The Express.
London, England, 1867-04-16 00:00:00

MOFFATT r. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

On this case being mentioned the Lord Chief Justice
said he csinM take no part in it, as he was • shareholder in
the Great Western Company. Mr. Justice Byles said he
was in the same position, and Mr. Justice Smith said he
also was • shareholder in the oompany. These three
learned judged, therefore retired from the bench, leaving
Mr. Justice Keating aloes to hear the matter.
Mr. H. James arid there was still this difficulty, that
Mr. Justice Keating had tried the case, and she present
was an appeal against his ruling ; but he had no objection
if his lordship would consent to bear the motion.

Mr. Justice-Keating said that he should have preferred
to have other judges present, but under the circumstances
he would hear it.
Mr. James then stated the circumstances. In July,
1866, the plaintiff bought a thoroughbred mare at Ayles-
bury, and directed • groom to take her to the railway
station, so that she might be sent along the line. A portt7
tied her up in a horse 'box, and soon afterwards she was
found strangled. The plaintiff's ileac wee that the negli-
gence was that the ropes were too long, or that they were
of unequal length, and that this led to the accident. It
was now, however, submitted that the mare was properly
tied, that there really was no evidence of negligent., and
that his lordship was wrong in holding that there was
such evidence.
_

A rule wu granted, and it was arriumed that the ease
should come on for argument when Mr. Justice Wiles
could sit with Mr. Justice Keating to hear it.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-APRIL 15.

The court did not sit till near two o'clock. The judges
were the Lord Chief Baron, and Barons Martin, Bramwell,
and Pigott.

DUCOS W. MORRIS.

Mr. Huddlestone, Q. C., moved for a rule to refer back the
award in this case to the arbitrator. The action was
brought to recover 2,3:14/., being the balance of an account
of 2,11041. for valuable articles of lime supplied by the
plaintiff's wife, who carries on business in London, to the
wife of the defendant, who was represented as a gentleman
of opulence. The trial took place before Mr. Baron
Martin, in Middlesex, when the defence set up was that
the articles in question were not necessaries, and also
that an extravagant price had been charged for them.
Ultimately the matter was referred to Mr. Mummers,
of the common law bar, on the usual terms, but it was
agreed that if he decided that the defendant was not liable
in respect of any of the goods which were
still unused the same should be returned to
the plaintiff. The arbitrator had made an award, but,
as the learned counsel said, he had omitted to deal with a
sum of 9111. for goods partially used, and the object of the
present application was to have that item reconsidered by
the arbitrator. The loss of so large a sum, he observed,
would be very serious to the plaintiff.
The Lord Chief Baron said it war possible that the arbi-
trator had taken this part of the claim into consideration
in arriving at the conclusion stated in the award. The
better plan would be to consult him on the subject, and
mention the case again to the court.
Mr. Huddlestoete said he would adopt that course.
BUSINESS OF THE COURT.

The Lord Chief Baron said the court would feel ex-
tremely indebted to members of the bar if they would do
their best to have all the motions for new trials made by
the rising of the court on Thursday, as there would then
be an adjournment for four or five days, and the remainder
of the term would be more than occupied with other busi-
ness.

After hearing some other motions of no public interest
the customary proclamation at the rising of the court on
the first day of term was made by Mr. Morgan, the senior
usher.