The Express.
London, England, 1866-07-02 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Juirs 30.

After Term Nisi Prins Sittings ►t Westminster.—ißefore
the Lord Chief Justice and ► Speci►l Jury.)
VALENTIN O. HALL.

This was the sixth and last day of the hearing of this
remarkable case.

Mr. Berjeant Symon, the learned counsel for the
plaintiff, occupied four hours and a quarter of the day in
minutely reviewing the facts of the case, contrasting the
apparent discrepancies in the evidence and pointing out his
reasons for saying that the truth was on the side of that
lady.
The jury, after a quarter of an hour's consultation, re-
turned a verdict for the defendant, and further, that there
were no bank notes in the bag.
Sittings at Nisi Prins at Guildhall.—(Before Mr. Justice
Mellor and a Special Jury.)

JUDD V. THE MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE

RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for bodily injuries sustained by a railway accident.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Day, and Mr. M'Cleod were
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. James Russell
for the defendants.

The plaintiff, a young man, about 28 years of age, was
described as a person of considerable scientific attain-
ments, who had filled the situation of analytical chemist in
a large establishment at Sheffield. On the 23rd December,
1864, he left Sheffield by the 6.15 express train for
London, with the intention of passing his Christ-
mas with his friends in the metropolis. The
train bad not gone far before a collision took
place, the result of which was that the plaintiff, who
was travelling in a second-clue carriage, was knocked
against the opposite side of the compartment to that on
which he sat. He received no external injw but he was
partially stunned by the blow and became sick and dizzy.
He proceeded to London, and hoped a night's rest would
put him all right, but he got worse, and in seven days he
took the advice of a medical man, who gave it as his opi-
nion that he was suffering from oppression of the brain
and partial paralysis and other symptoms, which be attri-
buted to an accident. He was afterwards visited by
Mr. Child, the regular s nof the company,
and that gentleman ridiculed the case, and Meld
the illness of the plaintiff arose from fever caused by
his having overeaten himself at Christmas, the fact being
that in consequence of the accident he bad scarcely been
able to eat anything. Other medical men were con-
sulted, and the plaintiff was sent to the Isle of Wight for
the benefit of his health. Having become better, he re-
turned to Sheffield, and attempted to resume his situation,
but unfavourable symptoms again appeared, and by medi-
cal advice he was induced to give up all work. He had
resigned his situation, andhad since been in a state of abso-
lute idleness. For the damage he had thus sustained he
now sought compensation.
In reply to the learned judge it was stated that the de-
fendants admitted negligence on their part.
The defence was that the plaintiff's illness was to be
attributed to typhus or typhoid fever.
There was a considerable amount of medical evidence on
both rides, and, as usual in these cases, it was of a very
conflicting nature. . .

IJltimaiely the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—da-
magea 500/.

SECOND COURT.

Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall.—(Before Mr. Justice
Lash and •Common Jiu7.)
DOVER V. TOMO.

This case arose out of • dispute in a railway carriage
on the subject of smoking. The action was brought for
assault. The defendant pleaded a justification, and that
the plaintiff was smoking in a railway carriage.
Mr. Serjeaut Robinson and Mr. Begley were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. D. Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Butler
Rigby for the defendant.
In March last the plaintiff, a builder, and his wife, got
into a railway carriage at London-bridge. He had a cigar
in his mouth, and several other passengers were also
smoking. Afterwards the defendant, who is an attorney, at
Streatham, cams up to the carriage door, and, calling
out "No smoking, gentlemen," proceeded to enter. Some
of the paseengers asked him to get into another compart-
ment, but he entered and sat down. While the plaintiff
was lighting his cigar with a fusee the defendant gave him
a slap on the cheek, and the ash fell on piaady's dress, and
the fusee on the whiskers of another "gehtletruin. The
plaintiff remonstrated with the defendant on his conduct,
but he responded by calling him • bully and saying that if
they were outside he would give him • good thrashing.
A demonstration was made by some of the passengers in
the carriage against the defendant, and in the course of it
the defendant was struck by an umbrella. At New Cross
the plaintiff complained to the guard of the assault, and
the guard asked the defendant to go into another carriage,
but he refused to do so. When the train reached
Forest-bill there was, after some further angry discussion,
an exchange of names. Subsequently the plaintiff was
summoned at the Greenwich Police-court for smoking in a
railway carriage, and fined It. The defendant, who gave
evidence on the occasion, offered to withdraw the sum-
mons if the plaintiff would apologise, but he refused, and
the result of the whole affair was the present action.
In cross-examination the plaintiff denied that the defen-
dant said smoking affected his chest, or that he asked
plaintiff three times before the assault was committed to
put out his cigar. He admitted that the other passengers
had not lighted their cigars when the train started, and
asserted that the defendant was the worse for liquor when
he guile in the carriage.
The ilnVff's evidence was corroborated by other wit-
nessecw

