The Express.
London, England, 1868-12-07 00:00:00

COUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

After Teem Nisi Pries Sittings at Westaninster.—(Before
the Lord Chief Justice and Special Juries.)
JINN= AND LNOTYRII C. WALLIS

This was a claim to recover the sum of 3&31. 17s. for
jewellery supplied to the defendant. The defendant had
paid 401. into court, and pleaded infancy as to the re-
mainder. . _

Mr. Coleridge, Q.C. and Mr. °MHO were counsel for
the plaintiffs Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Benjamin
appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Coleridge, in opening the plaintiffs' case, said they
were jewellers, in St. James's-street, end thedefendant was
a gentleman, uow of age, but who was not so when the
articles were ordered. The question for the jury was
whether the articles were necessaries for a young gentle-
man in the defendant's station in hip. It had been laid
down that there were such things as luxurious necessaries,
and therefore necessaries did not merely mean the com-
mon necessaries of life. In June, 1864, the defendant was
introduced to the plaintiff by a gentleman, a customer of
them, named Sine ir, who said the clefeiLlsatt was worth
8,000!. a year. and that be might tr maw with s
Defendant ordered nearly
siderable amount of
4401. worth of erOnerte ou, which was aaat to his lodg-
ings. When the plaintiffs became aware of it they sent
to the defendant and demanded back the articles, and
be gave them all up, except three or four items which
he bad given away in the meantime. Shortly after the
defendant called on the plaintiffs and told them he was
under age, but wealthy, and that if they trusted
them as soon as he came of age he would pay them.
They did so, and it would appear that this young gentle-
man, who was too young to pay for his jewellery was
not too young to do what many others had done, to fall
in love and get married. (Laughter.) Many of the
articles were ladies' ornaments, and no doubt necessary
articlee for a gentleman's wife.
Evidence having been called in support of the plaintiff's
case,
Mr. Hawkins, for the defence, said Mr. Walker's father
died many years ago, end the .wlailltd succeeded when
very young to some encumbered mining prope2ein Not-
tinghamshue. When the debt was contracted defen-
dant wee only in the receipt of 700(. per annum, but it
was afterwards, in 1866, increased to 1,000!. • year. Un-
fortunately for this young man, he fell into the hands of
Pergola who encouraged him ~se mo 4 retail oziiii-
varanoor Trio introduced en the turf., where he
aside the acquaintance of betting men, those harpies
who infest the ring and who encourage young men
in wasting their substance. The defendant became of
age in 1866, when he owed 19,073/. on the turf, 14,6061.
for jewellery-4,2001. to one jeweller, 4,4011. to another
jeweller, 6,1621. to a third jeweller, and this small debt of
about 4001. There was a debt of 460!. to a tobacconist,
and in all his liabilities amounted to nearly 40,0004
This action was defended on principle—viz., that these
ar6cles were unnecessary foram defendant in hisstateand
condition when he ordered them. All the articles that were
considered necessaries had been paid for, and the money
had been brought into coati. The defendant was now
married, and they had one child—they ware, in fact,
nothing better than three babies. ;Laughter.) Their
united ages amounted to 36 years and 9 months, or an
average of lees than 12 years. (Laughter.) The defendant
was 20 years of age when he was married, and his wife was
only 14. The learned counsel referred to a recent case
of a similar kind decided in the Court of Error, in which
that court had overruled the received law as to what
were necessaries and what were not, and that it was not
for the jury but for the judge to direct them on that
point.
The Lord Chief Justice said he had carefully read the
judgment referred to, and he confessed ho could not un-
derstand it. He thought he once bad a clear notion of
what the law was, but from the recent decision the law on
the subject seemed to be very much like "confu-
sion worse confounded." There were many, things
which might be considered luxurious necessaries, for
which the defendant would be liable. It could hardly be
said that a set of earrings, twelve guineas, was not •
"reasonable luxurious necessary" for a young gentle-
man's wife when he was anticipating an income of 8,000/.
per annum by only twelve months.
Evidence was given in support of the defendant's in-
come.
The Lord Chief Justice said many of the articles were
of a doubtful character as regarded necessaries.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, cousi-
dering the 401. paid into court sufficient.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Pries, in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Keating and a Special Jury.)
JACIIION V. &IC RICHARD XLIVZ.
This case was partly beard on !Saturday. The plaintiff
bad been an inspector of public carriages, and he sued
the Commissioner of Police to recover damages for a
libel. The alleged libel wee contained in the order of
the day which stated that the plaintiff had been dis-
missed for having made out accounts for payments
claimed to be due to him founded upon misrepresenta-
tion of the duties alleged to have been performed ; ex-
penses charged, not incurred ; and in many cues expenses
being charged which, if incurred, were not authorised
by any regulation.
If,. Fierjeant Parry, Mr. Littler, and Mr. Poulter ap-
peared the plaintiff ; and the Attorney -oeneral (Sir J.
e) and Mr. F. M. White for the defendant.
Sir B. Mayne this morning gave some evidence princi-
pally as to the routine of the department in reference to
appointments and dismissals ; and in answer to hie lord-
ship he said that it was very rarely that an inspector was
dismissed; but he had dismissed probably 10,000 men.
Mr. Walker, the chief superintendent of the police, de-
tailed the investigation into the plaintiff's &counts, and
gave evidence to justify the report upon which the dis-
missal took place.
This concluded the case for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sitting. at Nisi Prim.—(Before Mr. Baron Martin and 71.
Common Jury.)
ROUSTALL V. LANS.
This was an lotion to recover compseisation iu darnaxes
for bodily injuries alleged to have been sustained through
the negligence of the defendant. The defendant pleaded
not guilty.
Mr. Berjeant Parry and Mr. Talfourd Salter appeared
fl't the *half ; Mr. S. Hill, ad Mr. Pew* (or
the deleadant.
On the 17th Deember, last year, the plaintiff was as