The Express.
London, England, 1857-12-07 00:00:00

OMArid OOMPANT:TILIOWHIC MMISAOI

MIT TO TNT TOILLIC.
71as plaintiff ha this sides Is a marchent is the City, and
he sought to resever the ten d tle. paid tore meows to
Rethaater by tie ohne etespery ; which emerge was how-
ever, delivered to. snug perent, sod oonesquantly plaintiff
derived no teoidt.

Henry Hill said he was clerk to the plaintiff. sod proved
sending a =map to W. K. Hall, care of Mr. Brows, Con.
tractor's Of6ce, Rochester. This witness took to defendants'
°Mom in the &rand. A reply was received in the course of
the day (Hay 7) from a Kr. J. W. Hall. Application had
been =de la the company for the return of the money, which
they refined, on the ground that they were not lieble, and if
there was soy error it wee on the put of the railway
c"l”,* . - . -

I¢ 4ii nne-ezansinatton by Mr. 0. L. Brown (counsel tor
&toads:de) witaret admitted that he was told the °owl:say
did not send on that own wine to Rochester; they mat by
the Bouth-Eaetera sad Kent line. _ _ _

Mr. W. K. Hall maid be was at the Contnance=
Rom, on the day in question, but no mamma
him.

The learned counsel for the defence then urged that ssla
tiff could not recover, on the ground that there was a Mho
on the fat, and back of the form Oiled op with the ineriehge,
that •" the company would not be reepoemble for the arenas
delivery of a manage unless a repeat be paid for," is., a
return from the place to which the =awe had bees eat,
showing that It wee correctly understood. To show that if& oti-
is:Lion was a good one, and rerwinable and legal, a ewe was
qootad, beard et Weankostier before a full bench, reportedln
Scott's Trials, "M'Andrew v. the Electric Telegraph Com-
pany," and there plaintiff had a droopy cams. Their bid-
ahipa deckled that plonitill could not recover damages for the
tuatake, am he bad not paid fora repeated merge. He would,
however, call a witness who would prove that the rocesage
was properly delivered.
Kr. A. J. Hawes said he wee clerk to the defendants at
their auks at London-bridge. He received the maseage on
the day la gawks., and produced the company's form, with
W. K. Hall impressed thereon. Ile seat the original to the
South E 11411411 and Kest kation, to be forwarded to

His Hononr—Whsr• is the original P
Mr. Brown—ln the possession of the railwsy company;
bat I will mil • witness who took it.

- -
His Honour—You cannot in the abeenca of the document.
. .

Mr. Brown (to witnme)—Explain to tLe oottrt how it is
that yon am certain the copy mot yea an accurate one.
Witaree—Betwaise it wee written on a Booth-Esatern
form by the manifold process, so that what tippet's on the form
produced meat have been on the one rot to the railway
compeity.
His Honour —Bow do we know that I,

on
the bock, whitli show. dim it must have gone through to
the Sou, h-Postern form.
Hie Honour—That does not follow es • con•equence.
Mr. Brown—Then I will sell the boy to prove he took the
Parl; Honour—A pew, but than la no proof of ita
=MOM.

Mr. irown—Then I fell back on my defence ea to the
mistake.

Ills Honour—There Is no evidence of any mistake, and
there is iso evidence before the court that the
seat at all. Besides, you undertake to be the ni=rremwr
massmces, but you *sem. to notify that times sammaire
shall not be carefully delivered warm under certain
ccerditkem

—IL. Brown—lt has been held at a higher tribunal that
that dateline is a reasonable one.

His kinsour—la every use it is ateniately natemary
that the compsny be exceedingly partiouler. It
might be a matter et We and Berth, ea for example tear
graphing ix a physician, and in the harry, ems of Dualisms,
• person may tett read the notice. It ia most important that
the public should be protuned la tiro Gram
After some farther signmint,
Hie Himont mid he should bold the corapay liable, as
Thee woo so evidence it was not their kat As to the ease
quoted, the fete were different, and brides, be *nought that
tdilfrefla ccett•lMM should be 1-'—wWe for their own
Vora< for plaintiff with costa.