--"icithe defence, the allegation that the defendant had
be drinking was entirely denied, and it was said he had
been engaged all day in settling an abstract, and waa
going home to dine with his family on the evening in ques-
tion. When be entered the carriage there was no smo • ,
but immediately the train started cigars were lighted.
begged the smokers to desist, as the fumes of tobacco were
objectionable to him, and when they would not he let
down the window, but it was instantly put up again. He
then, as they would neither allow the window to be open
nor leave off smoking, took the cigar out of the plaintare
mouth, and at the same time a foreigner who was smoking
struck the defendant in the face with his fist.

Mr. Justice Lush observed that the plaintiff's witnesses
had proved the defendant's plea, for it appeared from their
evidence that the plaintiff was smoking, and that on his
refusing to desist the defendant removed the cigar from
his mouth.

Accordingly, a verdict waa entered for the defendant.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Jere 30.
(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Special Jury.)
GAMBIT C. DERMOT!.

Mr. Brett, Q.C., and Dr. Wambey for the plaintiff ; Mr.
&Small, Q.C., and Dr. &pinks for the defendant ; Dr.
Tristram for other parties.
In this ease the pl►intiff propounded the will of a lady
named Jackson, who died at the age of 74, ►t Liverpool ;
and the defendant opposed probate, alleging want of sound
mind in the testatrix. The property is considerable, and
was inherited from her brother, John Dennison. The
plaintiff is a doctor, and was a friend of the testatrix, and
the defendant represents the brother's branch of the family,
which was not remembered in the will.

The evidence forthe plaintiff was to prove that
Mrs. Jackson knew perfectly well what she was doing when
she executed the and there being no evidence to the
contrary on the part of the defendant, his counsel with-
drew.

The jury found accordingly; the court pronounced for
the will, and ordered costs to be paid out of the estate.

HILL V. HVG`ITA.

The testator was a hairdresser at Manchester. He made
a will in 1856, and added a codicil in 1863, and deposited
both with his banker for safe custody. On the 14th Sep-
tember, 1865, he asked for and got the documents
back. About that time he fell into an illusion that he was
reduced to poverty, and although be was really worth
8,0001.,the could not be convinced of it. In this kind of in-
sanity be committed suicide, and then the will could not
be fesand. The presumption was that be destroyed it ; and
the question now to be decided was whether he destroyed
it before or after he became insane.

The jury found that the will was in existence up to the
time the testator went out of his mind, and
The court pronounced for the will (which existed in
draft) ; costs to oome oat of the estate.

Tai WEBTIEINSTZR ABBEY SERVlCE3.—Yesterday
eve there wee • very large congregation in the nave of
Westminster Abbey, to hear • sermon by the Rev.
Benjamin Jowett, of BeDial College, Oxford, Regius
Professor of Greet. The prayers were rung by
the Rev. 8. Flood Jonas, M.A., minister of St.
Matthews, Spring-gardens, the lessons being read
by the Very Rev. Dean Stanley. Professor Jowett
selected for his text the 26th chapter of the Acts
of the Apostles, verses 24 and 25 : ' And as he thus
mike for himself, Padua said with a loud voice, Paul,
thou art beside thyself ; much learning (loth make thee
mad. But be said, lam not mad, meet noble Feetus but
speak forth the words of truth and soberness." The sermon
at the special service next Sunday evening will be
preached by the Rev. Henry Twells, M.A., master of the
Godolphin Grammar firkw,l. Hammersmith.