The Express.
London, England, 1861-04-27 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Joarr. 26.

Marge is Bane; is Basler Term.—(Before the Lord
Chief Justin, sad Justices Crompton sad Blackburn.)
The Court proceeded with the special paper to-day, but
the came seised did sot pireasat say feature of general
inters&
The Lord Chief Jostler mid the Court would sit Milking*
after Term on the 9th sad 10th of Nay.
Sittings at Nisi Prins at Ckuldhall.—(Before fir. Julies
Hill arid Common Juries.)
THE LrfAlirf IRMO COMMIT V. MILS&

Mr. M. Smi►h sad Mr. Garth were comisel for the plain-
tiffs ; Mr. Hawkins raprenentad the defendant.
This was aa active brought by the plaintiffs to reamer
1901. for damage dose to a cargo of stone, and in 'Minim-
Goa the defendant paid 30i. into court. It appeared that
the plaintiffs had had ibi for them • quantity of tim-
ber on board the defeat's venal. Afterwards some
liquorice pane was takes es board, and during the voyage
it malted, and the damp ceinglaimed of accrued, the stone
haviag bee■ sold at a loss of 34 pee tot.
It was cootaadad for the adman that the sum paid into
mart was sallicient to meat Ilts *ties of the case.
The Jury found for the plaintiffs—dsmages, 301. beyond
tae amount paid into court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Aran. 26.
'Whip in Bseoe.—(Befare
Wilke Lad Justies Pak and
Jollies mid Bike.)

CAHILL V. TRI LONDON AND NOM WWII= RAILWAY

COMPAItY.-LOIN OF LVOCAO/L

The plaintiff in this rem was • commercial traveller, and
whilst a pameager ea the defendants' line he lied with him
• a box, w • be carried as luggage without miss anything
extra for it. This box contained articles al reerobandim,
sad on it war painted the word "glom.* The pared was
lost, and therefore the plaintiff claimed its vale, from the
ecimpaay, who, however, resisted the claim upon the ground
that the property lost was 00a " ord i ary personal luggage,"
and therefore they were not liable for it, inasmuch as there
had been no extra payment far It. To this it was replied
that the word " glue" on the box was notice to the com-
pany that it did not contain ordinary luggage, and that if
they bad no intention of being liable, they should have
asked what the box contained, and made an extra charge
for it.

...—Mr. Lush and Mr. Beamley appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Flanigan for the defendants.
. The Lad Objet Justice said be was of opinion that there
mud be judgment for the defendants. It appeared from
the statements in the special case submitted to the court
that the article lost was a package containing entirely MN,
&iodise, aad not containing anything in the nature of
wearing apparel or property coming within the descriptiou
of pommel luggage. It woe said that the word " glass "
being on the package, the company must be taken to have
corned it knowing that it was not personal luggage ; bet
be was against the plaintiff upon that point. It would
**rodeos a rule most pernicious to the public mese-
Oillooll if railway companies in order to avoid being
Azad with liability for packages which appeared to con-
tain reerelmodise were to be bound to make inquiries
as to the oontents of therm The plaintiff was proved to
have been guilty of no fraud upon the company, and it wee
also proved that be bad constantly carried the
upon other lines without paying for it ; bat when tLating:
e
mime to ascartein at whose risk the package was carried,
the court felt bound to say that it was on the plaintirs
own liability becausebe had taken the package without
oomplying with the company's regulations.
Judgment for the defendants.
Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—{Before Mr. Justice
Keating and a Comm& Ju .)
The cease tried today way not of a character likely to
interest the public.

COURT OF EXCHRQUER.—Anut 26.

Sittings i Banco—(Before Um Lord Chief Baron, and
Strom Mattis, Bramwell, sad Wilds.)

IS Till NATTIR OP MS HART PRYTOS, BART.- THI MCC•

This ohne came before the court on the petition of Sir
Henry Peyton, Bart., residing at Self ts.houss, near Bice.-
ter, in the county of Oxford, against an aniessment of duty
on his succession made by the Inlaod Commissioners.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Mellor, and Mr. Bevan were
counsel for the crown ; Mr. &frill and Mr. Ks/slake repre-
sented the petitioner.
The round of the appeal was that the commissioners, in
estimating the value of the succession duties, bed not made
any allowseoe for incumbrances on the property, and to
which he was no party.
The argamsnts, which occupied the whole day, being
aoudaded,
Their Lordship. reserved judgment.
Sittings at Nisi Prim at Guildhall.—(Before Mr. Baron
Channel and Common Juries.)
HAIL V. MARKEL—YALU IMPRISONMENT.

This was an action for false imprisonment, which had not
concluded when the court roes.

COURT FOR DWORCZ AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUSEIL—ArnafiL
(Before the Judge Ordinam Yr. Julies Wiegman, and
Ur. Je.e Willis:ma)
SEEDDSN CAM
The morning Mime Shrdden moved for a sew Mg, on the
ground of entwine, fraud, fainahead, aid perjury. After