The Express.
London, England, 1861-01-16 00:00:00

COURT OF IXOHEQUER.-J tx. 15.

&Wm in Banco.—{adore Lord Chi.[ Baron Pollock, and
Barone Martin, Channel, and Wilde.)

■AT V. Z. T. AMITIII.-THCATTACAL 1010A0101- FNT.4.

Mr. &dant Mee moved for a rule to set aside the eon.
suit directed by the Lord Chief Baron in this ruse, which
wee tried before him at the last sittings at Onildludl. He
said that the plaintiff, who was the husband of a distin-
guished artiste, known in theatrical circles as Madame
Bauer, had brought hi. action against the defettlant. Mr.
E. T. Smith, the lessee of Her Majesty's Theatre, for •
breach of contract, under which be undertook to accept the
services of Mrs. May, or, as she was known to the public, 1.1
Madame Bauer, as prima donna. The first count of the de.
aeration alleged that the defendant bad engaged the plain-
tiff's wife to sing at Her Majesty's Theatre, or at concerts
when not required there, for the sewn beginning October
at a weekly salary of fifteen pines, and that he
would . not it her to perform as agreed. The second
count • that the defendant had engaged the plaintiff's
wife to sing as prima donna in operas, amongst which was
Robin Hood, and that he had (riled in carrying out his
agreement.
The Lord Chief Baron—The declaration stated that the
plaintiff's wife was engaged for the whole season from
October, and this action was brought in three weeks
of terw•rds.

Mr. Serjeaat Shee said that was the case, but the action
was brought after the positive refusal of the defendant to
allow Mrs. May to play.
Mr. Baron Martin—The gneation, as it appears to me, is,
was there a °Detract to employ the plitintirs wife to sing in
the opera of Robin Hood
. - -" -' • A -• '

Mr: Ilerjeaat Shoe thought that was the substantial ques-
tion. la the communications which had taken place
between the parties. Mr. May expound his desire that if
his wife were engaged she should have appropriate pate. so
as to Oak e her in post of honour ; to is hiels the defen-
dant answered that " bitsine. 1111/ lexuases. though frieed•

Mr. M. Chambers (with whom was Mr. !Axton) moved
to set aside the nonsuit entered by the Lord Chief Baron
in thin cue after the opening. Hie lordship had decided on
that opening he could not succeed. The (inestion was
one u to the liability of masters in reference to
the servants whom they employed. It appeared that
the deceased was in the employ of the defendants, the car.
riers, as porter, and in consequence of the turn.tables which
had been in use not being suited for the accommodation of
heavier carriages than were usually sent for unloading, he
was crushed between the buffer and the wall, and met his
death.

The Lonl Chief Bona said there was no proof of the
eositraet relied on.

Mr. &want ghee said there was the implied contract as
between master and servant, by which the former was
bound to take resaooable care of the latter.

Mr. Baron Martin was of opinion that there was nu such
contract an stated in the declaration, and
Mr. Baron Wilde held the Name opinion.
The Lord Chief Baron—l agree with the rest of the
court ; and it appears to me that we ought to discourage
these attempts to multiply instances in which masters are
to be held liable for all sorts of accidents to their sec.
vents. If the wholoanne rule laid down its " Fowler v.
Priestley" is to be eaten up by exceptions, nothing is more
caletdated to multiply all human nosh lush blood into plain-
tiffs and defeoilantta.
Rule refusal.
NELLIAMS r. THE GREAT NORIHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.