The Express.
London, England, 1866-02-15 00:00:00

would have had this safe open ie • quarter of an 1 our with
the same implements that I used that night.
Mr. Webeter—With she usealderman?"
Witness (laughingi—Ome get the alderman in and the
safe must Opel), without the alderman breaks.
The Lord Chief Justioe—What trade are you?
Witless—A aigopeinter.
The Lord Chief justice—Have you ever bad anything to
de with mechanic' ?
Witness—No. I can make, however a better safe than
my that has been made up to this time, and I can open any
mile that has yet been made.
The Lord Chief Justice—lt is • pity your abilities have
not been turned to a better purpose.
Witness—lt is a pity the police did not let me.
The convict, who bad shown a remarkable quickness of
perception, and an extraordinary amount of shrewdness,
then left the witnese-box, in the custody of the warder.
Mr. Bramwell, Mr. James McConnell, and Mr. William
Wilson, engineers, gave scientific evidence as to the con-
struction of the safe, and stated that in their opinion it was
not sufficiently strong to resist the attack of thieves. Their
evidence went to show that the strength of the safe was
the strength of its weakest pert, that all parte were not of
proportionate strength, that the inner plate of the door to
which the belie of the look were attached was only the
eighth of an inch is thickness, while the outer plate was
half an inch thick, and that the outer hoop or bar in which
the bolts entered when the safe was looked, and which was
four test high and rely half an inch thick, was not of suf-
ficient strength for its size, and could easily be
deflected. They gave it as their opinion that the safe could
be opened by a skilful mechanic within half an hour or an
hoar, by means of wedges ands crowbar. It appeared that
there were nine marks of wedges on the door.
Mr. Allen Wilkinson, • mechanical engineer, said
that under the direction of Mr. Bestowal' he had
broken open • smaller safe than the one in question, which
bad also been made by the defendant. He added that
with wedges ands crow-bar be could have owe the larger
safe " comfortably " in fifteen minutes.
This was the evidence for the plaintiff.
Mr. James raised several points of law on the part of the
defendants. Havingread the declaration. which said " the
defendants warranted the iron safe was sufficiently strong
to resist any attempt at violence that might thereafter be
, made upon it, or used by thieves for the purpose of break-
ing open the safe," he submitted—first, that there was no
evidence of any warranty ; secondly, that there was no im-
plied authority given by the defendants to their. shopman,Mr.
Elopi•y, under the circumstances to give a warranty, and
that in the absence of express authority none could in law
be implied ; thirdly, that if there was a warranty binding
on the defendants, the statute of limitations operated,
more than six years having elapsed since the plaintiff pur-
chased the safe. He contended that the breach of warranty
must be assumed to have taken place at the time of the
sale, aid not when the safe wan broken open.
The Lord Chief Justice said he thought there was evi-
dence to go is • jury on the question of warranty, but he
would pee leave to move the court above upon the point
as to the statute of limitations.
Mr. Jamas, in addressing the jury on the part of the
defendant, said the case was of vast importance to them.
because if they were responsible in this instance, they
might become liable for thousand, upon thousands of
pounds,to an extent which even a millionaire could not with-
stand. According to the plaintiff's case, the defendants
had given a warranty that the safe was secure—not for one
or two years, but for all time to oome—winst any at-
tempt by thieves to open it, and rendered themselves re-
sponsible for whatever was abstracted from it by violence,
whether of the value of 90,0001. or 100,0001. Was ever
anything so preposterous or absurd! Usually, when an
insurance was effected a premium adequate to the risk was
paid, but here it was said that in consideration of some
301. or 401. the defendants had undertaken to be re-
sponsible for any amount whatever that the plain-
tiff might lose by the breakage of thieves, or
by fire. The learned counsel commented on the fact that
in the invoice the safe was not entered as a "thief-resist-
lag one," and said the utmost that could be truly alleged
in regard to the warranty was, that the 'bonnie') ropes-
minted that, according to the belief of his employers, the
safe was thief-resisting, so far as skill and knowledge in
the construction of such articles extended in 1858, when it
was sold to the plaintiff. II the plaintiff bad really been
desirous of obtaining a warranty, it was singular that he
did not obtain • written one, or see Merin. Milner them-
selves on the subject, instead of their shaman. In con-
clusion, Mr. James said he should call Mr. Ropley to prove
that no warranty was given, and added that, even it the
jury believed there was • warn-nil, the plaintiff so negli-
gently left his premises that be offered facilities to thieves
to commit the robbery in respect of which damages were
now sought.
At lthe conclusion of the learned conneers speech the
court adjourned.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Fm. 14.
Sittings at NW Prins in London.--{Before Kr. Justice
Bylea and a Common Jury.)
SMITH V. MINTO.

