The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-05 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-JULY 4.

Sittings at Nisi Prins at Cluildhall.—(gefore Lord Chief
Baron Pollock and a Special Jury.)
ISANSER r. THE ILASTZEN COUNTIES RAILWAY 00/ETAINT. -
THE LATE FATAL ACCIDENT AT TOTTENNAM

The learned counsel on both sides h►ving addressed the
jury,
The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, mid it was not
his intention to express any opinion on the case, but to leave
it solely to the consideration of the jure. The cue for the
plaintiff was that the defective weld, which was the prime
source of the mischief, could and ought to have been seen,
and it we s also said that a longitudinal defect existed,
which should have induced the company to examine the
wheels of the engine with greater care. It was also urged
that some of the fractures in the driving wheel were of
older date than the accident, and should have been consi-
dered, although they did not contribute to the accident, in
estimating the attention which should have been bestowed
on the engine previous to It. departure. There was no
doubt that the plaintiff was entitled to all reasonable care
from the defendants, but reasonable care must vary
with the circunuitauces under which it warn ern'.

deed. His lordship having carefully read over the
evidence on both soils, said it wee the peculiar province
of the jury to reconcile the conflicting evidence of the emi-
nent scientific witnesses who had been coaled by the plain-
tiff and the defendants. One of the questioua which they
bad to determine was, would a earful examination of the
crack have made it visible? If ao, the plaintiff would be
entitled to their verdict ; but supposing it wu not, there
would still be a question whether there was anything in the
appearance of the tire which would have called for a closer
examination than it undoubtedly on all the evidence received.
If they thought any reasonable care could have anticipated or
guardelagainsttheaorident, then, in his opinion, the verdict
mould be for the plaintiff. Railway companies
were not bound to see that which wee invisible,
as to do that which was impossible, but they were bound to
exercise all reasonable care, awl in the event of their think-
ing that they had not done so, then they would say the
amount of damages to which they believed the plaintiff
would be entitled.

The court was then cleared and given up to the jury for
the examination of the broken wheel, after which they pro-
ceeded to consider their verdict. Having deliberated for en
hour and a half, they returned a verdict for the plaintiff
damages 2,000 f.
SECOND COURT.

Bitting' at Nisi Prius.—(Befora Mr. Baron Martin and a
Biaxial Jury.)

AND ANOTHER V. nwaooss AND ANOTHER.
THI WINE TRADE.

This was an action to recover 102/. for duty paid on a
quantity of sherry ; the defendants pleading several pleas,
denying their liability.
Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Dowdeewell were counsel for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. O'Malley and Mr. J. Browne represented
the defendants.
The plaintiffs and defendants are all wine merchants,
carrying on business in Mark-lass. On the 14th of
February,lBBll,theplaintits purchased from the defendants
a quantity of sherry, ex Gibraltar and Peninsula, amount-
ing to 2,50:1/. 17e. sd. The delivery note was handed over
to the plaintiffs, and the wine, which was in bond, was
transferred to their names. On September 6, they
sold the greater portion to Miners. Bedding and
Beddell. A sample of the wines was shown at each sale,
but the strength, it was alleged, was not ascertainable
without distillation. Wine under 40 per cent. was charge-
able with a duty of se. Pd. a gallon, and above that u spirits
at 15e. per gallon. When Messrs. Bedding and Beddell
removed the wine from bond, the strength averaged up-
wards of 45 per cent., and they had to pay 1021., the dif-
ferential duty. That sum was allowed by the plaintiffs,
who demanded it from the defendants, and on noncompliance
the present action was brought. The defence was that they
informed the plaintiffs of the true strength of the wine,
considering it was for the Busher trade, where highly
brandied wimes were appreciated.
Ultimately it was arranged that a verdict should be taken
for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed.

OTEVICNeII r. ESLINU.—POSTPONMIEWT OP CALIIICtI.
In this cue, which wag an Action brought by the plaintiff
to recover from the defendant a sum fur the maintenance of
his wife,
Mr. fierjeant Ballantin• (with whom wsa Mr. Galway)
applied to his lordship, ou behalf of the plaintiff, for a
postponement of the trial, on the ground that by some ac-
cident arising, he believed, from insufficimit notice, the
defendant's wife, who waa a material witness, was nut
present.
Mr. Power, on behalf of the defendant, hoped his lordship
would not postpone the trial. The cause had stood ou the
paper for trial at the Middlesex sittings, but the record wu
Withdrawn, and the plaintiff subsequently went before his
lordship at chambers, and it had been set down peremp-
torily for these eittinp, the plaintiff paying the wets of
the day.
Mr. Fierjesat Ballantine—We shall be ready tomorrow.
Mr. lima Martin—At sae time causes were set down
peremptorily, asd if the parties were not ready then the
MEM INN Arndt out. But there has been sums relaxation
In this rule, and I think the change is • very benemial
The ammo will be postponed on the plaintiff paying the costs
of the day.

COURT FOR DIVORCI AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSZIL —JvLit 4.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

101111 r. WM.
Thin 'rasa petition of a wile for a judicial separation on
the ground of adultery. It was heard Let term, rod *es
reported at the time.

