bgekiteridselleg Mem in the
4P= pphis; and by Mr. t whir Weight, foc-
used a ems in which the sheriff of =livened by
ea mewl farce, including five oompeeleoef pePse two de-
tetheaseite of dragoon, and two hundred leffentry, took
rafor the lof Leitrim of • Raman catholic chapel
tirounty.
Mr. CARDWELL said his attention had been drawn in
the mem el this discussion to the circumstances of the
Wetness =the paper, and he could my that so far u the
lute had come to the knowledge of the government they
lad eel tam any steps in the matter. In the first cue
the prelims uneerned applied to the sheriff and the autho-
rities Ile he ezemvisal from the moms of the law, but the
setheellim felt bowed to support the law, and
they se= a bum kens of police to the neighbourhood,
sad eilliough them wan • large multitude and great ex-
catement, the law was executed., and the utmost order pre-
veiled. With regard to the other case, all he knew °AL
cially was that some two yen ago, on the occurrence of •
=ceremony, which rendered the congregation too
for the rites el the church to be oslebested in the
chapel,
.they were *asbestos& in the open air. Subsequently
an apphostece was made to the then government to prose.
cute the parties and the answer wee that no doubt the
tan bed hese violated, but that, considering that there was
no piece lame enough in which the parties could exercise
the rites of their church, it was not • proper cue for •
prrreaatioa. That was all which had come before him in
his omci•l capacity. He would exporter no opinion in re-
ferees:le to the right of property, but as to the
pried*, he agreed with the opinion expeesed
quareerlioe. members in reference to the good feeling
exhibited in Scotland some years ago. The power of pro-
puty was very great, and no doubt it ohtlto. be exercused
for the good of the community and in cultivating the good
wishes of those who resided upon the peoparty. In reference
to what occurred in Scotland he foend that • committee of
the house woe appointed to investigate the matter and they
reported that • number of Christi= congregations had no
places in which to perform divine worship within •
reasonable distance, that they were in the habit of meeting
together for that purpose in the open air, and that that was
• grievous hardship, and the committee expressed a hope
that the complaints would be removed by the voluntary acts
of those who pinecesed the property, and that they would
thus conciliate the good will of • large bed/ of their
countrymen. He entirely concurred in that opmeon which
obtained the desired effect, but he would abstain from ex-
preening any opinion upon the individual trunactione tom-
phoned of, bemuse be had not received sufficient informa-
tion upon them. (Hear, hear.)
The motion for adjourument until Monday wu then
agreed

FT t

lab, Itittiltentt.

SECOND COURT.

V .
SAY
Ermgo; JiTitE 30, 1860.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BINCH.-JuNi 29.

Mines at Nil Prise.—(Be(ore Yr. Justice Blackburn and
Common Juries.)
SUM" V. I.IIOIIMIB.—THILATIOOAL I[I4O.I.OIIOENTS.
Mr. Oriffits was counsel for the plaintiff ; Yr. N. Smith
awl Mrs Wheeler for the defendant.

Thin was as action brought by the plaintiff for breach of
segment, under the following circumstances. The plain-
tiff sad his wife had entered into an agreement in October,
1860, with the defendant, the lessee of the Manchester
Theatre, at a joint salary of 31. In February the plaintiff was
requested, at a three days' notice, to take a part in " Georg
Ilamwell," which be declined, and was given a month'se
notice to leave. He objected, as his engagement was for
the season, and the notice wee withdrawn. A. month before
Passion week a notice was posted up in the theatre that the
memos would terminate at that penod, and the plaintiff and
his wile lost their engagement for what was contended was
• continuous season. _

The defence was that for many years there were two
seasons at the theatre, one of which terminated at Passion-
week, and in support of this the treasurer and several of the
performers were examined.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

001JET_ OF COMMON PLEAS.-Joss 29.

Sittinp at Nisi Prins in London.— (Before Lord Chief
Justice Eris and • apeciul Jury.)

