The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-01 00:00:00

LACY INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Viii Prins in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Willes and a Common Jury.)

MILLS r. uNDERWOOI).
plaintiff in this case had been storekeeper at a bras.-
founder's, and whilst in that employment his wife died,
leaving two children of a previous marriage MT-
her. During her last illness she handed
-do defendant, ]Era. Underwood, her cousin, a
box of trinkets and some articles of plate, which the
hied valued at which were said on the other
La to be worth not early
ny so much. She said that she
"rated the property to be for the benefit of her children,
who were of tender years ; 201. in money was also handed
over upon the same terms, but this sum had been ac-
counted for to the plaintiff, and the present action was
brought to recover the trinkets and plate.
me. lnderwick appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr.
NA, Seymour, Q.C., for the defendant.
evidence was given and some discussion took place,
the eso principal facts being that the plaintiff claimed the
eoodess the property of his wife, and the defendant claimed
;Obeid u trustee for the children.
me. Justice Willes expressed his opinion that there had
boo Dothing definite enough to create a trust, and, there-
fore be directed a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the
°pinks of the full court upon the question of law.
LAMBERT I'. HICKS.
--- . _

The declaration in this case alleged that on the 2nd
Jssuary the defendant sold to the plaintiff a horse for
Ida, upon condition that if the horse won a certain
steeplechase a further sum should be paid for it, and
further that if the horse should not suit the plaintiff the
defendant a °tad receive back the horse and return 901.
to the plaintiff.
Mr. Hawkins—The plaintiff claims 901., due to him upon
Isis returning the horse Black Prince.
Mr. Lewis (interrupting)—My friend claims 901., and I
02 directed to consent to a verdict for that amount. (A.
V.ifawkins—Then I have nothing further to ask except
that we may have our money as soon as possible.
A veld ct was taknggrated consent for the plaintiff for the
ga., and the judge execution in four days.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco—(Before Barons Martin, Bramwell, and ,
• Pigott-)
HSI GOA V. OLTVLS.
TIM was an action to recover damages for bodily injuries
„imbed by the plaintiff through the alleged negligence of
the defendant's servants. It appeared that the plaintiff
west to the defendant's premises to deliver a message, end
es be was about to enter the door the defendant's
"mat pushed him aside, and immediately after-
'iris a package which had been placed against the
wallfell down and injured his foot. The trial took place
before the Recorder of Manchester, who nonsuited the
=a:l on the ground that there was no evidence of ueg-
' oaths part of the defendant • but it was agreedbe-
Mom the parties that if this court thought the plaintiff
was entitled to recover, the damages should be 301.
mi.. Chas. Pollock now showed cause against a rule
which had been obtained to set aaide the nonsuit and enter
&verdict for the plaintiff for 301. The rule was supported
by Mr. Prentice.
At the conclusion of the arguments, there being a differ-
ence of opinion amongst their lordships,
Mr. Baron Pigott, being the junior judge, delivered his
judgment first. He was of opinion that there was evidence
to go to the jury. The packing-case was reared against
the wall, the defendant's servant was watching it, and
while doing so it felldovrn, and it must be assumed by
its having been improperly placed, for there was nothing to
show that it was disturbed by any other cause. The facts
were not consistent with a mere accident, and they should
he over-ruling all the cases if they decided that there was
no evidence of negligence.
Mr. Baron Bramwell entirely agreed with his learned
brother. The defendant was responsible for the package,
and there was a substantial prima facie case against him,
and therefore the matter ought to have been left to the
Kr. Baron Martin was of opinionthat the re-
cadre was right in withdrawing the ease from the
jury. Upon the facts there was no reason to con-
clude that the accident arose from the defendant's
negligence; on the contrary, he thought the alleged
negligence on his part was all surmise and imam-
latsoa. What lay at the bottom of all these cases, was
the opposition that the plaintiff was excused from prov-
ing the circumstances, because the persons in the employ
of the defendant knew them better, and the defendant
ought to call them. This he thought was bad reason and
bad law.
There being a majority in favour of the plaintiff, the
rule was made absolute.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE HOLLINGEWORTH AND JACORB.
This was an adjourned sitting for examination and dis-
charge. The bankrupts were ship chandlers, trading in
partnership at Southampton.
Mr. Reed was counsel for the assignees ; Mr. Paterson
the bankrupts.
raPfrerrod accounts filed in this case disclose joint and separate
debts, amounting in the aggregate to 2. 00/. ; with wets,
property surrendered 352/., and bad debts3s2l. When
the case was last before the court an adjournment
was ordered for further accounts which have been accord-
ingly rendered. It was now objected on the part of the
*Epees that the bankrupts had not accounted for the
disposal of large quantities of jewellery received shortly
before the failure. The books were very imperfectly kept,
sad bankrupts alleged that they had no record of their
rash transactions, but only of their dealings upon credit.
As adjournment sine die at the bankrupts' expense was
now asked with liberty to them to apply for a sitting when
prepared to make a full disclosure of their dealings and
estate.

