The Express.
London, England, 1857-05-28 00:00:00

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCIL7MAT 27.

(Sittings in Bence.Lßehrit Lord Csmpbell Ltd Justices
Coleridge, Brie, and Crompton.)
The court wee occspied nearly the whole of the day in
herring the sigumente of ewe] in the ease of the " Queen
foe the proseentima et the Onardiene of the Poor of Oxford)
v. the Viee-Chsnotilor of the UalvmMty," which raised the
question, in the form of a special awn for the opinion of the
court, whether the Bedlam Maury and some other parte of
the University Wen liable to be rated for the relief of the
poor.
Mr. Paabley, on the part of the guardians, contended that
they were liable; and Mr. Keating, representing the Uni-
versity, argued that as these buiMings were part of • great
national institution for the dissemination of -learning, and
were not held for any pecuniary or personal profit, they (mould
not be assessed to the poor-rate. At the conclusion of the
"gZeimpbell Intimated tL®t as the case was of great
Importance the court would take time to give the most
mature consideration to their judgment, there being no
appeal from their decinen, the legialature having ..onferred
upon then extraordinary powers of jurisdiction on ques-
tions of this kind between universities end wisher.

BAIL COURT.—MAT 27.
(Sittings at Nisi Pritis.—Before Mr. Justice Wightman and
Common Juries.)
firIiNIDON AND wtrr N. COLLINS..—ACUDENI.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Tindal Atkinson way counsel for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Locke for the defendant.
This action we. brought to recover compensation for in-
juries sustained by the plaintiff, through the negligence of
the defendant's servants.
The male plaintiff is a bootmaker residing in Fentonville,
hie wife is &laundress. On Saturday, the 17th of November
they were driving a small pony art, taking home linen,
down John-street, Pentatonic, when they were met by a cart
of the defendant's, end a eolhmon took place. The plaintiffs
were thrown out, the husband was not much hurt, but the
wife wait cerioualy injured.
For the defendant all the blame was attributed to the
plaintiff.
The evidence was conflicting.
The jury returned a verdict fur the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—MAY 27.
(Sittings in &Ulf°. —Before Chief Justice Cockburn and
Justices Cromwell, Williams, and Wines.)

The miners which came before the court to-dity were of
no public interest.
(Sittings st Nun Priup' in Miilillesca.—Before Mr. Sundae
Crowder end s Cutanon Jury.)

GLYPE as. OFFICIAL MANAOFR OF LUR LLICTRIC
'MEG COMPANY OF 110.1AND.-A(TION FOR

WA Or,
This wee an action to rot-over a rum of money toad to be
duo for 'whey ; and the only plea was never indeleed.
Mr. Coach appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Harrill and
Mr. 11. James or the defendant.
The plaintiff's ease wee that ho wao engaged in 1862 to
ouperintend the laying dowel of the telegraphic wuew of the
defendant. compasy, and in May, 1663, Lis work was etch
so to take him away from the office. It was found neconary,
however, to have aomebaly at the office to receive and fur-
ward menace, and perform some other duties. The plain-
' tiff's wife was engaged to do *hi., at a salary of It. a week.
She continued there from May, 1853, waif January, 166.5,
and the present action was brought to reeve, her wags for
Ut week.
The plaintiff and his wife were examined, and their
deuce win, that the agteoto.nt to euildoy the plaintiff 'a wife
bad lex n entered iota well Mr. esaiewy, aeirctor,who
wan now deed. It WAS said that Mr. Massey had been
modestly applied to for payuu. nt of the calari. and Mrs.
Olyde attired that she hal err itioned to Mr. Gilpin, the con-
tractor for laying down the wires, that she was to have If. a
week.
On behalf of the defendant it wax contended that Mrs.
(Hyde bad never been employed at all at • salary, and that the
oily recompenee for her cervices was that the was to have
apartments at the oftlee rent free.
Numerous letters from the plaintiff to Mr. Gilpin were put
ia. One Mater, dated the 31nli November, 1&53, contained
throe 111164Agell : " Do you know if anything is to be allowed
for looking after the °dime ? Mrs. Olyde has bad a herd
time of it in my sterna to attend to everything, sail having
no under clerk at priermt, oho has it all to attend to. Mr.
Mosey has refund to give her the 6s. per week paid to the
Loy, or at least told me I bud better not say anything about
it. She says she will not attend to any more rueo-ager, but
If 1 am away will go into lodgings, and leave the office to
take can of itself. I should like to bear from you at your
earliest convenience, and my if there is any remuneration to
be expectod." None of the ether loiter ee,ntrined any rs—
femme to the claim on account of Mee. Glyde's aervieer. nor
was any reference hied° to the rustler in any of the mine-nous
accounts which the plaintiff had sent in to the company,
though during part of that time the plaintiff was in very
dintreaecd circumetancco. Another fact was that the plaintiff
had sued the company for money due to him, but in the par-
ticulars of demand had made no reference whatever to the
present claim. The total claim made on that occasion was
2801., but 1801. was paid into court by the company, and
taken out by the plaintiff.
Mr. Gilpin wan called, and be Hated that Mrs. Olyde bad
' never mentioned to him that Mr. Mammy bad promised to
give her 11. a creek. He admitted that he had written to the
plaintiff on the 21st of May, 1053, in these terms " For
attending to the offices, Sec., of course the company most
pay, but I shall, I hope, be over men, and will arrange
~
The jury eonaidered the matter fora few minute., and gave
a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-MAT 27.

