The Express.
London, England, 1867-04-18 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-APRIL 17.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.)
WINTERBOTHAN F. THE EARL OF DERBY.

This was an action for right of way, tried before Mr.
Justice Mellor, at Manchester, when the jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Temple, Q.C., now moved for a rule to set aside the
verdict and enter • nonsuit, and also in arrest of judgment.
The action was brought against the Earl of Derby for the
purpose of asserting the right of the publie to pass along
a road through his estate in the pariah of Prestwich,
Lancashire, which his agent had blocked up. The plaintiff
said in hi; declaration that he was wrongfully and in-
juriously obstructed in using the pathway by •
certain fence, whereby he was hindered attending
to his lawful business and affairs, and that he
had incurred great expense in removing the obstruc-
tion. It appeared that the plaintiff had employed
some workmen to remove • wire fence which had been pur-
posely put up to close the footway against the public,
and paid them 31. or 41. The learned counsel submitted
that no action of this nature by a private individual on
the ground that he had been put to expense in abating the
nuisance would lie.

The Lord Chief Baron, after having heard the learned
counsel at some length, said that without expressing an
opinion on any proposition of law involved in the case,
they would grant a rule to enter a nonsuit, but would not
say, until they had seen the report of the learned judge,
whether they would grant it on the ground that the ver-
dict was against the evidence, or that there had been mis-
direction.

At a later period of the day the onurt granted a rule on
all the points, with the exception of that on misdirection,
not thinking that the learned judge had misdirected the
/1117.
Rule nisi accordingly.

MAXFIELD e. YEATMAN.
This action was tried during the last sittings after term
at Westminster, before Mr. Baron Martin, when the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 3,132/. 18s.
The Solicitor-General on the part of the defendant now
moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection and
of excessive damages. He also moved on affidavits setting
out some additional facts. The action was brought by
Mr. Manfield, who was the owner of the D0'174 COURti
Caroni& and several other papers in the county, against
the defendant, Mr. Yeatman, a country gentleman and
magistrate, and also • promoter ands hareholder of the
Church and County Newspaper Company (Limited), to
recover the sum in dispute m respect of those journals
which the company had purchased for the purpose of in-
culcating conservative principles in the part of the county
in which they were published. The question we., whether
the defendant had, as a promoter, rendered himself liable
for the payment of the money.
The court granted a rule nisi.
Sittings at Nisi Pritus.—{Before Mr. Baron Channell and •
Common Jury.)
COULD V. ROLLING&

This was an action by a solicitor to recover 1641. 10a. in
respect of a retainer and employment as the defendant's
agent at the last Honiton election. The defendant pleaded
never indebted.

Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Crompton appeared
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Haddlestone, Q.C., and Mr. Gough
for the defendant.

At the Ideation for the borough of Honiton in 1865 Mr.
Baylis) Cochrane, ooruiervative, and Mr. Frederick D.

Goldemid, liberal, were returned after a severe contest. On
the 18th of March la the following year Mr. Goldsmid
died, and on the 21st the plaintiff, Mr. Daniel Gould, who
had practised as a aoliactor in the town for about forty
years, and had always taken an active part in the elec-
tions in the conservative interest, received a telegram from
London from a person named Edward Charles M'Craw,
requesting that he would keep himself disengaged for that
evening, as he wished to see him on business of import-
ance. M'Craw accordingly came, and said Mr. George
Hollings, a young gentleman of fortune, wished to offer
him as a candidate for the vacancy in the representa-
tion. At that time Mr. Hollings was a student of the
Middle Temple, but he had wince been admitted a member
of the bar, and went the Oxford circuit. M'Craw asked
the plaintiff what his charge would be to act as agent for
the defendant, and he scud 150 guineas, and he would
expect to be paid all money out of
ll'Craw agreed to those terms, and banded to theplain-
tiff a large bundle of the defendant's printed address to
the electors, in which he avowed himself a conservative.
The plaintiff distributed the addresses about the town,
and took all the necessary steps to procure the defendant's
return, but at the last moment the defendant declined to
come forward, and Mr. Julian Goldsmid, who bad territo-
rial influenoe, was elected without opposition. The de-
fendant was applied to for payment of the plaintiffs fee
and a few extra pounds which had been spent in printing
and advertising, but he denied his liability on the ground
that he had given no authority to M'Craw to employ the
plaintiff as his agent, and refused to pay the money.
A consultation ultimately took place by the counsel on
each side, and it was ultimately agreed that • venlict
should be entered for the defendant, on the understanding
that it should be left to his lordship to say what in point of
fairness should be done between the parties. The same
arrangement was made in the second case, which was
an action by Mr. Gould, jun., for services rendered at the
same election.

His Lordship left the court to consider what should be
done, but his decision was not made known to the public.