The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-01 00:00:00

lido inttlifirtnet.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—APRIL 30.
Sittings in &moo.— (Before Lord Chief Justice Bola and
Justices Bylee, Keating, and Smith.)

BALLARD r. THE riuzmn IN NEED IN:it:RANCE courErr
(UNITED).

The plaintiff in this case was a victualler, keeping the
Castle, at Highgate, and be bad insured for I,OOW. in the
defendants company against accident. One of the con-
ditions of the policy was, that the plaintiff should have
an allowance of 6/. a week during the time that he should
be totally disabled from attending to business by accident.
During the continuance of the policy the plaintiff was
thrown from a cart, his left collar-bone was dislocated, his
right thumb was severely sprained, and he was otherwise
hurt. He was not confined to his bed, but walked about
his house, and he also was driven out in a ran. He made
a claim for payment upon the ground that he was totally
disabled from attending to his hominess for five or six
weeks. The defendants, however, contended that be was
only partially disabled, and they paid money into court
upon this footing. These wax conflicting evidence, but
the jury found for the plaintiff. Subsequently a rule
was granted calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why
there should not be a new trial, upon the ground that the
verdict was against the weight of evidence, or to enter
a verdict for the defendants. because the plaintiff had not
sent in a proper medical certificate to show that he was
totally disabled. To-day cause was shown against this
rule being made absolute.
Kr. Kenealey appeared to show cause ; and Mr. N.
Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Kydd to support the rule.
1 The Lord Chief Justice said that there was no doubt
strong evidence for the defendants that the plaintiff was
not totallym disabled; but the question wan one entirely
for the jury, and the judge could not say that he was dia.
/satisfied with the finding. Upon looking at the conditions
on the policy he could not find that it was necessary that
the plaintiff should send in a medical certificate of total
disablement. Under these circumstances the rule would
be discharged.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—APRIL 30.
Sittings in Banco.—{Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Pigott.)
THE ♦DELPHI BANK (LIMITED) T. JOHNSON.

This was an action by the Adelphi Bank, at Liverpool,
against Mrs. Zoluison, a lady residing in that town, to
recover 4,32.3 f. upon a promissory note, made and signed
by her with five other persons in favour of the plaintiffs.
The defendant pleaded that she was induced to make
the promissory note by the fraud and misrepresentation
of H. and C. Gannet', of which the plaintiffs had notice ;
and secondly, that she was induced to make the note and
deliver it to the plaintiffs through the fraud of the plain-
tiffs and of others in collusion with them. There was also
an equitable plea, that the note was signed as surety for
H. and C. Gambia ; that there was no other considera-
tion ; that the note was delivered to the plaintiffs on the
condition that the defendant should be liable only as such
surety, and only until the guarantee of one Twents man
should be obtained by the plaintiffs. The trial took place
before Mr. Justice Lush at Liverpool, when the
jury found a verdict for the defendant on the pleas
alleging fraud, and for the plaintiffs on the other plea.
As long ago as last Michaelmas term Mr. Mellish, Q.C. on
behalf of the plaintiffs, obtained a rule nisi fora new trial,
on the ground that there was no evidence to support the
verdict, and that if there was, the verdict was against the
evidence. It seemed that Mra. Johnson had guile to the
bank and requested them to take up certain cheques, being
under an apprehension that criminal proceedings, which
had been threatened, might be taken against her eon for
having been a party to fraudulently obtaining money upon
them, and certain negotiations ensued, which resulted in
the giving of the note in question. She said she gave it
on the representation of the manager of the hank that H.
and C. Carpi= were solvent at the time, whereas they
really were not, and to the knowledge of that functionary.
The arguments, which had been partly heard last term,
were resumed and concluded to-day.
Mr. T. Jones, Q.C., and Mr. L Temple appeared, with
Mi. Mellish, Q.C., in support of the rule ; and Mr. Ed.
ward James, Q.C., and Mr. Bayliss against it.
Mr. Baron Martin said the real question seemed to be
whether it was fraud in a person to take a guarantee if he
believed that the person in whose behalf it was given was
insolvent.
Mr. Mellish said there was no evidence to show that the
bank manager knew the Gamines were insolvent when
the note was given.
The Lord Chief Baron observed that the transactions
took place between the 12th and 18th October, and the
Giu-nissee remained solvent, and carried on business until
March sth afterwards. He wanted to know what species
of insolvency was proved to have existed in October, and
to be known to Ellison, the manager, and concealed or
misrepresented by him.
Mr. Mellish said there was no evidence whatever as to
the state of their affairs—the allegation of their insolvency
was a mere inference.

The Lord Chief Baron said the court thought that the
evidence as to the state of the affairs of theGarnisece, their
alleged insolvency, and the question of fraud, was unsatis-
factory. Under all the eireurnsteness. they thought there
should be a new trial, but it must be on the payment of
owls.
Rule absolute.