The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-22 00:00:00

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.—Fes. 21.

After Term Nid Priva sittings at GuildhalL--(Before
the Lord Chief Justice and Special Jones.)
r. THg CP.EAT NORTHMAN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action for personal injuries. The defen-
dants admitted their liability and the question was the
amount of damages. Several attempts to compromise
were made by the defendant's counsel, but without success.
Mr. Coleridge, y.C., Mr. Bere, and Mr. Palmer, were
counsel for the plaintiff. Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr.
Henry James, were counsel for the defendants.

The plaintiff, a single man, 26 years of age, is a gun-
maker, at Louth, in Lincolnshire, and on the 27th Sep-
timber, 1566, be was a passenger in an excursion train
from that place to London. When they arrived about
Spalding-station the train had to be shunted
to allow the express train to pass. In doing
LO the train came into collision with some empty
trucks, by which the plaintiff was violently thrown from
side to side, and was half stunned. The injury did not at
first appear so serious as it had since proved to be,
and he was now suffering from severe depression, and in-
definite injury to the whole system. He war now much
thinner, and his sight and memory were impaired. Tile
plaintiff before the accident used to join in various
athletic sports, but since then he had been obliged to give
them up, and desist from taking his accustomed long
walks. An agent called on him from the company, but he
declined to entertain any proposition with reference to
compensation, and referred him to his solicitor. The
plaintiff had become much worse during the last few
incatbs.

In the coarse of Dr. Leesevidenee the defendant agreed
toe verdict for the plaintiff—dainages, 34.1Uf.

COURT OF EXCHEQUEF.-FEB. 21.

Sittings at Sid Prins, after Hilary Term, at GuildhalL
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and Special Juries.)

WALTIa r. SIIITH AND OTHERS.

This was an action by • surgeon who for many years
practised at Woking, in surrey, against the proprietor, of
the Lirtrpod ifereurg, to recover damage. for • libel pub-
lished in that paper on the 12th of May last.
Mr. H. Gilfard, Q.C., and Mr. H. James appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr. J. 0. (kitties
for the .lefeivlants.
The libel in question was embodied in a ph which
had appeared in the London Morning at two or three
days previousl and which was reinserted as copied from
that paper. The paragraph purported to give circula-
tion to rumours afloat an the island of Jersey, to
the effect th.it a Captain Handley, • young man,
formerly of the Indian navy, and who had died at St.
Aubin on the 24th of April last from the effects of drunken
habits, had been poisoned by the plaintiff, who was only •
pretended doctor, in order to get possession of his victim's
property. For these abominable rumours there was not
the slightest foundation ; and by the venlict of a coroner's
jury upon the 18th of June following, Dr. Walter was en-
tirely freed from all imputations, and thecsuaes of the
deceased's death clearly established. An action having been
brought sgainwt the Morniag Post, the proprietor at once as-
sented to insert in thepaper the must ample epology, and to
pay a sum of 2501. in liquidation of the damage done to
Dr. Walter by the publication in question. With this

Dr. Walter was satisfied, as ha also was by the mere ia•
sertion of apologies in certain other papers in which tin
paragraph had likewise appeared. The defendants'
solicitor, however, on being applied to to accept set.
vice of a writ upon the 9th of July, cm.
tended himself with expressing Lis willingness
to do so ; but, upon the 2Ath of the same month, there
Appeared in the Mercury a recital of the real truth of the
matter, and an acknowledgment that the narrative of the
Mormon Post was a tissue of bungles. This, however, did
not satisfy the plaintiff, so he proceeded with his action.
The counsel fur the defendants did not for one moment
attempt to palliate the grossness of the original libel, but
rested his defence on the terms of section 2 of the 6th and
ith Vict. C. 96, that the publication was without actual
malice or gross negligence; that an apology was made at
the earliest opportunity, and that 40a. paid into court was.
under the circumstances, sufficient to cover the damage
inflicted.

The jury, however, thought otherwise, and gave s ver•
dirt fur the idaintiff--diunages 1:10/.