The Express.
London, England, 1866-12-24 00:00:00

Ems.
MONDAY ' 5..01 v e tint-siREIc ' sm.;

The prices of goods will be exactly those of every
fair-dealing shop in Paris, while the purchaser will
have the societys guarantee that every article is
exactly what its vendor declares it to be. A great
home and foreign retail trade, on the obligation-
warrant system, is in process of organization, so
that the prodigal sons of all nations may
cease to be the ruin of their families. The
builders of the great palace by the Chateau
d'Eau liken their system to the operations
of some of the co-operative societies of England,
and with reason. These obligation warrants
closely resemble the tickets which members of co-
operative stores receive on making a purchase—
tickets which entitle them to a share in the trading
profits of the society proportioned to the amount
of their purchases. Wherever there is a simplifica-
tion of trade there is naturally a gain to the con-
sumer, since every profit made by the middlemen
or wholesale and retail traders, or distributors,
comes out of his pocket. Hence it is that the
poorest purchaser pays the highest price. Co-ope-
rative societies had their origin among the working
classes, for the good reason that these classes were
the greatest sufferers by the expensive complica-
tions of trade. The obligation-warrant system is
only a new development of the principle of associa-
tion, and it will be an exceedingly curious and in-
structive one, worthy the serious attention of all
visitors to the Universal Exhibition of 1867.
Judging after a visit I made only a few days since,
I should think that the Palace of the Prodi-
gal Son will be out of the builder's hands
by the close of the present month. We
have little co-operative stores in our London
byways. Our neighbours, however, have stolen a
march upon us, and have erected a gorgeous palace
in order to apply the principle of co-operation to
the wants and tastes of all classes.
I cannot conclude this letter without touching
upon the admirable arrangements made by M.
Duruy for the convenience of the provincial
teachers, who, as I have already informed you, are
to be helped to the Exhibition by a public sub-
scription. They will arrive during the holidays ;
consequently the 1,500 beds of the three Lyc4es—
Louia-le-Grand, St. Louis. and Napol4on—will be
empty. These beds will be devoted to the poor
teachers from the 15th of August to the 15th of
October, so that it is calculated 12,000 teachers
will find gratuitous lodgings, each lodger remaining
a week. The Cwt.ltitietiminel calculates that the
food of these teachers will cost 6,7201., and this is
the expense that is to be defrayed by public sub-
scription. The committee are already at work, and
hope to prevail upon the Imperial Commissioners
to admit their deserving protegds gratuitously to
the Exhibition. The teachers are to hold educa-
tional conferences.
The first great machine of which I have heard as
en route for the Champ de Mars is one that is being
conveyed in two ships from St. Nazaire to Havre.
It is of 4,000-horse power, and was manufactured
at Indret. It will reach the Champ de Mars by the
Seine.

tat* intelligence.

METROPOLITAN COUNTY COURTS.
(Sitting days appointed for the present week.)
BOW, Row.road.--Friday, Dec.
Loan MAYOR.* Comm Gulldh.dl.—Monday, Dec. 24.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Dsc. 22.
SECOND COURT.
Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before Mr. Justice
Keating and a Common Jury.)
WRIGHT T. MANN.
This was an action to recover a reward offered for the
arrest of a suspected person.
The plaintiff's case was that the defendant having been
robbed in a brothel, and suspecting a Mrs. Daly to be the
thief, be offered the plaintiff 101. if he would give such
information as would lead to the arrest of this woman. In
consequence of this the plaintiff induced her to enter his
own house, and whilst she was there he sent for a police-
man and gave her into custody.
The defendant did not appear, and the jury found for
the plaintiff for the 101.