IMMIX° r. MACON. -ALLEGED 111710- PLR 711111 A- TWINY BY A

The plaintiff was • man upwards of 60 years of age. He
had in early life been a solicitor, but at the time now in
nesting he was a riding-master and livery-stable keeper in
Maesstreet, Hackney. The defendant wu a surgeon in
the urns neighbourhood, and the plaintiff claimed damages,
alleging that the defendant had not properly treated him
for an injury to the hip.
Mr. Heigh and Mr. Griffis appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. lierjeant Shoe and Mr. Phipps for the defendant.
The plaintiff's cue was this. In the mouth of June,
1866, hetmlitluttrarrel with • neighbour, and was thrown
to the with violence, in his stable-yard. He
attemp to rise, but could not ;he was, however, lifted
up, and he leaned against a wall, suffering intones pain. The
defendant was sent for, and he lifted up the coat tails of
the plaintiff and put his hand upon the thigh. The
plaintiff hod said that he thought tho bone was
broken, or that there wu a dislocation. The de-
fendant expressed his opinion that there was nothing
beyond a spun of the muscles, and that the plaintiff would
soon be all right. Two days after the defendant was again
sent for, and examined the plaintiff undressed, he being
then in ised. The defendant adhered to his original opi-
nion, as he did when he saw the plaintiff on several other
occasions; and he supplied embrocation. The plaintiff con-
tained in great pain for months, and ultimately applied to
Professor io, who examined him at the University Hos-
pital, sad found the limb moveable, but it was shortened
about as inch and a quarter, and there wu a good deal of
Madames when the part was handled. The thigh bad not
bees !natured or dislocated ; but the shortening of the limb
arose from inflammation in the interior of the hip bone,
which awed absorption of the bone. Professor Quoin ex-
his opinion that he himself should have examined
plaintiff more minutely on the lint occasion, principally
because the plaintiff then suffered much pam. If he had
detected the usjw7, he should have ordered the plaintiff to
be kept at rest. The plaintiff's evidence warthat the de-
fendant had advised him to throw away his sticks and
move about, and he would soon be better.
Mr. Canton, of the Charing-cross Hospital, was also ex-
amined in support of the plaintiff's case. These two medi-
cal gentleman, however, differed in their opinion of the
cause of the absorption of the bone, one of them attributing
it to sane and theother to chronic inflammation.

Mr. Hacon, the defendant, was called. He said that on
the Bth June, 1858, he was sent for to see the plaintiff. He
was apparently in great pain, and he had fractured or dis-
located his leg. He was violently excited. He mid Mr.
Jewett, with whom he had been quarrelling, had twisted
his leg round. Witness examined him in reference to this
statement, and found there was no fracture or dislocation.
He recommended him to go to bed and to use hot foments-
lions. Witness maw him again, having been sent for on the
Ilth June. He examined him then most carefully. He
complained of very great pain. Witness ascertained that
there was no difference in the length of the two
limbs, and found that the limb moved easily. He
made him get out of bed to see bow he could move.
Witham came to the conclusion gradually that there must
be a tearing of some muscular fibre which produced the
pain. He prescribed some soap liniment and laudanum,
and he gave him a saline draught, with nitrate of potash
and spirit of nitre. There were then slight febrile symp-
toms. He saw the plaintiff again on the 12th June and on
the 14th. The febrile symptoms were then gone and the
medicine was changed. He saw him again on the 17th
June, and examined him carefully, and found bins so much
better that he gave him some tonic medicine. On the 19th
June he was going on well, and the application of the lini-
ment was continued. On the 21st Jane, he was given
colchicum and morphia. The immediate symptoms of the
disease having subsided, he considered the pain to be of a
rheumatic character. On the 22nd June, the plaintiff had
some liniment, and witness saw him on the 24th, and from
time to time up to the 7th July. There were no febrile
umpteen after the 12th June, and it was impossible that
oould be acute inflammation without them.
Witness did not see the plaintiff between the 7th
July and the 31st August. On the 7th July,
he was beginning to move about in his yard. On
the 31st of August he came to the surgery, and intone and
his partner, Mr. Teulmin, examined him with great care,
hzevAgest.cridstri him. He observed a thickening in the
parts round about the joint, and witness in-
timed from that that there had been chronic inflammation.
This was consistent with his opinion that there bad been
rheumatics. They then made the liniment more stimulat-
ing. There were no febrile symptoms. He next saw the
plaintiff on the 2nd of October, when he called at the
surgery, when witness and Mr. Toulmin examined him
agent. He had somewhat improved. After that witness
gave evidence for the plaintiff in an action ag inst Jewett,
and the plaintiff called afterwards and thanked him. He
heard no more of the plaintiff until the present action was
brought in April last.
Mr. Francis l'oulmin, the defendant's partner, corrobo-
rated the defendant'■ evidence so far as it was within his
knowledge.
Mr. Paget, of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and surgeon
extraordinary to the ii,Meen, said he had examined the
plaitiff a few days ago, and in his opinion the plaintiff was
then labouring under chronic rheumatic inflammation of
the hip joint, one of the consequences of which would
be absorption of the hip bone, and shortening of the
limb. He was of opinion that there never had been acute
inflammation. He thought the keeping of the plaintiff in
bed, considering his age, would have been improper. He
did not think that within two months of the injury a sur-
geon could have detected the disease which they now knew
to exist. He thought there was no ground for saying that
Mr. Hawn had not treated the plaintiff with proper skill;
and in his opinion the plaintiff would not have been any
better than he now was if he had been treated in any other
manner.

Mr. George David Pollock, of St. George's Hospital, said
be was present at the examination of the pLuntiff with
Kr. Paget, and he agreed with him in his evidence. His
opinion was that the defendant had pursued a proper course
of treatment..

Other evidence was about being laid before the court,
when the jury and the judge expressed their opinion that
there was no ease whatever against the defendant.
Verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—JcNz 29.
Sittings at Nisi Prins at GuildbalL—(Before Mr. Baran
Martin and a Special Jury.)