.. ---
This was ea action to recover 621. 10a., being commie-
sion of 2i per mot. upon 2.50 W., the purchase money of
the Priory publio-house at Bromley St. Leopards.
Mr. Dishy Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Luton, appeared
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Fora-
men for the defendant.
The plaintiff wee a public-house broker in business at
Mile and, and the defendant, a builder, bad been the owser
of the Priory Tavern, which in June last was for sale.
The plaintiff's case was that on the 28th Junei he called
upon the defendant in reference to the sale of hie house.
Be took the particulars from the defendant, sad afterward,
said, " I presume if I find you a purchaser, you will pay
me commission ;" and the defendant replied, "Of comae;
it matters not to me whom I pay ; I shall only pay
the one who sells my house." Upon the same day the
plaintiff called upon Mr. iteuwick, of Stepney-green, and
gave him the particulars of the house. Mr. Renwick after
wards purchased the house.
The ease for the defendant was that on the 24th of June
be placed the affair in the bands of Mr. Dean, an sue-
tioeeer and broker at Stratford, and a paper was written
to the effect that the defendant authorised him to advertise
the house, and undertook to pay him commission in the
event of his pelting it. When the plaintiff called upon the
defendant in referees to the proposed sale, the answer
be got was, " I eaneot do anything, because Mr. Dean, of
Stratford. is advertising it. It is in Mr. Dean's hands, sod
I should be wrong in taking it out of his bands." Further
it was mid that on the 24th of June Mr. Dean gave cords of
the house to Mr. Peters, a publican, end that Mr. Peters
gave a card to Mr. Renwick on the 27th, one day before
the plaintiff bad anything to do with the matter.
Mr. Justine Bylee said that two questions were raised,
whether the plaintiff was employed by the defendant at ell;
and whether it was from the plaintiff that Mr. Renwick
first obtained the information upon which he acted when
he purchased the house.
The jury found for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-FEB. 14.

Sittings al Nisi Print at_Gaildhal.l.7(Befora Mr. Baron

M&rtin scd • Special Juiy.)

PRICE Y. TEI 8017111 RAETZRN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was en action to recover compensation in damages
for bodily injuries sustained by the railway accident in the
Blackheath Tunnel in December, 1884.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Taßoard Salter, and Mr. Aston
were for the plaintiff ; Mr. O'Malley, QC., and Mr. Lum-
ley Smith for the defendants.
The plaintiff, Miss Price, is 27 years of age, and the
daughter of Dr. Price, the shief physician of Napoleon I.
during his captivity at St. Helena, and lives at Briton
with her father, who is between 70 and 80 yeses of age,
sod bas a family of twelve children. Dr. Price had for-
merly been in bee Majesty's service, and also in the
marries of the late Past Ind is Company, but
has now retired from his profession. Miss Price was
travelling in a first-class carriage, in company with her
sister, et the tints of the occurrence, and was thrown
violently forward by the force of the collision. Her
shoulder was dislocated, acid her chest and other parts of
her body bruised and injured by the other pastengers
trampling upon hoe as they tried to get out of the car-
riage. The medical evidenoefortbe plaintiff went to show that
the spinal cord was affected, and that there was very little
prospect of her recovering. She was described as being in
a weak and depressed state, and subject to continual faint-
ing ; and it was mid stecould not, owing to the condition
of her health, go into society, cultivate muds, or any other
amusements, or perform any domestic duties,
No ',deuce was given for the defence, but Mr. O'Malley
addressed the jury in mitigation of damages.
The plaintiff herself was not called, it being stated that
is the present state of ber health the medical attendants
were apprehensive she might be seized with a fainting fit in
the witness-box. It transpired is the course of the trial
that the plaintiff's sister was very seriously injured in the
same accident, and that the defendants bad compromised
! the action she bad brought against them by the payment of
1,5001.
In this case the defendants had paid 4001. into court,
which they contended was the extreme limit of the coat-
i pease-Su to which the plaintiff was ..titled.
The jury retired to their room, sad in twenty minutes
same into court with a verdict foe the plaintiff—damages
8001., is addition to the4oo4 paid into court—total 1,2001.

Trams To POIGON • FAMILY.—At the Barn-
staple Petty Sessions, Alice Dodd, an aged woman, was
charged with attempting to poison several persons. The
scoured lived with the family of kb. James Ridge, a
farmer, of Tavistock. Bbe prepared the breakfset cm Sen.
day morning, and excused herself from breakfastieg with the
family a usual by leaving the boom to see whether her
owe home eras blown down dories the recent storm. Some
fried potatoes were prepared for the breakfast, and one of
the children three a bit of potato to the house dog, which
ate it, and soon afterwards commenced vomiting. All the
family, with the exception of one of the children wbo re.
I fused to eat any of the potatoes Iseesuse he sew the accused
rub sheet is her bands, were shawl, attacked, bat by the
; timely assistance of lir. Harper, surgeon, of Barnstaple,
I who pee as meatie, they were all saved. lir. Harper die-
: ooveeed crystals of white aneeie. Alias Dodd, who is the
mother of Mrs. Ridge, had lett the village, and Policeman
Angel was seat after her. She was esprekeeded at Newton.
In reply te the charge she said, "I did sot do lt. It was
the portion in the kettle. I Ahmed the potatoes ; they
made me ill." The bench directed that thp vomits %should
he analysed, and remanded the posse. Wit Friday.