Bit C. Oronswilll now pte judgment, and dismissed the
petition, on the ground that the ►cts complained of did not
amount to Nevins is the legal sense of the phrase.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—JULY 4.
(Mom Mr. Commirdoner Goalburt.)
IN II JOHN =WAND HULLER.

The bankrupt was a solicitor, of Lincolo's-inn-fiebli.
This was the adjourned examination meeting. No accounts
hair=gbesen filed the liabilities of the bankrupt era very
, probably between 50,000/. and 100,0001. At
the last sitting, on the 2nd of April, the examination was
adjourned sine die, the bankrupt to be at liberty to come
up when prepared with his accounts. Limited protection
was jives, renewable on the official assignee certifying that
th• bankrupt was using due diligence in the preparation of
his IMXIOIIIIiI. _ .

Mr. Lawmnee, for the assignees, stated that this meeting
had been appointed at the instance of the assignees ; but
they had dace thought that the better worse to pursue
would be to examine the parties who could throw light on
the bankrupt's transactions, rather than the bankrupt
himself, who might thus be led into criminating himself.
'Throe examinations would take place at public sittings, of
which the bankrupt would have due notice.
His Honour said the assignees had taken quite the tight
course, and one which he always wished to see followed.
Mr. Sorrell, on behalf of the bankrupt, expressed his
readiness to render every assistance in his power to the as-
signals. He wished, when he did Ble his accounts, to put
them in as perfect a form as possible.
Mr. Bagley attended to watch the case on behalf of Mr.
Smart, the bankrupt's late partner.
The examination was again adjourned sine die, with pro-
tection for two months.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
FAILURE: DI THE LEATHER TRADC.

Proneedinp in bankruptcy were instituted against Benja-
min Gibbs, of Bermoodsey-street, leather merchant. Hie
debts are stated ►t 6,0001. ; assets about 1,30 W. Adjudica-
tion was made, and the petition was ballotted to Mr. Com-
missioner Goalburn.

The bankrupt was a currier and leatheraeller, of Norwich.
This was the sitting for choice ot assignees. Mr. James
Cobb, tanner, Yarmouth, and 3fr. Parker, accountant, Old
Jewry, were chosen. The bankrupt owes 5,4591., and re.
turns his assets at 1,3791.

IN RZ CONRAN:ICH AND CORNREICH.

Adjudication of bankruptcy ersraade"iiinst Elias Cohn-
rekb, Archer Cohnreich, and Israel Cohnreich, of Kaman.
pima, Cammercial-read, boot and shoe manufacturer'.
Their liabilities are about 1,000/.
A petition was also presented under the arrangement
clauses, by Mr. Stopher, on behalf of Mr. Carpenter, a
leather merchant, in the Old Kent-mad, whose liabilities
are stated at 115,0001. ; assets 14,000/.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—Juix 4.
(Before Mr. Commisaioner Nichol.)
IN RE NOWT TUCK TROILLTT.

This insolvent, • clerk in the Pat-office, applied under
the Protection Act.

Mr. Terry appeared for a butcher named Green, and two
other creditor appeared in person. Mr. Denney was for
the insolvent.

It appeared that the insolvent entered the Poet-office
about eleven years ago at 701. a year, which salary conti-
nued for five years. In 1855 the salary was increased to
921., and since then it had progresses and last October it
amounted to 1201. a year. He had struggled for years with
difficulties until last month, when he petitioned under the
act, and in consequence of hie application to the court be
had been reduced to 781. a year, and to be an extra clerk.
He had a wife and six children, the eldest being about
ten. He had besides a mother to support, and had
lately buried his father, added to which he had to
assist a brother who had lost one of his arms. He had
endeavoured to keep out of the court, and had paid as much
as be could, and, being driven to apply, he had been reduced
to Ms. a-week. He hoped he should continue to be sent
from London to Bath, which he had to tiara] the whole
night, and made If. a journey, which hail amounted to
about 20/. a-year.
Mr. Commissioner Nichols asked the insolvent if he
meant to say that in consequence of his application to the
I court he had been reduced to 31h. a-week _ _ _

The insolvent said such was the case. He had virtually
lost his situation, and only acted as an extra clerk.
The learned Conwiadoner inquired whether be was
bound to inform the authorities that he had petitioned the
court ! _
_ _

_ .
The insolvent said he was bound to give notice to the
head of his depirtment, who communicated the same to the
secretary, and since hi• petition he had been reduced to 30s.
_ _ .

_
The three creditors were heard, and it appeared that the
insolvent had paid as long se he could, and that the pressure
on him had compelled him to apply for protection.
Mr. Commissioner Nichols put it to the creditors whether
they expected a man with a wife and six children could set
aside anything out of Mc a week, which might be increased
M. a year by nightwork.
One of the creditors thought something should be done,
and instanced dock labourers, who lived on 18s. a week.
Mr. Coremissiooer Nichols reminded the creditor that
the insolvent had a wife and six children to support.
The creditor was pleased to urge his application, hotwith•
standing the insolvent's huge family.
The learned Commissioner considered that there was
nothing to prevent a day being named for the final order ;
and, unless something else was shown, nothing to prevent
the insolvent having the final order.
The final order was panted foe the 27th July, and the
protection renewal.