The Express.
London, England, 1868-02-22 00:00:00

FHL EdTR

Lab; Sztellisexce;

COURT OF EXCHEQUER..—Fin. 21.
Sittings at Icisi Pau..—(Carom Mr. Baron Martin
awl a Common Jury.)
PEWS V. 113112C111.

This was an action to recover • certain sum for work
done as an attorney and solicitor upon the retainer of the
defendast, for money paid by the plaintiff for the de-
fendant, and on an amount elated. The defendant pleaded
never indebted.
Mr. Keane, Q.C., and Mr. Morgan Lloyd were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Thomas for
the defendant.
The plaintiff wee an attorney, and aba clerk to the
vestry of Mileend, and the defendant was a chair and
couch maker, and •meuilier of the vestry of St. Leonard's,
Shorediteh. In UM, in consequence of an outbreak of
cholera, the different parishes in the east of London ap-
pointed delegates to a committee which was to determine
the meana by which that part of the metropolis could ob.
tin a better supply of water. The delegates met and in-
structed the plaintiff, whom they appointed as their secre-
tary or clerk, to take the nemosiuy steps for applying to
parliament for a bill on the subject. Tho proceedings in
the matter went no further than the preperation of the
bill, but the plaintiff'. coats amounted to lefif. Of that
sum the share ref St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, was 471.
lfo. 6.1., and the defendant being one of the delegates ap-
pointed by the vestry of the perish, the plaintiff now
sought to make him liable for the amount.
The defence was, that the defendant and his colleagues
from St. Leonard's objected at a meeting of the committee
to any expenses being incurred beyond advertising and
other preliminary expenses, on the ground that the rest,-
kitten of their vestry gave them no authority to incur any
further liability. It was also said that the preparation of
the bill was really a part of the prosecution of it which
they had no power to sanction.
The defendant said that at the meeting when the reso-
lution for an application to parliament was proposed be
opposed it, intine.ting that the resolution of his vestry
would not cover tbo expenses of such • proceeding. He
afterwards attended no other meeting of the committee,
but be gave no formal notice of his intention to withdraw
hewn it.
Two other vestrymen gees similar evidence.
Mr. Keane said Le understood that the vestry of
St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, defended the action of Mr.
Turner-
Mr. Baron Martin—l hope they are rich. (Laughter.)
Up to a certain point this ease is undefended. The only
question is whether this gentleman is responsible for the
preparation of the bill. I should have thought that it
would here come under the head of preliminary expenses;
but that is a question for the jury.
Mr. Serjeant Parry slid the question was whether a
vestryman could, under the circumstances, be personally
liable.
Mr. Baron Martin—The jury will have no difficulty in
finding that the work was done on the credit of the per-
sons who were appointed delegates, though, as between
them and the vestry, they ought to be indemnified.
Mr. Serjeant Parry—Mat rs o matter of arrangement
between them and the vestry.
Mr. Baron Martin—But the delegates are respondble to
Mr. Price in the same way as any other gentleman who
employs an attorney. although they did not expect to pay
the money out of their own pocket, and believed that they
would be indemnified oat of the parish funds.
Mr. Serjeant Parry—No doubt the vestry will relieve the
defendant from all peewniary liability, but there is the
question of principle, whether • vestryman, in such • case
as this, is personally tesponsible.
Mr. Baron Martin—l have no doubt myself that a
vestryman, under such circumstances, is liable, but that is
a mixed time:ion of law and fact, and it must be decided
through the jniy.
Mr. Serjeant Party referred to a case in which it bad
been held that vestrymen who had authorised their ear-
wryer to take steps fur the defence upon an indictment for
the non-repair of a highway were not responsible for
the bill of costs of the attorney whom the surveyor had
employed.
Mr. Baron Martin—But the surveyor was an officer of
the pariah. and it was as much his duty as theirs to employ
an attorney, and by directing him to defend the ease they
did not incur any personal liability.
Mr. Serjeant Parry thought it was bard to make the
defendant responsible, but would bow to the opinion ex-
pressed by his lordship-
Mr. Baron Martin—The work has been honestly and
bona tide done by the plaintiff, and it would only be •
handsome thing on the part of the vestry of St. Leonard's,
Shoreditch, to pay their share of the expenses.
Mr. Serjeant Parry said that parish was only interested
to a small extent in the question, as only part of it re-
ceived water from the East London Waterworks Coen-
Pan,.
Mr. Baron Martin—Then they ought not to have inter-
fered iu the matter.
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 471. 17s. Cd.

Sittings at Nisi irius.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron sad
•e Special Jury.)
ATM% r. BOCTII FA,STERN ItAILWAT CAMINLIPT.

