The Express.
London, England, 1858-01-15 00:00:00

RLILIiAT COXPLIfT.-LID

L. ♦CT.

This was an action brought by the plaint 4 se manikin-
trator of hie NM, to MOTO, damages, under Lord 12
Act, for the death of the latter, by reason of the
of the defendants. It was heard before Mr. Batas"."=::
well at the London sittings after last term. The plaintiff
wee an old man about 70 years of age, who was engird
es night porter at Guy's Hospital, sad received cern&
voluntary payments, amounting to about 3s. weekly, hem
the students for carrying up coals, in which he was eon-
atonally assisted by his son. It wu objected at the trial that
under such circumstances the plaiting was not entitled to
."11 Act ; but the

recover under Lord Canipbilis ; but the learned judge
left the case to the jury, who found for the plaintiff, with
damage* of 751.
Mr. Edwin James now moved for a new trial, on the
irrlaof misdirection and that the damages were excessive.
fernded there was no evidence of pecuniary darner
having been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of his KC s
death, as the duties the former discharged depended merely
on the voluntary contributions of the students, nor was the
eon bound to continue even the occasional assistance be

rendered.
The Lord Chief Bann—The act of parliament certainly
meant that if a person sustain the lees of certain benefits, he
is entitled to recover ; but not that the representative of every
penes killed on a railway should be entitled to recover,
whether he sustains damages or not. Yon may take your
role, Mr. James.
Rule nial acowdingly.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.--7Ax. 14.
(Wore Mr. Commissioner Phillips.)

111 11 JAMES C 1111112•11.
Thiel thwarted, a retired clerk in the East India-hour,
was opposed by two creditors in person. 14a, Reed supported.
The case stood over to produce Mr. Weston, an accountant,
of 28, Moorgate-strest, on the complaint of a baker, named
Vent's, who opposed, and who produced a letter, signed
"H. w. Weeton ' dated the 18th November, stating that
the insolvent had obtained his protection, and that any birthsr
proceedings would be uaelescoallep4paell=
Mr. Vent's said he did not put in an exam don in conse-
quence of the letter. He subsequently ascertained that. the
protection was not obtained until the 14th December. He
complained to Mr. Weston, and received another letter from
him, telling him that civility was more likely to get his
money than impudence, and that Mr. Clapham, of Bucklers-
bury, was _ Mr. Cbestham'a attorney. k'urther, Mr. Vent's
wee desired not to be 61" noisy."
Mr. Weston was now produced. He admitted the letters.
He said he wrote the first, dated the 18th November, in anti-
cipation of the filing of the petition, which would have been
lied but for the want of money by the insolvent.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips told Weston that, had be bass
ea sgcenoy of the court, he would have streak him of the
rolls. • to the second letter, the learned commis-
sioner asked Weston what he meant by stating that "Mr.
Clapham, of Sucklersbury, is now Mr. Cheetham's attorney
Weston hesitated, and said he maid hardly answer it.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips said there was bat one moan-
ing—that he had boon his lawyer and had changed to Mr.
Clapham.
Weston denied that he had acted In any such manner.
The learned Commirsioner thought the Law Society
should hear of the case.