The Express.
London, England, 1861-11-05 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—Noy. 4.

Sitting. in Banco, in MichaelsoaaTerm.—(l3eforn the Lord
Chief Baron mid Barons Bramwell, Ch►nnel', and Wilde.)

THE REV. MIL HATCH AND OTELERS r. LZWII ARID OMR&

This action was brought by the Rev. Henry Hatch to
recover compensation in damages against the defendants,
who are solicitors, for not using proper care. skill, and
diligence in the preparation and conduct of his defence
upon • charge of indecent assault which wan preferred
naiad him at the Old Dailey, ie December, 1859. The da.
ma'es were laid at SAWN., and the trial of the action,
which laded four days, in May last, resulted in a verdict
for the plaintiff with 40s. &magma. Subsequently the
plaintiff moved for • new trial on the ground that the
damage* were insufficient, but the court refused the apoli-
catiou. An application wee then made to the Lori Chief
Berou, at chambers, to certify that the action was a fit one
to be tried in • superior court, notwithstanding the verdict
was only for 40e., but be declined to en certify. A rule
was then obtained by Mr. 31. Chambers, calling upon the
defendant, to show cause why the plaintiff should not have
judgment for the costa of • superior court.
Mr. Ser*Mtiliee, with whomwas Mr. Lush, nowared
to show cause against the ride, which, he said, waa virtually
en appeal from the decision of the Chief Baron, and COD.
tended that epee the proper constructien of the 4th section
of 15 and 16 N ic., a, 54, one of the County Court Acts, the
case wu a6t one to be tried in • superior court. He re.
fermi to the circumstance, wider which the prosecution
took place, and said the plaintiff had no pretence or excuse
for bringing the action, which was r mere experimental one,
to recover damages from gentlemen who had done the best
they could for hint. and Lad served him well. Ile alio sub-
mitted that sui the Lord Chief Baron who tried the sae, and
had ell the facts before Lim, refused a °NOW*, the court
ought not to interfere.
Mr. Irish and Mr. C. Pollock followed on the same side.
Mr. M. Chambers, in support of the rule, entered into an
analysis of the evidence, and contended that if the de-
fendants had throe their duty in regard to the proseeetion
at the Old Bailey, Mr. Hatch would have been acquitted,
and that when he determined to bring an action against
them for negligence his proper course was to bring it in •
superior court, u it involved questions both of law and
fact, which were far too important to be determined by •
county court.
The further hearing of the case was postponed until
Wedinewley, when Mr. t;arth will be heard,

SECOND COURT.

&Kim at Nisi Prime. —(Before Mr. Baron Martin and •
COMII.OO Jury.)

Tkzrr r. WEBSTER. -FATAL ACCIDENT AT TEI ADYLPIII

THEATRE - - - ---
This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, a thealrical
'shoemaker, againat the proprietor of the Adalphi Theatre,
to recover compensation to damages for the loss of his wife's
services by her death, alleged to have been occasioned by
the of the defendant's servants. The defendant
not
Mt. Hodgman wee counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Rewiring,
Q.C., and Mr. Itilward, for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that be had
been employed in the mouth of September, 1859, to make a
pair of shoes fur a Kra Laidlaw, who was at that time as
actress in the employ of the defendant. On the Mk of that
mouth the shoes were finished and taken to the theatre be the
deceased, who, to get to Mrs. laidlaw'sdreesheproom, bid to
mesud a flight of stairs from the stag* door in Bull•inn•
court, and then proceed along a dark purge to the droning
rooms at the back of the scenes. She arrived at Mrs. laid.
law's room safe, bat in returning along the pump fell

down a hole which was cut in the floor leading to the pro-
perty. In falling she became senseless, and upon her
arriving at 0006CloMeg she was conveyed to Channrcross
Hospital, where she remained for sonic time suffering from
a wound in the head. At the expiration of about six weeks
she left the hospital, and was attended at her own house by
Mr. Wood, and after being an out-door patient of the
bospiLd she was obliged to become again an in-door patient,
where she died on the 28th August last. The plaintiff
alleged that he had been put to great expense, and had lost
the services of his wife.

The defence was that the deceased had no right to go any
where near where she fell down. She had been warned not
to ramble about the stags, but on the day in question she
bad done so, and fell down the orchestra stairs.
The learned judge in summing up told the jury that to
find that the plaintiff was entitled to damages they must
fled that the deceased had • right to be where she was
when the accident happened to her, because it was • very
different thing to a person falling down a hole belonging to
shop, or in the public highway.
The jury returned& verdict for the defendant.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.—Nov. 4.
NITTINGB IN ERROR.

