The Express.
London, England, 1859-04-04 00:00:00

1112 LOll4 07 ♦ MOLL

The proceedings Is this ease eras frost en &reddest which
took place at the sew docks, Birkialsead, oa the 19th of
January last. The parties to the action were sob-eostractors
on the works now in progress, at the Wall Pool, the
plaintiffs being wider Mr. McCormick, the defit. et, ender
another chief contractor, at the same works. At those works
there is a bridge scanning the pool, over which, on true-
roads, the materials seed in the coestruction of the docks is
ques.lon are conveyed in trucks drawn by horses. The wag
gone, when loaded, are generally taken from south to meth
and sot far from the terminus of the tram-road:
then is a declivity, the pogrom of the waggons
down whkh requires considerable caution to pre-
vent occident. from the accelerated velocity whit*
the momentum of the loaded waggons mars. On the
day is question the plaintiff's mast had the charge of three
trucks drawn by two hones, sad the delandiat's men bad
in his charge one horse and • truck. It was oilseed
by the plaintiff that his roan wee proceeding la the
orderly discharge of his duty when the defendant's driver,
refusing to check his horse which war following the others,
obliged the mom in charge of the preceding horses to get
them soddenly of the true-road ; and in doing this they Ell
over the aids tato the pool beim, when one was killed end
the other seriously injured. The real question et nese In
this case was, whether the defendaut's savant or the
plaisttl's was the author of the misfortune; to decide that
point, and to recover damsgor, the plaint.ff had brought
the present action.
. . . .

Bratt7aPpes red for the plaintiff, and Yr. /Akira
for the defendant. _ . _

CotineelTrtie defence sought to fix the satin re-
sponsibility of Co accident on the *lairs 'errant,
showing that he yea not in • row ponten as to
his horses, and also that he paid no attention to
the warning of the poiat.la, whom ditty he knew
was to give notice of say dower from collision or
otherwim. It Ins also alleged that one of the witnesses for
the defence had had five pounds offered to him if be would
Mate what he knew to be contrary to fact.
After counsel had been heard, and the judge had summed
up, the jwy returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damagee, 321.
CINNZDI C. CRAHLIIN.-CM•ROZ Or LULU= •0•13111 T •

The plaintiff in this Gem was for four years the prin-
cipal clerk of Mr. Chapman, • merchant, carrying on
bovines@ in Liverpool ; the defendant was Mr. Chet-paten
himself. The plaintiff entered the service of the defendant in
1834, at the salmi of 1201., with 5 per cent. coesmiMoe on
tome ;articular trenches of business. The plaintiff regularly
entered in the booked the office a debtor and creditor ac-
count between himself awl his master and Mr. Chapman,
about the and of every year, examined end passed three so-
' counts, the lank of enehaudits being in December, 1858. Fos
Gene time put the amount of cosansisation to which the
plaintiff was entitled had been reduced, so that he bad re-
solved to seek a new sphere of employment, bellevieg that
his 35 yeas' experience, and hts servitude to highly respeat-
able gentlemen, would enable hint to obtain • more Tennusit-
ratio. eltuatits, In order to open his way to an honour-
able relinquGhnsent of Mr. Chapman's service, he, on Feb.
8, five thee geniltmen netts thee he intended to
Imre in three month. from that date. A few days after
this notice was tendered, Mr Chapman demanded
sundry Tanaka* and aocouata relative to to, traumata'
between himself and Mr. Kennedy, which the latter was not
at the moment prepare; to produce, hot referred his master tx
the ledger. During M. interview it was alleged that the
defendant laid his hood upon the plaintiff, dragging him
Gum his stool, end insultingly turning him out of the office.
Mr. Brat appear. ,1 for the and Mr. Little for the
defendant

Mu Chapman, the defendant, was called, end stated that
the plaintiff wise engaged by him in I&a4 at a salary of 12uf.
a year, and a corumbeion of Ows per cent. on what he (the
defendant) received as oumerinon on Admiralty droits, but
no conamissl.o sae to be allowed to the plaintiff on say other
branch of business. Mr. CUprosa stated that in coon-
queues of the def. ndaat's irregularities in relation to the dis-
charge of his &Wes he bed been for sons time under optics.
1s several materiel pints the testimony of Mr. Chap-
man was in direct contradktien of the platatirs evi-
dence. Mr. Chapman said that having bad Ills suspicions
awakened so to the plaintirs scary entries, he was tail to an
inspection of the hocks, from which It appeared that intend
of the defendant having to pay the plaintiff some 291., which '
he claimed. be (,12a plaintiff) had overdrawn his arotunt
nearly 1001. ; and when hie master wished an taplanali. n he
be,ause drat saluted, and subsequently violent and abusive,
an 1 left the °Mos when Mr. Chapman threatened to 0.11 Is
the police.
A parson who was in Mr. Chapman's Aloe at the time
when the plaintiff alleged that he was assaulted was exa-
mined, and said ho saw no such assault so the one cons-
plaited of.
Coussrl, at the suggestion of his lordship, both wet,. d
their right to address the jury.
The judge summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—damages 271. lie. ed.