The Express.
London, England, 1860-11-09 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 'O,

---
lab *ntellfgnut.

COURT OT QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 8.
Sittiairs in Baaeo.—(Before the Lord Chief Joshes,
Justice Wightmaa, Mr. Justice Hill, sad Mr. Justice
Blackburn.)
con r. THE GRYAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPAR Y.
This was an action for false imprisonment, tried on the
14th of August last, before Mr. 'rustics Blackburn, when
a vodka pained for the plaintiff, damages 6d.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., now moved to set MUIR that verdict
by entering a verdict for the defendant or a rionsuit, and
elan for a new trial, on the ground that the damages were er.
eerie*.

It would seem that in March last the plaintiff, who is
a working carpenter residing in the neighbourhood of
Barnet, had travelled up to London by the de-
feadauts' line, and at the station he had handed up
the half of a return ticket, which was out of date. Upon
that he was given into charge by the superintendent, and con.
'eyed to the police-station, for travelling without a ticket
and being unable to pay his fare. The fate which thus be-
fal the
_plaintiff was caused by a singular mistake on his
park Being in the habit of spending five days in the week
in Loudon, his custom was to take a return ticket for
Barnes on the Saturday, which was available until the
Monday. Having arrived at home on the previous Satur-
day, be placed the half-ticket which he preserved on the
mantel-ptece in his parlour. But it so happened that his
sider•in-law was alao in the house on a visit to him, and she
too had placed the half of a return ticket, but which was out
of date, on the mental-piece. In this way it occurred that
on the Monday morning the plaintiff laid hold of the wrong
ticket, and went away without having discovered his mis-
take, and it was this wrong ticket which be delivered up on
his arrival in London. An he had about him was sixpence,
and therefore he was unable to p his fare. Under these
circumstances he was given in charge by the company's
superintendent. Independently of the plea of justification
the company denied their liability, inasmuch as the super-
intendent had acted beyond the general scope of his duties,
and was without authority. The damages were likewise ex.
missive,

The Lord Chief Justice—But the special lar7 was Para,
and gentlemen in that position might make • different
estimate of the value of • man's time from what common
jurors would have done. However, you may take • rule
upon both points.

BAIL COUBT.—Nov. 8.

Sittings at Nisi Prins at Westrnisider.—(Hitore Yr. Justice
Crompton and a Common Jury.)
DAG MBE (ADIONINTIMLI) r. PALSOOL -ALLNOID lIIGLI-
__

aims.

mi. was an action to reoover compensation in damages
for the death of the plaintiff's husband, through the alld
negl~'gaacs of the defendant's servants. The defendant
pleded not guilty.
Mr. Grove, Q.C., and Yr. Loshington were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Mankty, Q.C., and Mr. Davison were
counsel for the defendants.

The plaintiffs husband 11111 • SINIMAII, and was killed in
couenuence of the defendant's vessel coming in collision at
lea with the vessel on board which the deceased was engaged
at the time of 01 accident.

of the pleadinp e pares
speed to a verdict for the png
lain ,tiff 1001 de th ti
magog—the
widow to have 561., and the three children 15/. each.
Mr. Justice Crompton stated that he should not be able
to sit in this court on Saturday. One of the judgea of the
Court of Queen's Bench would have to attend in the Divorce
Court, and two would be in the court far the ounsidenttion
of crown are reserved, leaving two judges only for the
bunco sittings. Chambers and nisi pries must therefore be
neettended to. The court will sit this day (Friday), and
thee edjourn over till Wednesday.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Noy. &

Sittings in Baseo.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie, and
Justices Williams, Dyke., and Keating.)
RACIEHOULIII, APPELLANT, V. THE CHURCHWARDENI 011
BISMOP5WZ•11110U111, Hum sDims.—ATTU& VT TO IN.
POI= CHUM H•IIATTS AGAINST A QUACK&
This wee an appeal trom a decision of the magistrates, and
the cees was stp for the opinion of the court stated a great
many ekreametances, but the substance was shortly this :
The appellant was a Quaker' and he hail been summoned
ander the 7 and 8 Wm. 111. for refusing and neglecting to
pay four church rates. One rate was held net to have been
peoperl demanded, but the other throe the magistrates
o to be paid. The appellant, however, disputed the
validity of these three rates, and the question of validity
wee now raised for the court.