The learned judgen of this court assembled shortly after
eleven o'clock. It is usual for the court on the second day
of term to meet as a Court of Error and Ix the days for
the sittings in error. The Lord Chief Bann, however,
announced that the judges would meet to-morrow (this day)
and form a Court of Error and fix the sittings.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—Nov. 4.
(Before the Chief Commissioner.)
THE SMALL DEBTS ACT.

His Honour was occupied some time with cases under the
Small Debts Act, an act which is passing away from this
court, end it is questionable whether the jurisdiction is
transferred to the Court of Bankruptcy. In one of the
cases a strange collectien of farts appeared. In 1854 a loan
was obtained from an office, and the sureties had to pay the
money, on which they afterward.: sued the borrower and
levied au execution and sold bin furniture. One of the sure-
ties now applied that the balance should be paid out of the
borrower's wages of 24a. a week, and complained that he
bad to pay 81. 12a., and had an execution levied on hie goods.
On the other hand, the defendant declared that he worked
for the sureties, and borrowed the money for them, and
they advanced him 31., and had had esettlement with the
other surety who bad been in partnership with the present
plaintiff. The original loan was 101., borrowed about six
years ago, and there had been two actions and two exe-
cutions.

The Chief Commissioner devoted some time to the ep•
plication, and declared that be should make no order in
the care. HI had doubted whether it was a case to act
upon ; and after what he bad beard of the transaction, and
teeing that the Small Debts Act, as some supposed, was
expiring, he should make no order.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—Nov. 4.
(Before Mr. Berjeant WLeeler.)
TEIL CONTIRT TOR THE NATORALI7.

. .
This afternoon having been appointed for hearing venom
summonses, 78 of which have been Maud against Alderman
Sir Henry Muggeridge for claims mid to have been con-
tracted by him during the late contest for the mayoralty,
the court was densely crowded by members of the Common
Council, claimants, and their friends. A respectable jury
of citizens was sworn. The first cue called wee

PL&RSON r. isUGGEBIDGi.
Mr. Pook, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiff, who is •
nephew of the City Solicitor. Mr. Huddtou, Q.C., wu
for the defence. The action was for work and labour done
during the recent election.
Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Garth appeared for defendant,
instructed by Mr. Heritage, of the firm of Newton and Co.
Mr. Peek requested that all whimsies might be ordered
out of court.

The Judge acquiesced, but it was intimated that the de-
fendant might remain, and he was invited to a seat on the
beach, there being apparently no other place for him.
Mr. Pock said be had no objection to Sir Henry M
ridge remaining remaining in court, but he decidedly objected to his
being allowed a seat on the bench.
At this juncture several of the seventy-eight plaintiffs re.
rnonstroted in loud terms against the violent conduct of the
officers of the court, who were turning them out vi et armis,
some of them being mercilessly tumbled down stairs.
Mr. Pook, after some further delay, briefly stated the
ease. On Monday, Sept. 30, a mesioage was left at the office
of Mr. Arland, an election agent in the City, that be was
wanted to conduct the election of Sir Henry Muggeridge.
He called upon Mr. Longdon, in Doctors'-oommons. By
Mr. Longdon, who was the chairman of Sir Henry Mug•
geridge's committee, lie wee engaged as principal agent, and
in that capacity he engaged the plaintiff as subagent. His
claim was ail. 14s.

Mr. HudiHeaton said he did not deny that the plaintiff
was engaged by Mr. Acland to do the work, and he would
admit that the sum charged was reasonable and proper.
He should take ruuch higher ground than that.
Sir H. Muggeridge wee celled by Mr. Roberta, and said
he was a oan&lete for the mayoralty. He did not ask for •
committee. It was their spoutanootte act. He recognised
what they did, and everything they did he answered to.
(Applause in cou.) Mr. Blakesley, a member of the Com-
mon Council, was a member of his committee, and he fully
retnnised everything ha did.
By Mr. Huddleston—lt was in consequence of a reso-
lution of his committee that be wee defendiug there actions.
He would have rather paid ten times the amount than have
been brought there. (Lend cheers.)
The Judge reminded the people that they were not en the
Guildhall, and that he would clear the court.
Evidence of considerable length was gone into in support
of the plaintiff's case, which, having been concluded, the
court adjourned till tomorrow (this) morning.