The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Satins, in Banoo. —(Before Lord Chid Justice Bris si
Justices Wes, Kaftans, and Smith.)
WOG V. nts MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, MID LINCOMMEE

IiPAILWAT COMPASY.
The plaintiff In this ease sued to recover damages fa 4,
death of her son, who lost his life on the defendsaar
and at the trial at Leeds the jury awarded her 3101.
Mr. Manisty, Q.C., however, now moved fora ode b
enter a verdict for the defendants, or for new trid, qs
the ground fhat the verdict was against the weight it
donee. The accident happened at the New RAead pAg
way Station on Sunday, the 13th August. The Amid
had crossed the Humber in the with a his*
and on his way hack he was steamboat
ng • wood's WI
path, or platform, skagside the railway to the strut*
when he fell on to the line and was killed by a toil.
The plaintiff's ease was that this accident had
in consequenceof the negligence of the oosopelienti
having fenced the platform. On the other hag it..
'hewn that the platform had been in the NW itik
20 years, that millions of people had passed along it will
out accident or complaint, and further that the
was drunk at the time of the accident. Under
cumstanoss it was contended that there was no
on the part of the company, or at all events that Own
was contributory negligence on the part of the detour.
The court granted a rule.

COURT OF EXCFIEQUER.

Sittings in Banco.—{Before the Lori Chief Bann, nd
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.)

MUSCLES V. LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND 101 TH COW
RAILWAY CoIIPANT.

This was an lictio;;;;ria,; to reoover comps.*
for damage dose to certain articles of virtu ell
had formed part of her luggage while a
on the defendants' railway from London to Brightni". fY
defendants paid 4L 10s. into court, and film-led meta
debted as to the net of the plaintiff's claim. At thetW
before the Lord Chief Baron, at Guildhall, the counsel Ir
the company raised the objection that the articles we
not included in those enumerated in the Carrico Al;
and that the defendants were therefore not Ms
because the goods had not bean insured. -11
answer of the plaintiff's counsel was that the On
did not raise such an objection. The Chief Bum es
seated toe new plea being added if the defendants*
the costs up to that time, but the company declined tea
a plea on those terms. It was further urged on behdir
the company that the goals were not personal legpg
and to this the plaintiff answered that such a Moe
ought to have been pleaded. The question then meta
the jury, who said they found a verdict for the plehel
with 101. beyond the sum paid into court, but the Let
Chief Baron held that the goods were not personal haw,
and that there was no duty on the part of the deb**
to carry them, and nonsutted the plaintiff.
Mr. Digby Seymour, Q. on the part of the plaisil
now moved to set aside th‘ tonenit, and to enter • yee
diet for the plaintiff, on the ground that by the. plea
payment into court the defendants admitted theirluldly,
and that the defence relied upon was not open to thus a
the state of the pleadings.
The court granted a rule nisi.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BEECH AND 011113E8LP:1X: ALATHBONE AND (MIX
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Middleton for the pliiatil;
Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., and Dr. Bwabey for the defends&
The plaintiffs, ax executors, propounded aco eta
will of Mrs. Jane Rathis ne, late of Milbank
near Woolstanton , Bta ffon lib re,who died on the ST
1865. The will had been executed on the Ath Angsskilli
and it left her only surviving son, John Bathbonsi tbaldf
legatee and devisee of her 4 state, but it appointed beta
nephews the executors. There had been a previous wilif
which the testatrix had benefited her two grandiosity'
deceased daughter, wbo hid married a Mr. Edge; bold
was alleged that she had altered that dispositke d
her property because the young Edges had been rack*
provided for by a deceased aunt and by other sioles
of the family. The will not being fmthconnata
fenciants—among whom was John Bathbone
alleged that it had been destroyed by the testatrix w
61
her directions, with the intention of cancelling it.
ground which, it was suggested, had led her to take 111
course was, that in 181/4 she had executed a deed ci
by which she had disposed of her property. Its szewil
was about 15,0001.
(The case was still proceeding when we went to pies]

COURTS OF JUSTICE COMPENSATION
COURT.
%Before the High Bailiff of Westminster, Scott Ti
Esq., and a Special Jury.)
GOLIbNET, 1.P., V. HER lIAJE.RTVN COMIUSCONIAS 0,10
NEW LAW COCKER.
This was a compensation claim by Mr. Gabriel Geldaffi
the member of parliament for Chippenham, in respect fi 6
freehold house, 14, Carey-street, Lincoln's-inn-lielda
41
site of which was required for the erection of the nobs
courts.
Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Horace Lloyd appeared in
of the claim ; Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C.
Mr.
Macdonald were for the commissioners.
Only nine special jurors attended, ands tales was Pffed.
The claim as made for the property was 2,850 i.
The jury was about to view the property, when •
Mr. Chambers begged a few minutes indulgence cilia
court, se much time might be saved.
The parties on both sides consulted, and • rerdifib/
consent was agreed upon for 2,400 L
Under the direction of the High Bailiff the jar,' WI
verdict for that amount. •