HOOD T. COULSON.
This was an action fur damages for false imprisonment,
and the defendant pleaded a justification of what had
been done,
Mr. Philhrick and Mr. Macdonald appeared or the
plaintiff ; Mr. Serjeant Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Barnard
for the defendant.
The defendant was a draper in Hackney-road, and on
the 10th October a piece of .id yards of 'inlay was stolen
from the front of his shop ; and on the same afternoon
West, a policeman, apprehended a girl named Haggarty
wish the stolen propertin who, possession. She said that
• little girl, one of five, were in the road at the time,
had given her the Linsey to dispose of. After the second
examination of liaggarty,West and the defendant were re-
turning from Worship-street Police-court, when they met
the plaintiff, who was a little girl 11 years of age, and the
daughter of respectable parents, who lived in the neigh-
bourhood of Curtain-road. The plaintiff's case was that
the defendant thereupon said to West, " This is one of
them; take her into custody, hold her tight." The police-
man did as lie was desired. The plaintiff was charged at
the station with being concerned in the robbery, and was
taken to the workhouse, where she remained until next
morning, when she was taken before a magistrate, who
discharged her.
The plaiutift was now examined as a witness, and stated
that the defendant had given ter into custody. She also
said that she had nothing to do with the robbery.
For the defence, it was said that. the defendant entirely
exorerated the plaintiff from being concerned in the
robbery, and further that he had not given her into cus-
tody. Beyond this, it was said that West, the policeman,
bad arrested the plaintiff in accordance with a direction of
Dlr. Cooke, the magistrate, that he should take the girl
who hail been pointed out by Haggarty ; West believed
the plaintiff to be that girl. The defendant himself never
made any charge against the plaintiff, though he signed
the charge sheet containing IS est's statement, believing
that his signing was simply a matter of form.
In the course of the defendant's case an arrangement
was come to by the counsel. The plea of justification was
withdrawn. The defendant's counsel said that the de-
fendant was now perfectly satisfied that the plaintiff had
nothing whatever to do with the robbery ; and it was fur-
ther agreed that there should be a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 201.
His lordship said that it was clear that the defendant
acted upon a misconception throughout. and it was quite
right that the plaintiff's parents should insist upon the
character of their child being exonerated from the imputa-
tion which hail been cast upon it.
Verdict for the plaintiff--damages 201.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-DEC. 22.
Sittings at Prins at Guildhall.—(Before the Lord
Chiefßaron and Common Juries.)

GODDARD I'. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,
This was an action by a railway passenger for personal
injuries. The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Palmer for the plaintiff ; Mr. Arthur Bullen for the
defendants.
The plaintiff was a working tailor, and earned d the uring
season, with the assistance of his wife and son, about
31. 10s. a week. On Whit Monday last he was returning
with his wife from Erith to London-bridge by a third-
claim train on the defendants' railway. The train stopped
at Blackheath, and the compartment in which the plain-
tiff was, I•:ing crowded, he had to get up to allow a female
to alight- Before she had tirce to step on the platform
the train moved on and the plaintiff was thrown off his
balanceand in trying to recover it he placed his hand
against' the aide of the door, and the door being violently
slimmed to at the same moment his thumb was crushed
in the hinge. The nail was turn off by the roots, and the
plaintiff fainted from the pain and loss of blood which
ensued. At the New-cross Station he recovered, and in-
formation was given to the company's servants of what
had taken place, but they told him that they could not
render him any assistance there, and that he had better
go on to London. As soon as he reached London-bridge be
went to the hospital, and had the wound dressed. He
remained an out-patient of the establishment for about five
weeks.
No evidence was called for the defence, but Mr. Bullen '
submitted that upon the plaintiff's evidence no negligence
against the company's servants was proved, or that if
negligence was proved, there was contributory negligence
on the part of the plaintiff which exonerated the defen-
dants from liability.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
501., execution being stayed until next term, to enable the
defendants to move the court above on the question of
their liability under the circumstances of the case.

