The Express.
London, England, 1868-08-05 00:00:00

TuS kXPRESS,

A&9IZR INTRItioIScE.

HOME CIRCUIT.--OrtumAD, A uourr 4.
Makin Darin Nlartii and %meta Juries.)
ELM 111.1111411111 .I.o.aftWr a 116.ILWAT COMPAWT.

The care of Croker v. the Great Northern Railway
Onion eraa est action to roomer eonagemeetinn for in-
jeriesaged to have lean sustained through the aegli-
genes of theriervanta of thodefendants.
lilt!.
terra< Parry and Mr. Butler Rigby were for the
• Ify. 0. Pollock, QC., and Mr. F. M. White
were dor;the dsteadants.
The plaintiff was • young gentleman residing at Lime-
rick, sit he is migaged la the wine trade, 000seionally
coming to England on bueinees. On the Bth of a=11::
was traveling tips the defendaatie hoe near
when • colhoon took plass with • goods train,
mid be was .alleged to have received very serious inju-
ries. The case on the part of the plaintiff was that be
had received • violent shake, which bad sleeted his spine
and kidneys, and the effect was t mischief from
which it waa very doubtful w er he could recover.
Evidence was given that before the accident the plaintiff
was a strong healthy young man, and that he
himself in hunting, shooting, and athletic w.seAgT:
since 'belied received the Injury he was quite unable to
attend to hie business, and he was represented, in fact,
to be in such • dangerous condition that it would bare
endangered his life if he had attended the court to give
him evidence. The defendants did not dispute their
liability, but pleaded that the symptom. exhibited by the
plaint did not result from the accident, but wore occa-
sioned by • disease of the blood, from which ho was
suffering for some time previous.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages
2,20 D/.
ACIIOII TOR outman AGAINST A VOCALIST.

An action for slander was then beard, to which the
defendants pleaded Not OuiSty, and a justidcation.
Serjeant B' allantine and Mr. Philbrick were for the
plaintiff; Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Day
were were for the defendants.
The parties in this case are well known in the musical
world, the plaintiff, Herr Engel!, being player of the
harmonium at Her Majeety's Theatre, and the defendants,
Puud and another, having some celebrity as vocalists
and instrumentrlists. The action was nominally brought
against Signor Puzzi and his wife, but the lady
was the real defendant, the declarationalleging
that she had uttered false and slenderous words of and con-
cerning the plaintiff in his professional capacity,
and he claimed special damages., As the case for the
plaintiff broke down in the proof, it will be sufficient to
state that it appeared that Herr Engel] had recommended
the daughter oof Signor Puzzi to Lady Twills, to teach the
piano,and that the young lady, for some reason, orother was
dismissed very soon afterwards by Lady Twin. Madame
Puzzi seemed to have entertained the impression that
this had taken place in consequence of somethingthat had
been said by the plaintiff disparaging to her daughter's
character, and she was represented to have gone to seve-
ral persons who were acquainted with the plaintiff, and
stated that be was a liar, a coward, and a calumniator.
and this was the slander that was the ground of the pre-
sent action. . . . .

The plaintiff was called, and he stated, upon his oath,
thut there was no foundation for the opinion that was en-
tertained by the female defendant, and he denied having
ever said anything that was prejudicial to the character
of Mdile. Puzzi. Two other witnesses, to whom the al-
leged slander was represented to have been made, were
also examined, but their evidence was very vague, and they
were unable to state more than that the statements were
made by Madame Puzzi about a year ago, but they could
not name the precise time.
Mr. Montagu Chambers, at the close of the evidence,
submitted to his lordship that the plaintiff had failed to
establish any case that could be left to the jury.
Baron Martin said he was of the same opinion, and the
plaintiff was consequently nonsuited.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—CutsarDoz, Auousr 4.
Yesterday being the commission day at Norwich, Mr.
Justice Keating left here for the purpose of opening the
commission at that place, but the Dwnness was not over
till noon to-day, and even then it was necessary to make
one cause a remanet.

Nisi Puns COTlRT.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice and
a Special Jury.)
BRIGHTMAN V. LTALL.—ACTION AGAINST AN LNETILANCE

COMPANY.

Mr. O'Malley, QC., Mr. il7tre;rether, and Mr. Graham
appeared for the oam:tiff ; Mr. Keane, Q.C., Mr. Bulwer,
Q.O and Mr. Metcalfe for the defendant.
. .

