The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

EMIXNEt,, MAY 26,
..1860.

Qa • division the motion was carried by 40 to 34. The
bill was therefore lost.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES
BILL.
This bill was read a third time, and pealed amidst some
cheers.

SUPPLY.

The report of supply aria-ir.O;Ai up and agreed to.
_ WAYS AND IO.A.I§TB.

The report c the committee of ways and means was also
ved.
JOHN =ARM; ACT, ie., REPEAL BILL
'AriVIIIT bill ra TAX ABOLITION (EDINBURGH) BILL.
On the moths forgoing into committee on this bill,
The LORI) ADVOCATE moved that it be an instruction
to the committee that they have power to make provision
for the abolition of the annuity tax in the burgh of Canon-
gate and the burgh of Montrose.
to.
fTetVill then went through committee, and the clause
was agreed to.
The house adjourned at '25 minutes to I o'clock to Thurs-
day next.

Kato inteilignut.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—MAT 25.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr.
Justice Wigfitmen, Mr. Justice Crompton, and Mr.
Justice Blackburn.)

worm r. BETH.

This was an action which ma he said to have originated
in the defalcations of David Hughes, the ex-attorney and
fraudulent bankrupt.
It was tried before Mr. Justice Hill at the last Middlesex
sittings after term, when a verdict passed for the plaintiff
' with damages VOL The action was brought by the
plaintiff, a merchant's clerk, against the defendant, an at-
torney, for professional negligence in causing to beconveyed
to the plaintiff a wrong house, and likewise for omitting to
search the register in order to ascertain whether the house
purchased wax mortgaged.
The house in question was situated in Cornwall-terrace,
I Dalama and was one of a lot, the property of Sir William
Middleton, advertised for oak. In the description of the
property which the plaintiff handed to the defendant the
house he desired top stated to be No. 12, on the
soutteside of the Albion- " from the Skeen's- road,
whereas in the &hatred el. furnished' to Smith by David
Hughes, who was a - receive the purchase money,
the house was dew "12th house 011 the south side
of Albion-road, eel in the Queen's-road," but which
at the time of the was "N 0.17," the discrepancy
being accounted for a feet that in consequence of the
intempediate apace 141Nreen several houses being built upon,
what was at one time: the twelfth house in the row be-
rate No. 17. Nowever, there was a further discrepancy
between the pertacplare tarnished by the plaintiff and the
al:street of Mai with regard to the occupants of the house
to be purchased. In this way it happened that the plaintiff
got poseession of the wrong house ; which, however, was in
all rerpecta precisely similar to the one be had intended
to purchase, and was equally heavily mortgaged, neither
being of any value to a purchaser.
Mr. Collier, Q.C. (with him Mr. Hance) now moved for a
rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why there
should not be • new trial, on the ground that the verdict
was against evidence, and also because of the damages being
excessive.
Their Lordships, after consulting Sfr.Justice Hill, were of
opinion Unit the rule ought to be refused on the ground
that the verdict was against evidence, bat granted because
of the damages being massive.

ST. ALDTII AND Will S. GINXIIAL OMNIDOII COMPANY.
This was an action tried before Mr. Justice Wight yen, at
the sittings for Middlesex after last term, when a verdict
passed for the plaintiff, with 1001. demure'. The action
was spinet the company for the negligence of their servants
in driving off before the wife of the plaintiff—who is a
theatrical singer—had time to alight from'one of their omni-
buses, whereby the lady was thrown upon her beak, and
suffered • premature confinement in consequence. At the
trial the plaintiff's difficulty was to identify the mambas by
which his wife travelled. The lady said she started hem
the Bank in a "John Bull" minibus, the property ef the
company, and which ran to Maida-hill, and that it was in
alighting from it at the corner of Praed-street that the
accident occurred. Mr. St. Albya so far confirmed the
statement of his wife aa to state tint he saw the name
of " Church," the secretary to the company, inscribed cm
the omnibus. On the other band, the company declared
that there were six "John Bulls "starting from the Bank,bet
that only two of them belonged to the company. Moreover,
there were no less than sixty omnibuses besides the ems-
pany's passing along the route travelled by the plaintir•
wife, and it wu just as likely she was in one of them. All
the company's conductors who were on duty on that part
of the road where the accident occurred, and about the
time in questioo, were called, but not one of them
knew anything about the accident, nor could Mrs. St. Al.
byn succeed hi recognising amongst them the conductor al
the omnibus by which she travelled. Nevertheless the
jury found for theplaintiff, damages 100/.
Mr. Elwin James, Q.C. (with him Mr. T. Atkinson), now
appeared to move for a new trial on behalf of the company.
on the ground of surprise. It was not until the trial that
the company were aware that the plaintiff alleged that his
wife had travelled by a "John Bull." Indeed, from
the interrogatories addressed to them on behalf of the
plaintiff, they were led to believe he did not know by what
omnibus she travelled; and although at the trial they
were enabled to produce the conductors of the only two
"John Bulls" belonging to them, yet there was no oppor-
tunity allowed for making further inquiries, and thus show-
ing that their "John Bulls" did not ply to Maida.hill.
But, moreover, there were the affidavits of two policemen
stationed at the 13auk, who, having seen a report of the
trial in the newspapers, informed the company that some
time after the accident the plaintiff had made inquiries of
them respecting the omnibuses starting from the Bank, and
that he distinctly affirmed on that occasion that he did not
know whether his wife travelled by a company's omnibus.
The f'hief Justice mid Mr. James had stated quite
enough to require an answer from the other side.
Rule nisi granted accordingly.

BAIL COURT.—MsY 25.

Bitting at Nisi Prius at Westminster.— (Before Mr. Justice
Hill and a Common Jury.)

MOWN O. ORAT.—rues IMPRISONMENT.
This was an action for false imprisonment and a malicious
prosecution.
The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty ; secondly, a ju■-
tiflmtion ; and further, that a felony had been committed,
and that there was reasonable and probable cause fur sus-
pecting the plaintiff.
Mr. Belton and Mr. Dunbar were counsel for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Gifford were counsel for
the defendant.

The defendant was a forage contractor at Woolwich, and
the plaintiff wax his agent. On the 11th January last the
defendant, without previous intimation to the plaintiff,
went to his house and charged him with stealing two loads
of hay. A policeman was snot for, and the defendant gave
the plaintiff into custody for stealing the same. He was
taken to the station, locked up for the night, and on the
following morning he was taken before the magistrates,
who committed him for trial, but admitted him to bail.
The plaintiff was arraigned for the felony at the Central
Criminal Court, but upon the conclusion of the cane for the
prosecution the judge ruled there was no case for the jury,
and the plaintiff WM acquitted.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the defendant
on both counts.