made her mane in. Last summer they were staying
at the Isle of ight, and, unfortunately, as Sir Gilbert,
who bad taken too much to drink, was passing along the
pier to his yacht he accidentally fell off and was drowned.
After having given evidence at the. coroner's inquest, Miss
Braham returned to town, and being under an unpression
that the executors of the deceased might possibly lay claim
to the furniture, she employed the defendant, who keep'
a depository in St. John's-wood, to remove her goods to his
premises and warehouse them. The whole property was
taken away by the evening of the 16th August, aid shortly
afterwards she was informed by the executors that she
had given herself a great deal of unnecessary trouble, u
they intended to set up no right to the furniture. The
plaintiff then directed the defendant to return the articles.
and by the 29th August all had been sent back except a
piano and two musical loam, and the defendant refused to
give up these until he was paid his charge, which amounted
to 15a. Bd. The plaintiff said she would not pay
until these articles were restored to her, but the
defendant wanted the money in the first instance.
Ultimately she consulted a solicitor, and he went to the
defendant, and, producing notes for the amount, offeretito
pay him 26/. if he returned the goods.
he had He said he would
doubt
not take less than the 291., observing that no
that rather than make a fuss about the matter she! would
pay the money. The defendant's charge was said to be
out of all proportion to the lurk done, and extravagant,
considering that the furniture had only to be taken half a
mile, and was only kept a fortnight. In addition, the
plaintiff claimed a deduction in respect of a large marble
dab belonging to a chiffonniere, which had been broken in two
in the removal, as well as of a glass jug, a birthday present
from Sir Gilbert, the bottom of which had been broken off
and replaced by the defendant. The U. 106. had been paid
into court for the damage done to these articles, but the
plaintiff said that sum was not sufficient.
The Lord Chief Baron—The sum in dispute seems to be
under 5/. Is that the whole question we have to try?
Mr. Joyce—We say that our lien on the goods extends
to the whole amount of our claim.
Miss Line Braham, the plaintiff, was examined in nip
-
port of the above facts. She said she lived at Alpha-place,
Alpha-rod, St. John's-wood. Sir Gilbert East lived with
her up to the time of his death, and alter that occurrence
she returned home. All the furniture in the house belonged
to her. When she employed the defendant to remove the
goods she listed him for an estimate of what the cost
would be, and he replied that he could not furnish one.
Subsequently she went to Messrs. Williams and James,
the solicitors to Sir Gilbert's executors, in
she de
and in consequence of what passed she desired the
defendant to return the goods. He did so, with the ex-
ception of the piano and the two musical boxes.
In cross-examination Miss Braham said she was not
anxious to have the goods removed in a great hurry, and
was not aware that a man was employed till 3 o'clock in
the morning making an invoice. The executors made her
a present of money, and she told Mr. James, the solicitor,
that she wanted 291. more to pay Mr. Roots' bill, and he
gave her that sum. When Mr. Roots said what his charge
was she offered to pay him that sum if he delivered the
goods and she had them in her possession.
Mr. Thistlewaite, the plaintiffs solicitor, proved having
offered to pay the defendant 251., and his refusing it, and
saying he should hold the things until he had received the
full amount, as the plaintiff would rather pay than make
a stir. He told the defendant that be had no right to
detain the goods unless there was
d a previous agreement
that
that he should do so until he was pai. He a
he should not give them up until he received the money,
as that was the usual practice.
Several witnesses engaged in the same business as the
defendant estimated the proper charge for what he had
done at sums varying from 17/. to 191. The original value
of the presentation jug was proved to be 258., while in its
damaged state it was said to be wholly worthless.
Mr. Joyce, for the defence, contended that the defend-
ant had been hardly treated, as the representatives of Sir
Gilbert East had given the plaintiff the 29/. to pay him.
The Lord Chief Baron said it mattered not what they
had given her. The question was whether the defendant's
charge was fair and reasonable.
Mr. Joyce said he should give evidence to prove that it
was a fair charge.
The defendant and other witnesses having been ex-
amined on that point,
The parties came to an arrangement by which a verdict
wit,' entered for the plaintiff with 46/. damages, 40/. to be
deducted from that rum in the event of the goods being
returned.
His lordship sat until a rather late hour in order to
dispose of the remaining oases in the list at these sittings,
and succeeded in that object.