The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-01 00:00:00

SUTTON Y. 1;IHOFE ANI) ANOTHER.

When this case was called on five special jurymen only
answered to their names, and as neither party would pray
a tales, the case having been tried before in the Bail Court
by a common jury, the case went off.
Mr. Justice Shee said it was quite clear, from what they
bad seen that morning, that the present system had broken
down. It could not be attributed to the solicitors,
because in reducing the list they supposed they were en-
suring the attendance of persona who would be
summoned, nor was it the fault of the sheriff,
so far as he could see. The fault, if any, must there:ore
rest with the parish officers in carelessly putting down the
names of persons on the list without taking the trouble
to ascertain if they resided in their parishes.
One of the jurymen said that he knew Mr. De la Rue,
who bad been represented by the summoning officer as
having left his residence or place of business, to be living
there, and to be a partner in a large firm.
The Hon. Mr. Campbell, the associate. said a note would
be taken on it, and inquiries made respecting it.
Mr. Justice Shee said that as the case had been once
tried by a common jury and occupied two days, it was
very desirable that the second trial should be before a
special jury. He understood that the Lord Chief Justice
had had frequently to make remarks on the absence of
special jurymen or he should not have mentioned the sub-
ject. It was a pity that the Solicitor-General was not
present, because if he had been he might have been induced
to consider the subject with a view to legislative improve-
ment. In that case, Mr. Coleridge (the learned counsel in
two of the cases) might be usefully employed in assisting
him.

SHARPE r. THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY.

This case also had to go off in consequence of the non-
attendance of special jurymen.
One of the jurymen complained that he knew several
gentlemen who were summoned, but who never attended,
because they were told that it could be made all right.
The matter ought to be investigated and exposed, be-
cause it was not fair towards those who attended and dis-
charged their duty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex.—(Before Lord Chief
Justice Bovill and a Common Jury.)
PARSONS AND WIPE V. MARVIN.

This was an action to recover damages for an assault
upon the plaintiff, Mrs. Parsons.
Mr. Bridge appeared for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Gibbons
for the defendant.

The plaintiff's case was, that last year they lodged in the
house of the defendant in Cambridge-street, Pimlico. On
the evening of the 31st of July, the wife was going upstairs
with • jug containing about a quart of water. As she was
paring the rooms on the first ffoor,she sung " Cheer, boys,
cheer ; hurrah for honest labour ;" and she added " Better
have honest labour than keep a bad house." She did not
know that there was anybody there, but the defendant
came out of his room, struck her twice on the head with a
stick, and was about to strike a third time, when she
threw the jug of water at him, and the husband almost
immediately came in and took her to her own apartments.
She bled • great deal, and has since been subject
to headache. A medical gentleman saw her about
• dozen times. His opinion was that the injuries
were caused by smart blows with a light cane. He (lid
not think that her general health was much affected by
the blows ; but as Mrs. Parsons was between 10 and 60
years old, the blows would be more serious to her than to
a younger person.
in cross-examination it appeared that Mrs. Parsons be-
lieved that • Mr. Cornell was living on the first floor with a
woman who was not his wife, and that she bad some objection
to some other persons who were in the borne. She said
that she was singing to herself, but that she did not care
if Cornell heard it. A summons was taken out in the
Police Court, but Mr. Parsons was too ill to attend on the
hearing, and those proceedings were abandoned, and the
present action brought. Subsequently Mr. Parsons, who
was • solicitor's clerk, wrote to the defendant, offering to
accept an apoloa, •`r!. for expenses, and 21. '2s. as a contri-
bution to the Westminster Hospital in settlement of the
action.

The case for the defendant, who was an inspector of
clothing in the employ of the government wax that all
the persons in the house were respectable. The defen-
dant was just going out for a walk, and hearing the noise
made by Mrs. Parsons, he told her to be quiet and go up-
stairs. She called him • swindler, a blackguard, and •
haw.ly.house keeper. He said she was drunk, and had
better go upstairs. She then turned upon him like a
fury and drenched him with water. She was three stairs
above the defendant, and he raised his stick and struck at
the ewer which be thought was about to descend upon his
head as she was trying to hit it, and in this way the
blows were struck. It appeared that Mrs. Parsons had
previously complained of two girls who had got to
lodge in the house by means of false references, and
it being found that they were not respectable they were
immediately got rid of. The defendant added it was true
that Mrs. Parsons was drunk, an allegation • hich bad
been moat positively denied by herself and her husband.
It was also said that Mrs. Parsons was not merely singing
but shouting, and had been for a quarter of an hour before
the assault.
The jury found for the defendant.