The Express.
London, England, 1860-02-23 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Fax. 22.

Sittings at NW Piing In Loadon.—(Before Lord Chief
Jostles Erie end a Special Jury.)
FREEMAN V. THE GREAT WRITEILN RAILWAY COMPANY.

♦CCIDLYT,

The plaintiff had been l the service of the railway coin-
pony es gu,rd, and whilat so employed he suffered the Mkt-
ties for which he now claim. damage.
Mr. Lush and Mr. Raymond appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Borth and Mr. Digby for the defendants.
The accident happened at Swindon at 6 o'clock In the
morning of the 10th of January, 1859. The plaintiff had
brought up a goods train to Swindon, and he bad gone acmes
the line to look at some trucks which were to be joined to his
train. Oa his return be was kno.thed down by a pivot ISOM
which pawed over Ws legs, both of which had to be ampu-
tate..

ifrain.h:othe.plealanyeegrripaetthcat•"7losewpotimysent.ethataamt
oinatisn'artaccideceLMatthevert
with/dyes:lNa;
iTtults
employer for the negligee°e of another servant, if the am-
plo)er had exercised due oar* to appoint a proper person.
Evidence was therefore given to show that Matihews had on
atonal ocmaions been wrong with his points, having been
on one occasion fined, and on another disra'ed.
The defence was that the cowpony had been careful to ap-
point a proper men as pointarean, and that Independent of
alliconsiderations of this kind the plaintiff had, by his careless-
ness in crossing the line, himself caused the accident. Aso-
ther ei,cumatance stated was that there had be.n to n•gli-
pence at all on the part of Matthews, be having only obeyed
the orders of his superior anaemia opening the point to let
the eosins out front • ailing on to the main line. Further,
the two occasions on whica he had been punished bad both
occurred after this accident.
In the course of to. case It was stated that some propel-
Um had been made by Om company to employ the plaintiff
In the telegraph-office, but the proposition, front some cause
or other, had not been carried to compleboa. It was also
complained that the company had slier the sodden offered
the plaintiff the email sum of 10/. • but It appeared that there
is • kind of benefit society ernabileihed, to which the company
desire their servants to belong, and rant the company them
-
entree contribute largely towards it. From this society the
plaintiff norived fee the firm six months after the accident
12s. 6d. isweek, and afterwards 10s.
The jay. la easier to questions put by his lordship, ex.
pressed their opinion that Matthews was competent to be a
pointaman ; that the entspeny believed, end had reams to
believe, that he was competent ; that there was no negli-
gees@ on the part of Matthews which materially conduced to
the sec-ideas ; and that there was negligence on the pert of
the /Annul which proximately conduced to the accident.
They added, t. The jury, In fielding this verdict, beg meats
that in ornsideratios of the ciroamatancee which have ap-
peared to than from the evidence to be impaction and peoo.

liar, they reesennend the defendants to renew the former
com
offerpen sation." of implem to ent or grant the plaintiff some
suitable
The Lord Chief Junco wished to add his recommendation
to that of the jug.
A gentbmsa, ea thepert of the company. promised that
the natter skald at ones be laid before the directors.
Verdict toe the &indents.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Fin. 22.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
MARTIN O. MARTIN.--GENTEXCI.

This was • suit for • Judicial reparation on the groundof cruelty, promoted by the wife of a grocer. The parties
were married In September, 1861. and the respondent at that
time kept • shop at Guildford. It appeared that tho anxieties
of hie business had a tendency to make him very fretful,
and be was charged with having violently shaken his wife.
In 1864 he gave cep the shop, and from that time down to
hie recommencement of bueinees, at Woking. in 1868, no
complaints were made of hie conduct. At Vioking, how-
ever, he suffered much from cerebral irritation, under the
influence of which be behaved with alarming violence to his
wife. After again giving up his business he again recovered,
but his medical attendeat declared that there was still a pro-
bability elide state becoming what it had previously been, it
he were once more placed wider imiLr chentuatances.
81, C. Creeswell, to-day, gave judgment. He said the cese
was a vary distressing one ; but he could not with any due re-
gard to the safety of the wife send her back to cohabit with the
respondent. He moat therefore pronounce for the decree.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—FEB. 22.