The Express.
London, England, 1860-12-12 00:00:00

COURT OP EXCHEQUER.—Dsc. 11.

Sittings at Nid Prim —(Before the Lord Chief Berm and
a Special Jury.)

WILLIAMS Y. THI 01 AT NOSTILIIIM aiILwAT COMPANY.—

ACCIDKNT.

This was an action to recover damages for injuries re-
ceived * the plaintiff through the negligence of the de-
fendant.' servants. The defendants admitted the negli-
gence, raising the question of the amount of compensation
to which the plaintiff was entitled.
Mr. Power and Mr. Quoin were counsel for the OaMtiff
Mr.liawkine and Mr.O. Pollockrepresented the ddendante.
rThe plaintiff in this action is a flour factor at Manchester,
and is 38 years of ege. On the 30th of May tut he took s
Arst.clasi ticket on the defendants' line, from Liverpool to
London. When the train had arrived near Kinfs-crose
the guard, who was intoxieated, and had fallen asleep, did
not put on the break, and the train went right through the
station into the street, where its further progress wee im-
peded by the earthwork used in construction of the Metro-
, politan Railway. The plaintiff was thrown on the opposite
seat and floor of the earriage, sustaining injuries on his
head and spine. He could not transact his business, and
returned to Liverpool by the London and North Western
Railway, although the defendants had extended his return
ticket that he might go back by their line. On
his return the medical man who was called in
discovered he had sustained severe injuries. The plaintiff
suffered from great numbness in his extremities, and his
eyesight was so much affected that he could not distinguish
the colour of the flour. His memory was impaired, and his
nervous system completely shattered. The plaintiff had
been examined by emend medical men on behalf of the
company—one of whom, Dr. Harrison, gave him a
sum of money in full of all demands spinet the
company, the plaintiff, when he signed it, *lnv-
ing that the injuries were only of a temporary
nature. The plaintiff had been in the American
flour trade, and previous to 18511 be estimated his profits at
6001. a year. In consequence of depression in trade he had
to compound with hie creditors, and commence business
again on hie own account, in 18.59, with borrowed capital.
In consequence of the pleadings the only question for the
jury was the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff
was entitled for the injuries be had received.
His Lordship having summed up,
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, 1,2001.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Dec. 11.
(Before the Jadge Ordinary.)
t'. MINTZ&

Dr. Spinks and Mr. Biron appeared for the petitioner;
the respondent appeared in person.
The petitioner, Mn. Minter, formerly Miss Kt=
married to the respondent in March, 1854. They
in St. Pancras, when the respondent, Edwin Minter, kept
an upholsterer's shop. According to Mrs. Minter's state-
meat her husband began to treat her unkindly immediately
after her marriage. He frequently swore at her, slapped
her and pinched her. There were several other acts of
violence detailed by Mrs. Minter, of too revolting a chancter
to publish, but from which, as appeared from the evidence
of the medical man wbo attended her, she bad suffered ex-
treme injury. Her evidence was fully borne out
by that of other witnesses. In March, 1855, within a
twelvemonth of the matruge, the defendant told her
that be kept a mistress, that he intended to bring her home
to his house, and that if his wife did not choose to live with
her, she had better return to her parents. On the follow-
ing day she did return to her parents, and had not sines
lived with respondent. It was proved that alter her depar-
ture be was guilty of adultery.
The respondent swore that he had never assaulted his
wife in his life, and that the petitiooeis witnesses had de-
posed falsely.
The jury, without waiting for a reply or a ramming up,
found all the issues in favour of the petitioner.
His lordship pentads decree of dissolution.
MATZ C. STOAT/

In this case the respondent had obtained a judicial asps-
ration on the grounds of cruelty and desertion ' • and the
petitioner, who was said to be a barrister, now praved for •
dissolution of the marriage. on the ground of wife's
adultery. The respondent, In her plea, denied the charge,
and alleged connivance, adultery, cruelty, and desertion,
spinet her husband.
The marriage took place in 1852, and the cohabitation
appeared to have lasted two or three years, at Ihunagate and
Bath. In 1815 Mn. Stoats went to live at a Mrs. Sargin-
sou's, at Bristol, under her maiden name of Haynes. A
numberof witnesses were called to show that the respondent
had been leading a drunken and dissolute life. On the other
side evidence of cruelty and desertion was given, the other
recriminatory pleas being abandoued.
Dr. Swahy appeared fur the resposdent. The petitioner
conducted his cue in parson, and was frequently reproved
by the court, the learned judge remarking that be could
hardly believe that • person could really be of the law
who inanifested such gross ignorance, and comported him-
self so offensively.
The jury found the issues in favour of the petitioner,
and

Sir C. Cromwell sold be would consider whether, under
the eiresautenae, he would decree a dissolution.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Dac. 11.

Font.lanque.)
LT as JOSEPH CIALIII.—TER 1/JIATLINS cc THZ LEATH=

(Before Kr.