The Express.
London, England, 1858-06-12 00:00:00

OP THE POOH OP

TUI ZUZIN V. THI

In this case the CouuSsattimsinsiamoe of the Poor-law
Boar had mated a ceiling um, the directors of the
poor od, f fit. Pacers& to show mese why they should not permit
Mr. Parnell, the poor-kw inspector, to inspect and take the
admessurement of certain rooms to the workhouse for the
parr*e of enabling the 00111Mild011111 to exercise the power
which they possemed under the statute of fixing the number
of paupers who should be acconuaodated in each of them.
Mr. Atherton, on the past of the defendants, showed
cause against the rule.
Lord Campbell meld the Court thought the reseals of the
defendants fur refusing to obey the order of the Poor Law
Board were ft ivolous and vexatious, and that the rale should
be made absolute.
Bak absolute accordingly.

OOUBT OF COMMON PLEAB.--Jurn 11.
(81“Inp In lianoo.—
hoodoo Wllawns Belore Lad Ckist
Web. )
Justice Cockburn,
and sad

MOWATT V. TIIII 011 AT KOZTIOX RAILWAY COMTANY.

OP TXs cox riiry's INCIWART.

This wee an action by the late secretary of the Great
Northern Railway Company. to recover damages for having
been improperly die and the first count was a special one,
which alleged that in co • tion that the plaintiff would enter
into the company's envies end serve them as their secretary
the defendants promised that they would conduct themselves
reasonably towards him ; and then followed the following
breach .—" That while he wee in their ISITIOII they, without
any reasonable cause and without any reasonable notioe of
their intention so to do, soddenly. during a current year of
his said worries, by • resolution of a majority of their
director., present at a meeting of their directors, cancelled
his •ppointment es their secretary, which attaining wee, on
the part of the defendants, not • reasonable, but a very un-
reasometile, oonducting of thermeslves as his employers to-
wards him is their secretary, tastsery to their said promise."
Mr. Justice Crowder, at ehatobere, bed nada an order that
this breach should be struck ad, upon the ground that it
meant simply that the to had dismissed the
plaintif and there was another Wesel stating that fact.
Mr. Denman now applied be a rule to set aside the order
Justiceproydert sad restore the breach.

B. Cisrb ahowad eaaas ba the first iaatance.
The Court, alter some disoession, intimated an opinion
that the breach should not be allowed, but they thought that
the plaintiff should be at liberty to state that the directors
passed a resolution, and to set oat the resolution in its terms.
Rule accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Juma 11.
(Bittiags ia Saaao—don the Lord Chia( Barra
Barges Waft.B , Breamll, sad Warm.) sad

LDAIUI IP. LLOTD.-INIPICTION OP DOCIIMENTII.-411.

In this case a rule bad bees granted invoivbig • quern=
of considerable importance as to the power of the court to
compel the production of documents for nepenthe =der the
14th and 15th Vic. the ant for amending the law of firkin=
The plaintiff had brought an action of trespass against the
defendant, who intist= that be was entitled to the mi-
nerals under the surface belonging to the plaintiff, and,
in order to make oat this din= put certain iuterroga-
' tories, with the view of compelling the plaintiff to show his
title. The plaintiff in his =ewer denied that his title deeds
related to the dehndant's title, and the present rule was then
obtained, " Why an oral eumnation of the plaintiff should
not be directed, or why the plaintiff should not, within
• time to be named by the court, file a better answer to the
interrogatories exhibited in this nun."
Mr. Gray and Mr. Druce now showed muse against the
tale, ecestrooding the plaintiff was not bound to disclose hie
title deeds, which be believed were not relevant.
Mr. nip= and Mr. Quain supported the rule.
The Lord Chief Baron, in giving judgment, said the court
were unanimously of opinion that the rule =could be dis-
charged. The case of a witness protecting himself by a
refusal to =ewer any question which had • tendency to
eliminate him was of longer siding, and had been more
discussed, than the present inquiry before the court. He had
always considered the interpretation of the law with regard
to such • admen by the late Mr. Justice Maple, the
eon= one. That was, never to ask an accused party, or one
who though not accused, might_ bosoms subject to • crbabsal
charge, say poetic= which bed a tendency to prove his guilt.
This was combined so snored • principle that the rights of •
civil *bath or defendant pveway to the exigency, or rather
the moretbsem of the rale, a= however the answer of the
wham might decide the ce= though a property or • large
estate was at stoke, ilthe witness could satisfy the judge that
his sewer would ban • tendency to criminate him,
bens non bound to sewer the qiention, however large
might be tlw interest of the suitor in that answer. Us-
doabledly doable bed arisen as to the extent to which this
kohl= might be carried, but the only exception he could
recognise was if the witness was trifling with the court, and
led in valley no excuse lbr not answering the questioe, then
ft was the duty aCthejudp to insist on his answer. The
otherjodgire had not gone wish the late Mr. Justice Mauls in
his broad statement, bat they had never dissented from the
pindple there laid down. Ink a ease threw considerable
light on that now before the cont. The proposition which
had been insisted on by Mr. Gray so truth, end he would
add so ably, was that a person who had deeds in his custody,
and said, " They ere my title deeds," was alone the preen
Who could say, " i take oa myself to state they do not re-
late to your title, but to my own." If the pas-
senor of • document pledged h=self to this, the op-
posits party bad so right to say, " I should like to see your
deeds and satisfy myeekt." Than the mischief would be do=
The party so obtaining the inibrmatioa might nee it himself
or enable others to use it. He apprehended that, under the
recent cheap in the her, Use sebetestial tesenlag was, that
one party mfgl t ask enether in • snit, " Have you any
documents which I hen • sight to hope " end if the
reply wee, " I hew* as tea deleiesate," the cowl would

r not compul the p;oduction of title deeds to enable the party
to judge Qtr himself. After this unanimous derision of the
court, the rule of low In tZie matter would be nu longer un-
certain. The rile must be diacbarged.
Mr. goon Martin was Alen of opinion that the rule should
Lc diecbarged, as than) was not a tangle interrogatory which
the defendants had a right to put to the plaintiff.
Mr. Baron Bramwell and Mr. Baron Watson also
concurred.

'tale discharged, the costa of the role to be allowed to the
praintiffs In taxation.

BUSINESS OT TER COURT.
The Court will sit in banoo on Thursday the let, and Ba.
turday the 3rd of .1 uly, to give judgment in oases previously
argued, and at the same sittings the court will take any mo-
tions which may be Final% and such special oases as the
Court may give Ism to be bought on.