(Sittings in Banco.—Before the Lord Chief Baron
Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Watson.
BASLITOW 0. ILITHOLDIL-THE ROYAL HIBERNIA]

MIPINO C

This was an action brought to mover the amount de-
panted by the pislatiff la respect of 200 charts which bad
been allotted to hint in the Royal Hibernian Mining Com-
pany, of which the defiendent is a director. A special case
had been speed upon in order to obtain the opinion of the
eourt upon the facts, as to which there was no dispute. The
case stated that In 1852 the plaintiff bad his attention called
to theereepectne et the company, whb,h,after pointing out tbe
various advantages to be obtained from the working of
certain mines in the manly of Kerry, proposed that a com-
pany should be established, with •capital of 100,0001., to be
raised by It. shares, that the company should be conducted
upon the cost-book principle, end that a moiety of the shares
should be reserved by the proprietors, and the other moiety
devoted to the development of the resources of the company.
The plaintiff, after making inquiries as to the respectability
of thu concern, mode an application for shares; 200 were
allotted to him, for which he paid 2001. In October, 1863,
he read in the Alining Journal a report of the proceedings at
• meeting of the company, from which he gathered that only
.5,4601. of the capital of the company haA been deposited, of
which then' wait a balance in hand of upwards of 2,0001.
The plaintiff, upon making this discovery se to the state of
the company's affair., applied to have the 2001. be had paid
for his inerte returnml to him, and upon the refusal of the
directors, commenced this action against the defendant for
its recovery.
Mr. Clcasby, who argued the cum on the pat of the plain-
tiff, content:lrd on the authority of " Aspinall T. Duncomte"
(6 Exchequer, p. 147), that the plaintiff had paid his money
fur a certain consideration, namely, that the concern in which
he was embarking was to begin bueinetts with a capital of
100,0001., and that consideration having failed, he was enti-
tled to repayment.
Mr. Beret ow, for the defendant, argued that the proapeclus
did not state thnt the business of the company would not be
commenced before the whole of the capital woe raised and
that tke circumstance of • smaller amount of capital being
found eufli, ient, did not amount to such a failure of considera-
tion as would entitle the plaintiff to judgment.
The Court complimented the learned counsel m both sides,
on the ability tied fairness with which they had argued the
ease, end took time to consider their decision until judgment
bad been given by the Court of Error in another ow in
which a rieuilar point arm.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—MAY 27.
(Bofors Mr. Cominierioner
9..% GEORGE GORSLINO.
This insolvent, a baker, applied to be discharged. He was
not opposed by his creditors. Mr. Dowse supported.
Its that the insolvent, who had been before dis-
under the act, had an " acoommadation" bill in his
ale.

Cowl desioner Phillips asked him what Limousin he
had to am ept sicommodation Whit and now to sa.dit hie
" third appoaranee
The insolvent said there wee only ono aamionnoiktion
bill. Ile used the party 31., and he gut him to imeept • bill
Mr. Commissioner Phan' ipe told the insolvent that had ha
been opposed he certainly would have remanded him ender
the disentionary dense. He strongly recommended him
to avoid eceommodstiim bills 'shame.
The insolvent was ordered to be discharged.