Mr. Paterson, for the bankrupts, asked that they should
be allowed the assistance of an accountant at the expense
of the estates. He said that no allowance bad been yet
made, although more than 300/. had been realised. The
accounts required were of so special a nature that it would
be impooilde for the bankrupts to finish them without pro-
fessional aid.
The Commissioner said he should not make any order
for the employment of an accountant, but would leave the
assignees to do as they thought right in the matter. The
bankrupts did not appear to have used any efforts to com-
ply with the order of the court, and the meeting would
therefore be adjourned sine die, but without costa.

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)

GUILDHALL.
Women" TO OMNI BUM RTIMR.9.
One of the conductors of the London General Company's .
omnibuses was summoned before Alderman Waterlow for
&wiring a passenger in the route of the vehicle.
Ir. Swsinston said that on Friday week he took the
defendant's omnibus in Piceaclillr to go to the Bank, as
there was " Bank" on the side of it ; but when it came to
ledgate-hill, near St. Paul's-churchyard, the conductor
aid, ' You must get out here, because we do not go
ser further." He replied, " You have got ' Bank' on the
ride, and you are bound to take me to the Bank. The de-
fendant rejoined, " That has nothing to do with it, you
most get out here." The defendant positively refused
to take him to the Bank.

-- —..— ......--.
The defendant said his instructions were to go only to
St Paul's-churchyard, and there to transfer the passen-
gers to a Waite:duster omnibus. Be did transfer all but
the complainant on the day in question.
Yr. Swainston denied this, and said that, although he
telegraphed to an omnibus about twenty yards ahead, it
took no notice of him.

—.— ...
Alderman Waterlow said the defendant was bound to
take the complainant to the Bank, and he must
either do it or take " Bank " off the omnibus. Re
amid fine him 10s. and caste, or 7 days' imprisonment.

CLERKENWELL
A ATIRANCE AT THE NEW CATTLE KAZLZT.

The Lord Mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the City
of London, the owners of the premises situate and being
at the south-west portion of the Metropolian Market,
were summoned before Mr. Barker by Mr. W. Mayes, sani-
tary inspector, on behalf of the vestry of the parish of Bt.
Mary, Islington, to answer the following complaint :
That in and upon the premises above mentioned in their
district, under the Nuisancu Removal Act for England,
la 6-5, the following nuisance exists, viz., an accumulation
sad deposit of dung and filth, which is a nuisance and in-
jurious to health, and that the said nuisance is canoed by
the act and default of you the said Lord Mayor, aldermen,
and commonalty, the owners of thesaid premises."
Mr. Layton, vestry clerk, and solicitor to the vestry of
Islington, attended to support the complaint ; and Mr.
Kirby, from the office of the City solicitor, defended.
The court was crowded by the respectable inhabitants
of the district, who have come forward to depose to the
nuisance. _ _ _

Mr.layton,in opening the ease, said that these pro-
"dings were taken under the 18th and 19th Viet., cap.
121, see. 13, and he had to ask the court for an immediate
order to suppress a nuisance which was of so serious a cha-
ncre, that if it was not suppremed would engender
disuse and sickness in the whole neighbourhood.
The nuisance consisted of spreading heaps of ma-
nure—that manure consisting of the blood and
offal from the slaughter-houses as well as the
, ordinary sweepings of the market—over a piece of land
Delmeing to the corporation, which it was intended to lay
doh for pasture. The spreading of the dung was only
commenced last week, but so disgusting was the stench,
and so fearful were the inhabitants that illness would be
caused to the whole neighbourhood if the nuisance was not
at once pat down—and he might here mention that the
stench could be experienced three-quarters of a mile
away—that he had received many letters on the subject,
and he then held in his hand a document signed by veer
50 of the inhabitants of the Hungerford-road, the Marquis-
road, and other places, stating their readiness to came
forward and depose to the danger and the ineonvenirmes el