This was an action for injuries sustained by •railway
accident.

—...—..
Mr. Willis appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. O'Malley,
Q.C., for the defendants.
The plaintiff was a compositor, in the employ of Mews.
Saville and Edward., printers, in Chandos-street, Strand.
In the evening of they day after Christmas Day last,
he arrived by train attho Cannon-street Station, and before
he alighted, it was run into by another train, and he was
not only very much shaken, but his arm was wounded,
and some of Lb; teeth locacuod. He was laid up three or
fonr weeks, :L.l was still in so weak a state that he could
nor earn much more than half his usual wages, and his
medical attendant did not think he would entirely recover
for some months, if he ever did recover from the effects
of the collision._ . _ .

In eroerezaminstion, the plaintiff admitted there wea a
dews fog at the tiwe of the accident, and said he was
not aware that the train which caused the accident be-
longed to the London and South Western Railway Own-
INY.
Mr. O'Malley submitted that the evidence for the
plaintiff showed no negligence on the part of the defen-
d ants, and that the plaintiff should be non.suited.
The Lord Chief Baron said as there was a difference of

opinion among the judges whether the feet of an accident
was evidence primal facie of negligence, be thought it
better to leave the question to the jury, giving the Men-
dants leave to move.

Mr. O'Malley briefly addremed the jury for the defence.
He mid that the Cannon.street-statien, where no lees than
700 trains arrived and departed in • day, was one of the
best managed in the kingdom ; and on the occasion in
question the accident was to be attributed entirely to the
fog end to the defendants' train being ran into by a train
belonging to another compeny
The Lord Chief baron told the jury the only questkas
were—first, whether there was any neglivnce on the part
of the defendants ; and, if there was, what damp* the
pleintiff was entitled to.
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 80/.

COURT OF DIVORCE. —Frs. 21.

(Wore the Judge Ordinary and a Common Jury.)

PARTRIDGE (CLERK) T. PARTRIDOR AND.SPOODRIAD.
Mr. Here, for the petitioner, • clergyman who kept •
school at Great Yarmouth. He married the respondent
in 1854, and lived with her on affectionate terms foe eleven
years, in which interval she bore him seven children. In
1864 the parties made the acquaintance of the co-respon-
dent, • merchant trading with China, who bad come
home. He had been acquainted with Mrs.
before her inarriage, and during 1866 her husband had li
reason to remonstrate with her on her familiarity with
him. She promised to give him no further occasion for
uneasiness ; bet in the course of • few days she suddenly
left her home and went to her mother's, when she was
confined. She then went to some friends at Cambridge,
and without returning to her husband she confessed that
she was once more enceinte. It appeared that she was
under the impression that the co-respondent would many
her as soon as she was divorced ; but he wrote to her to
say that he could not do that because he had contracted
matrimony in the previous September. There was soca*
reason to think that this excuse was false; beat the co-
respondent bad since left the country.
The jury assessed 500/. against him as &maga.
Decree nisi with cads.
LAPOREST O. LATORRE? AID NALTVITIVIL

Dr, Swabey for the petitioner, an architect In Bedford•
row. lie married the respondent In 1867. They lived
together until 1865 when the petitioner began to hare
reason to suspect his wife of too great a familiarity with
• solicitor named Matthews. On being forbidden the
house the at-respondent induced the respondent to elope
with him, and they had since gone to Australia.
The jury awarded 500 f. damages.
Decree nisi with coats.
DALZ e. DALI AND CLAYTON.
-- - -

-----
ILL G. Browne and Mr. Bt. Aubyn for the petitioner,
gardener. They were married in 1850, and lived together
till 1884, when the respondent ran away with the co-
respondent, who was the son of a farmer in Oheahir..
The jury awarded 601. damages.
Decree nisi with costa.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY .--Fx3. 21.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goalburn.)
IN RE JOHN BROPHY.
The bankrupt, who was described as a previdn daalar_
of iiimith.street and of Tufton.street, Westminster had
been the manager of the London and Warminster Co.
operative Storm, in Tufton-street. This mu the sitting
far examination and discharge. Debts, 1,0991.
Mr. R. Griffiths opposed fur the deigned, and asked
for additional accounts.
The bankrupt dated that in addition to his
bumbler he was a drill-master and teacher of fenstitinaZ
was In ill-health, and his Income from tesehing was
ray irregular. Lad year he had awned between 1101.
and
Mr. Griffiths—Oh, well; that will be seendisieg fee
your creditors. (A laugh.)
The bankrupt added that he was case of bur
Yeomen of the Guard, which pod he had ebtialassidut
distinguished services at the battled Inkermsd
Mr. G. Lewis. who appeared far the tomkrants aided