The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-19 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER -JAN. 18.

Sittings at Nisi Priam in Middlesex..—(Before Mr. Baron
Bramwell and a Common Jury.)

MARSHALL V. MATSON.

This was an action of • rather singular nature. The
declaration stated that the defendant was a common car-
rier of passenger, by a certain omnibus from the Broad-
way, Deptford, to the Old Kent-road, for reward ; that
the plaintiff tendered himself to be carried, and was pre-
to pay the proper fare, but that the defendant re-
fused to carry him. The defendant pleaded " not guilty,"
and among other pleas that he was not a common carrier
as alleged, and that the plaintiff was not in a fit and
proper Staid to be carried by a public conveyance.
Mr. Joyce appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Pearce
for the defendant.
The plaintiff was an attorney, and the defendant the
proprietor of an omnibus which ran between Greenwich
and Greet-church-street. On the 28th June last the
plaintiff went with • client from London to Greenwich,
for the purpose of taking out a plaint in the County
Court in that town. On the close of the office
at four o'clock he went to a neighbouring
tavern to copy some documents, and write his
letters, so as to save the evening post. He then intended
to proceed to London, but altered his mind, and called
upon some clients at Deptford, by whom he was detained
until about 7 o'clock. He afterwards walked to the Broad-
way, Deptford, and had some refreshment at a coffee-
house. He next waited in front of the Centurion public.
house, in the immediate locality, with the view of taking
a Greenwich omnibus and making a call in the Old Kent-
road. When the defendant's omnibus came up be got
upon it, but being told by the conductor that it did not
go through the Old Kent-road, he shortly afterwards
alighted. He subsequently ascertained that the conductor
had deceived him, and that the omnibus did actually take
the Old Kent-road route, whereupon, annoyed at the trick
played upon him, he speedily made for the railway station,
so as to catch the omnibus in Orsoschurch-street. This
he succeeded in doing, and on remonstrating with the con-
ductor the reply he received was that he did not wish to carry
him because he was intoxicated. The plaintiff was greatly
annoyed at this charge, and he brought this action, not to
recover damages, which, at the utmost, could only amount
to the fare of a cab to the Old Kent-road, but to vindicate
his character.

A po an omnibus time-keeper, and some other
witnesses proved that the plaintiff was perfectly sober.
Mr. Joyce said his client was a respectable solicitor, and
desired no more than to cleat his character from the asper-
sion cast upon it. The learned counsel admitted that there
must be only nominal damages, which would not carry
costs, and suggested that perhaps the best course would be
to enter a stet proceuua. He observed that if the case
went on sonic issues would be found for the plaintiff and
others for the defendant, and it was doubtful on which side
the balance of costs would fall.

The proposal of Mr. Joyce was not accepted.
Mr. Baron Bramwell said as the action was for so
small an amount it must be dealt with strictly. The
declaration gave the termini of the omnibus route Dept-
ford and Old Kent-road, which was incorrect, the con-
veyance running from Greenwich toGracechurch-street,and
in that respect, therefore, the defendant was entitled to a
verdict. His lordship also held that there was no refusal
at common law to carry, because the plaintiff acted upon
the untrue statement of the conductor as to the omnibus
not going to the Old Kent-road, and voluntarily left the
vehicle. This entitled the defendant to a verdict on the
plea of not guilty. He then directed a verdict for the
plaintiff on tits issue raising the question as to the plain-
tiff's sobriety, and some other issues.
The jury found according to his directions.

RUTHERFORD V. ROTHIRFORD:

This was an action between two brothers. It was
brought to recover 75/. for money lent. The defendant
pleaded never indebted, end the Statute of Limitations.
Mr. Cutbill for the plaintiff ; Mr. Philbrick for the
defendant.