—This was an action on two policies of insurance against
fire; the plaintiff being • farmer occupying two farms at
Little Staughton, in Bedfordshire, and the defendant, one
of the managing directors of the Imperial Insurance
Company, was sued under the provisions of an act of par-
liament on behalf of the company.
The history of the case is rather peculiar. The plaintiff
bad effected two policies with the Imperial office, the one
on crape, live stock, and implements of husbandry on the
Rectory Farm at Little Staughton ; and the other on
three portable engines and threshing machines, which he
was in the habit of letting out to the neighbouring
farmers. In October last year a fire occurred at the Rectory
Farm, and all the crops, implements, and two of the
engines and machines were burnt. A valuer having been
sent down on the part of the company, he made
inquiries in the neighbourhood, the result of
which was that the plaintiff was taken into
custody on a charge of arson. After a protracted magis-
terial inquiry the plaintiff was committed for trial; and
at the close of the case Mr. Humphreys, of the firm of
Humphreys and Morgan, who appeared on behalf of the
company, applied to the magistrates to commit him also
on a charge of attempting to obtain money from the com-
pany by false pretences, which they accordingly did. The
plaintiff was tried at the last spring assizes for arson, and
acquitted, and the charge of fraud was postponed to the
following assizes at Bedford. Iu the meantime this action
was commenced, the venue being laid at Cambridge ; and
the defendants pleaded, amongst other pleas, that there
was fraud in the plaintiff's claim, which disentitled him
to recover on the policies. At the late assizes
at Bedford the company preferred a second
indictment for fraud, and the grand jury found a
true bill. The first indictment came on for trial, and
broke down in consequence of the absence of a material
witness, and the second was, on the applicaton of the
counsel for the prosecution, postponed to the next assizes.
On behalf of the plaintiff a number of witnesses were
called, who proved that the produce of the crops burnt
was fully equal to what the prisoner claimed, and it ap-
peared that the prisoner's claim was made out by a valuer,
who obtained his information from the labourers on the
farm on a day when the plaintiff happened to be out, and
that the plaintiff had nothing to do with it beyond copy-
ing it out, and adding an item amounting to 2/. which bad
been admitted.

Before the court roee yesterday the Lord Chief Justice
suggested that, as the case appeared:to resolve itself into a
question of amount, it would be much more satisfactory
if it was referred to some gentleman who could go .over
the land.

Mr. O'Malley said that the plaintiff would consent to
this if the pleas of fraud were publicly withdrawn, but
not otherwise.

After a number of witnesses had been called this morn-
ing, one of the jury said be thought they had heard quite
enough of the crops.
The Lord Chief Justice said that he could not stop the
plaintiff s case, as he could not tell what would be said
on the part of the defendant, but unless the witnesses
were perjuring themselves there could not have been
fraud in the claim, as even if it was shown that it was
exaggerated, that alone would not constitute fraud.
A lengthened conference then took place between the
Lord Chief Justice and the counsel engaged in the case,
the result of which was, that the Lord Chief Justice said
the jury would not be ;farther troubled with the case, as
it had been agreed that the pleas of fraud should be
withdrawn, and the question of amount referred to an
arbitrator. There were understood to be some further
terms, which did not transpire.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff, damages
3,0001., subject to a reference.
The only remaining cause having been made a remanet,
this brought the business of the assizes to a close.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.--SIIREWBBITRY, Auo. 4.
(Before Mr. Justice Bytes.)
THE 111.711DP1 OP • 00300ERCIAL TIL&TELLIOL
This morning George Mania was again brought up in
custody chat.ged with the wilful murder of Barnett Zus-
man, at Stuckley, on the 15th November, 1887. Mr.
Matthew, QC., and Mr. Bayley appeared for the prose.
cution, and Dr. Kenealey, Q.C., and Mr. Young for the
defence.

Mr. Justice Byles, on taking his seat upon the bench,
addressed the bar, and said, during this hot weather if
they found it convenient to sit without their wigs
they might do so without disrespect. He did not like to
do anything without precedent, and he observed that
Baron Martin had recently temporarily dispensed with his
wig in court, while Lord Bacon, Lord Coke, and Sir
Matthew Hale never wore wigs at all. (Laughter.) His
lordship subsequently presided without hie wig, but the
members of the bar present did not avail themselves of the
permission to dispense with theirs.
The case for the defence was closed.
Mr. Matthews then called and examined several wit-
nesses, who contradicted the witnesses for the defence as
to points indicated in the cross-examination. Sergeant
Christie proved that the man described by the witness
Sankey as drying himself by the station fire had been
satisfactorily identified.
Dr. Kenealey war proceeding to sum up the evidence
when our parcel was despatched.
NORTHERN CIRCIIIT.—MANCRESTZR, Auo. 4.
CROWN Conar.—(Before Mr. Justine Rennin.)
INS Y 17112117 RIOTS AT I.IWIVN.
17ist, acquitted in • previous ease, was h
with riotously assembling with others on the 10tchZ,
at Ashton, and there a/melting and beating a young
woman named Mary Molhern.
The Hon. Lyulph Stanley prosecuted ; and Mr. Cotting-
ham defended.

Mary Molhern said she was born in England, but of
hush parents, and was a Boman catholic. Oa the even-
debate the 10th May she was at
shots bed. being in
health, when she heard 'red, and- of
the attack on Flag-alley. She had a friend living
there about her uwn age (18), and she got up