Mr. Wells, on behalf of the appellant, stated that two of
the rates disputed were made on the 15th July, 1858, and
the other on the 7th May, 1859. One of the rates of the
15th July, 1858, purported to be made under the Church-
building Ante, to pay oft • portion of 6001. which had been
lent by -Mr. Bramwell in 1858 for the repair of the church,
upon mortgage of the rates, with intereet. The mortgage
deed, however, said that the 6001. was to be paid by six
annual payments, so that if this part of the deed had been
carried out the debt would have been discharged in 1858,
and the ratepayers el 1858 would have been free from lia-
bility. It was submitted that Mr. Bramwell, by neglecting
to enforce his claim, did not acquire the power to come upon
the ratepayers of 1858. The statute also NW that the
churchwardena should raise not more than 10 per cent. of
money borrowed each year ; and although there was so
limit so to raising more than that proportsoa, yet the courts
bad held that the money should by raised by equal annual
proportions, and that there was so power to raise two
year,' payment in one year. The parish of Bialtoprwear.
mouth is 1844 a-as divided into districts, yet this rate was
made to extend over the whole of the ancient parish, which
was thus called on to pay a debt incurred after the parish
was split into districts. Another objection was as to the
form in which the rate was made. The resolution of the
vestry said that it should be made topay off Mr. Bramwell's
debt and interest, whilst the heading of the rate said it
was an assessment of the church rate for the purposes
chargeable therein according to law ; and at the foot it was
stated, to be for and towards the neoesearyrepairs of the
church, and providiag necessaries far the decent celebration
of divine service, and other expenses legally incident to the
office of churchwarden. The rate was therefore, it was
contended, void in form.
Mr. Justice Williams asked how it was that this court
was called upon to decide as to the veleta of a church
rate, when the proper tribunal was an E tical Court !
Mr. Mills said it was taken to be the law all over the
country that a Quaker had no power to give notice to the
magistrates that he disputed the validity of a church rate,
and proceed thence to the Ecclesiastical Court, and the
reason was that Quakers were under special acts in reference
to the enforcing of church rates. The second rate made oa
the 15th July, 1858, was a common law one for general par.
poses, et it was made to extend only over the residue of
the parish after the districts had been takenaway; whilst he
contended that it should have extended over the whole of the
parish as it existed before the creation of the districts. All
the rates were made by the ancient select vastly, which had
managed the affairs of the parish from time immemorial;
such body consisted of the rector, churchwardens, and 12
I ratepayers. This body, however legal it might have been
before 1844. bad, it was contended, lost its power over
church rake since the parish had been divided into districts
8/Total other objections were urged against the two general
rates, one being that sums not legally chargeable upon
them, such as a portion of Mr. Bramwell's interest, and
registration and visitation fees, bad been put out of the rates.
Mr. Coleridge, for the respondents, submittal that the
court bad jurisdiction to decide the matter, especially as the
20th and 21st Viet., cap. 43, which gave the right of appeal
from magistrates, said that the court should determine all
questions of law submitted to them.
Mr. Justice Keating inquired whether it was contended
that a Quaker could not raise the question of the validity of
a church rate either before the justices or before an .F.w.ksi-
'died Court!