POSTLX r. THE IMRE INBUIIANCII COMPANY. -A NON-
PAYING °MCI.

This was an action to recover b,OOOl. on a policy effected
in the defendants' 0.1011 on the joint liven of Edward Cane
and his wife, payable to the survivor. The defendant.e
pleaded that the premiums had not been paid, and that the
finch of the office were exhausted. The action was, how.
ever, undefended.

--------
Mr. Bovill (with whom was Mr. Hutton), in staking the
cue for the plaintiff, said that Mr. Edward Caw had ha-
mmed his own life and that of his wife for 5,000 f. in the
defendant's office, the amount to be paid to the survivor.
The premiums bad hese received by the defendant. for
upwards of ten y and they amounted to upwards of
2,5001. When the dwth occurred, and the defendants
were called upon to pay the Policy, every kind
of subterfuge bad been resorted to, but at lest, when this
case . wee about to come on for trial, an ap-
plication for winding up the company was made to the
Court of Chancery. It was desirable for the public interests
that such cases WI theme should be exposed, and it was high
time there should be some legislative enactment to protect
than against these robberies. He was afraid there were
too many of these offices who received the premiums, and
when the losses occurred had no money to pay them. The
defeadants had, however, the decency to admit the policy,
Mr. Townsend, the laintiffs attorney, produced the
receipts for the premiums due up to the attorney,
of the de-
ceased. As there was no one to produce the defendant.'
book; Mr. Townsend proved he had examine 1 them, and
found that the premiums had been regularly paid and the
policy credited with them.
The ,fury then found a verdict for the plaintiff for
5,1871. lOs.
Mr. Bovill applied for speedy execution and a certifi-
cate, both of which were granted by the learDel judge.
who remarked : Mr. bad said it wes high time
that these offices should be put down, but the law as it
stood was sufficiently strong, if pat in force to put them
down. . .

—Yr. Swill mid be knew one company where the director
were paid 3a. a day for attendance.

SECOND COVET.
(Before Mr. Baron Wilds and Common Juries.)
rinvnasn v. CLIALL—ACCIDEBT.

This wen ea mike to recover compowation in damages
for ingieries mosived through the alleged negligenoe of the
afilliat's servant The defendant pleaded not guilty.
appeared that the plaintiff was a poor men
seventy yearn of age, and engaged in repairing
f . rods an: Notting-kW, and the defendant is a surpon

rending at Bayswater. Or the 4th November, Ilifitibe
defendant's tiger was returning with his four-whesi'
to the defendant's house, when he knocked dome HO
tiff and taught him in the wheels. He was takes Mom to
the defendant's house, and afterwards to his own rookissoo.
The defendant for some time allowed the *kalif a weekly
allowance of ss. but stopped it in March, 1850. The
plaintiff, who was • cripple permanently injured for lffe,and
who now walked upon crutches, had no alternative but to
brim', this action.
The evidence, as is usual in these cases, was very con-
flicting.
The jury, however, ultimately returned a verdict for the
plaintiff ; damages, 40f.

COURT OF PROBATE.—JuNs 29.
(Before Sir Crewmen Cromwell)
BLAIR AND ANOTHER r. camaterox AND OTHERS.
This was a suit instituted by the plaintiffs, as executon,
to propound the last will and a codicil of the late Thomas
Bonsor Crompton, Esq., of Fariawofth, Lancashire.
The Solicitor•Caneral opened the ram on the part of the
plaintiffs, and the will and codicil having been proved by
the attesting witnesses, all opposition was withdrawn, and
the court decreed that both were proved in " solemn
farm."

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—Jurra 29.
(Before the Chief Commissioner.)
EN II 301111 COWIN PIPET. - NOVIL CASE.

MU insolvent, a maker of fruit essences, who wan onbail,
was appointed to be further beard to-day.
Mr. Denney represented a creditor.
Mr. Peveilly, of Coleman-street, the insolvent's attorney,
applied for an ad' ent, on the ground that the insol-
vent was in the Honse of Correction, having been convicted
on Saturday at Bow-street police-uourt of stealing some
champagne, and sentenced to six months' hard labour. He
Vni.duced a certificate of the conviction, and asked the
commissioner to adjourn the case.
The Chief Commissioner said he would not adjourn the
case ;he would do nothing in the matter. After reading
the certificate, be said it sufficiently amounted for the in-
solvent'a absence.

The bail were in attendance, and one of them wished to
know whether they were exonerated from the liability they
had entered into for him. One of the bail had a newspaper
containing a report of the case at Bow-street police-court.
The Chtef Commissioner said he should do nothing in the
eses. No application had been made to him to levy a dis-
traint on the goods of the bail, and his opinion was that
they need not be under any apprehension that the court
would proceed against them.
The bail were satisfied with the intimation given, and the
case was struck out of the list.