The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-04 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

-ittingin Bllbeo.—(Before Lord Chiet Justice Borth and
Justireo Wilke, Bylos, and Seating.)
OANIELN r. THR METROPOLITAN RAILWAY. s s

The 4aintiff isthis case was a gentleman who had
been injured in what is known as the " Girder accident,"
which happened near the Aldemgate-street station on
the 19th December last. It may be remembered
that an iron girder, which was being raised to
form the flooring of the new Dead Meat Market
fell noon a train as it was passing ; and the plaintiff had
the misfortune to be in that train. Ho sued the Metro-
politan Railway Company for damages, upon the ground
that they had been negligent, and at that trial, before Mr.
Baron Martin, at Croydon, it was arranged that a verdict
should be entered for the plaintiff, subject to a motion for
rule to enter a nonsuit.

Mr. Hawkins, (.C., now moved accordingly, and stated
the girder was being placed in position by the Thames
Ironworks Company, who were employed by the corpora-
tion of London, and the railway company did no act of any
kind in reference to the matter. I. nether than this, the
Railway Company's Act gave them authority simply over
the level upon which their trains ran, and they had no
power whatever in reference to the higher level upon which
the market works were being carried on.
The Lord Chief Justice inquired what negligence was
aged against the railway company.
Mr. Hawkins—lt was said that they had been negligent
in not having somebody to watch and prevent trains pasting
at the time the girders were in course of being raised ;
but previous to the accident there was no appearance or
semblance of danger, and no accident would have hap-
pened but for the way in which a donkey engine, of which
the railway company knew nothing, was used. He sub-
mitted that, under these circumstances, there was no case
against the defendants.
Rule granted.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE JANES BeTTOR.—" THE DAT " NEWMPAPER.

This was a sitting for the discussion of disputed proofs
in the matter of James Hutton, of Hues-street, Strand,
the publisher of a newspaper called The Day, which
maintained a struggling existence of a few weeks during
the debates on the Reform Bill as the representative
of that small class of politicians known as " Adullarnites."
It will be remembered that, after the stoppage of the pa-
per and the bankruptcy of Hutton, three noble lords—
Lord Elcho, Earl Grosvenor, and the Earl of Lichfield—who
amongst thein,had contributed something like 3,000/. for car-
rying oe the paper, undertook to pay the whole of the bona fide
creditors in full ; and an arrangement was made that
their claims should be sent in to the assignee (Mr.
Wintle, accountant), and investigated by him, and then
submitted for the consideration of the court. The
principal question raised on the part of the noble lords
was, whether the unfortunate employes on the Day—sub.
editors, reporters, and others—were entitled, by a
custom of the profession to a month's salary in lieu of
notice, or only to the amount actually due at the end of the
week in which the paper stopped.
Mr. Bagley appeared for the assignees ; Mr. Reed, Mr.
Davies, Mr. Fraser, and other solicitors for the claimants.
The first claim investigated was that of Mr. All the
the
subeditor of the paper, who claimed 44/. for say and
in lieu of notice.

Mr. Al!pas, being examined, stated that he bad been
engaged by Mr. Hutton as sub-editor of the paper at ■
salary of seven guineas • week. Nothing was said
as to notice or as to the termination of the
engagement. He commenced work on Friday, the
15th of March, by going down to Chatham, Ports-
mouth, and Southampton to engage army and navy cor-
respondents. When the paper stopped on the 4th of May,
two weeks' salary was due— one week completed and one
week commenced; and he claimed four weeks' salary in
lieu of notice, according to the custom of the profession—
in a 11441. 2a.

Mr. T. D. Chipcbase, the City editor, Mr. Dutton
Cooke, the dramatic critic, Mr. Alfred Clyatt, Mr. James
Elmore, Mr. Charles Corfield, Mr. Roger Griffin, and
others, reporters, made similar claims.
[The case was proceeding when our report left.)