Coleridge had no wish to contend that ; but sub-
mitted that the magistrates having summary junsdiction
to enforce church rates, and Quakers being relieved from
proceedings in the Ecclesisatind Courts, in such a case it
might be considered that power was conferred on magis-
trates to decide any question as to the validity of the rate
in
_proceedings against Iyhmkers.
The Lord Chief Justice ultimately said that the question
as to jurisdiction was an exceedingly important one as
affecting crushers ; but as at present advised be. and a ma-
jority of his learned brothers, were of opinion theta Quaker,
when be was before a magistrate objecting to the validity
of a church rate, stood in pan jure with the rest of the com-
munity. If this were so the ntrates had no jurisdiction
to enter upon the question of ity, nor had the Court of
Common Pleas by appeal from the magistrates. The court
therefore would take time to consider this point, and poet-
pone it, bearing Mr. Coleridge at a future time, if it
should be necessary to hear him at all.
Judgment postponed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 8.
Sitting' at Nisi Prins.—(Before Mr. Baron Martin and
Common Juries.)
GETTO3T V. LIIIOII.—ALLIOID ASAAULT.
These were two actions brought by Geyton the elder and
Geeton the younger for injuring their goods.
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and that be had com-
mitted the alleged assault in removing the plaintiffs from
his premiss, as they were there unlawfully.
Mr. Larton appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Serjeant
Petersdortf for the defendant.
The younger plaintiff took a plot of ground from the de-
fendant under an agreement for a lease for 80 years, under-
taking to build a certain number of houses within a given
time, with power of re-entry to the defendant, in use they
were not completed. This not having been done, the de-
fendant took possession, when the plaintiff entered by one
of the windows and retook possession, and on that the de-
fendant ejected him, thus committing the assault corn.
plained of on the wives of the plaintiffs and injuring the
plaintiffs' goods.
His lordship left it to the jury whether unnecessary vio-
lence had been used, and they found for the defendant in
both actions.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—Nut•. 8.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Nichols.)
IN RI rem( ZAILAROTI lITRIAROFT.
This insolvent, a Rusaisn merchant, whose oise was re-
ported on Friday last, itgain appeared.
Since the last hatrin; the insolvent had tent a communi-
cation to the learned commissioner, who handed it to the

mo:

Insolvent's attorney, and a copy was to be sent to the °m.o•
sing creditor.
Mr. Commilaioner Nichols said it was improper to send
him a communication ; but the insolvent was • foreigner,
and might be excused. There were facts disclosed which
mg 'and some attention. He would give judgment on
Friday weak

IN RE ROBERT PARKER.
This insolvent, who had been a wheelwright, in Toolay
street, was o by Mr. Suffolk, a money-lender.
Mr.
In IK-.9 the insere'eTt4tas a bankrupt, and his certificate
was to be granted this mouth (November). Mr. Suffolk
was a creditor, and the insolvent afterwards borrowed •
further snm, on the statement that his son, who carried ou
the business in Tooley-street, held the lease. The state-
ment was untrue. Out of 1921. of debts, 1721. were in.
curred on sr Aut of the insolvent's son. .

The court gave a judgment of lax mouths, at the suit of
Mr. Suffolk.

IN RE JOHN READING. —SOIIITHING LIKE OBATINACT.
This insolvent, who applied under the Protection Act, was
opposed by acreditor namedßiggins ; Mr. Robertson Griffiths
supported.
w
as a somewhat remarkable case. The insolvent,
in June, 1853, purchased a sheep's-head shop in itsldwins-
prilens of the opposing creditor, for d/. and paid 31. He
had sold the shop to his brother, who was in Newgate-
market, and was paid 11. a week as his servant. The credi-
tor sued him at the Clerkenwell County Court, and he had
been committed on three occasions—twice for 30 days and
once for 40, making 100 days imprisonment for 5/. ; and on
the day he obtained his protection from this court another
judgment summons was to be heard.
The insolvent complained that Biggins had set up a shop
opposite to him, and injured his business.
It however appeared that Biggins had offered to take
beck the shop, and was now willing to do so, but the in-
solvent had refused, alleging he had sold it to his brother.
Mr. Robertson Griffiths complained of the " persecution"
the insolvent had endured, having suffered one hundred
days' imprisonment.
Mr. Commissioner Nichols was of opinion that it was ob-
stinacy and not the want of means that made the insolvent
appear in this court. He did not see any "persecution,"
and thought it was not a case for protection.
After some discussion a day was named for the final order,
with protection, and the opposition was to be settled before
the next occasion.
IN RE CHARLES ZNIMARD.
• • -

....
This insolvent, a journeyman painter, wbo bad resided
in Melton-street, Euston-square, was opposed by Mr.
Robertson Griffiths for the detaining creditor, Mr. Davies,
• builder at Kentish-town.

Mr. Denney supported.
The case was before the court during the September
sittings. The complaint was that the insolvent had dis-
posed of his furniture to his brother-in-law, Sinnock, •
police constable, for money advanced. Siunock, who was ex-
amined before was again called, and swore he had advanced
a considerable awn to the insolvent.

His Honour held that the opposing creditor had esta-
blished a good ground of complaint, and gave a judgment
of six months from the resting order under the discretionary
clause.