The Express.
London, England, 1860-11-07 00:00:00

PATINNON V. SALIM -THE ATLANTIC CABLI.

This was an action tried before the Lord Chief Jutios at
Guildhall, and which was brought to recover the sum of
1,1001. being the value of one share in the Atlantic Tele-
graph Company, and which the plaintiff had insured with
the defendant's compsoy. The policy was Weeded to in-
demnify the plaintiff against all risks attending the cells up
to its final laying down, and until it had bee smesefully
worked. The to at slake were—bit, wast, the abb
finally laid down; fiddly, had it been seceeelfilly worked.
In reply to the questions lift to them by the Lord Chid
Justice the jury found the following special verdict :—lst
That the cable wee finally laid down, but not so as to be
capable of continuous working. find. That the cable
when laid down was in a defective Mate. 3rd.
That the defective condition was not owing to its original
*Destruction, bat to its having been expd previous
to shipment to the action of a hot sun onoee the quay
at Greenwich. 4th. That its unsuccessful working was
to be ascribed to Ha defective condition previous to ship-
ment, aggravated as that defective condition was by the
betiOn of the water.
llpoa that finding the Lord Chief Justice ordered the
tto be sewed ocednally for the plaintiff ; giving the
defendant leave to move to eater it for him.
Mt. Hoar Q.C., now moved for a rule
upon the defendant accordingly. In the course
his obeervatices the learned counsel reminded
the Lord Chief Justice that it was proved
that some 20,000 words had been transmitted through the
cable. It was agreed between himself and the learned
Solicitor General, on the other side, that the form of the
rule should be either to enter the verdict for the defendant.
or for a new trial, or that the damages should be confined
to the 370 miles of cable that were lost.
. . .

. _
Rale nisi granted. _
TIM WAIN r. LEAMAN. —TEI WAILLFEILD ILICTION.

The Lord Chief Justice delivered the judgment of the
court in this nee, which involved an application by Sir F.
Kelly for a new trial on four distinct grounds :—First,
that the proceedings against Mr. Leathern not baring been
instituted until after twelve months had elapsed from the
committal of the first offence against the act—namely, the
banding over money to his agent, Mr. Wainwright, to bribe
the electors—were void under the statute ; secondly, that as
Mr. Leathern in handing over money to Wainwright was
guilty of • distinct offence under the statute, ho was there
and then liable to be prosecuted—while the legislature
never intended that he should be likewise open to be pro.
oseded against in the same indictment for several cases of
direct bribery charged to have been committed lzehlaekf,
and which resulted from the giving the money toW
thirdly, that because Wainwright was proved to have
wend electors that was nut sufficient to justify a
lading of guilty against the defendant for having
bribed persons of whom he had no knowledge whatever_ ;
lastly, that letters put in evidence before Wskelehl
commission by Mr. Leathern had been improperly received
in evidence on the trial of the information, for by the Bth
section of the 15th and 16th Vic., rep 57, witnesses exa-
mined before the 00111111iMi011eri were expressly exempted
from all criminal consequeoces on account of any state-
ments which they might make.
His lordship said that as regarded the Ent objection the
court was of opinion that the limitation clause only referred
to civil proceedings instituted for the recovery of penaltim
On that point, therefore, the rule would be iWased ; and the
result would be the samewith reference to the eecood ground
of objection, for it was quite plain the legislature intended
to create distinct offences, and there was nothing to prevent
the defendant being charged with both in the same indict-
meat. With respect, however, to the other two polite the
defendant was eatitled to • rule.
Rule nisi accordingly.