The Express.
London, England, 1850-06-18 00:00:00

11.03 Intelligence.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.-YMEIDAY.
Imams AT Nut IhUUM.--11170118 LOILD CAMPIIILL MID A
eronAL IVRY.

Pointer ti. Tat BIjaVAC.C.RAILWAY COMPANY.
In this awe the plaintiff Knight to recover demeges front
the defendants, for an injury oustaised by his, through the
alleged negligence of, the servants cf the delesdants. The
defendants had paid SOL into court, end the question now
was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to further damages
Of not.

It was shown in evidence that, in November, 1848, the
plaintiff, whilst panics under one of the bridges belonging
to the company, was struck upon the beck and heed by a
piece of timber, which had been permitted to fall over the
bridge by the servants of the company, who were engaged at
the time in taking up old sleepers, end putting down new
oats. After the accident he was taken home, and put
under medical treatment, and was not pronounced cured for
several months afterwards. Since that time he had suffered
from inflammation of the kidneys, which he wu told might
issue on, as the result of the injury, and had, vines Di camber
last, been an out door patient of the London Hospital, for aa
attack of sciatica, which he had also been advised might »-
salt from the injury he had sustained.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins said that his clients were reedy to
give to the plaintiff such compensation as the jury thought
him entitled to.
Lord Campbell in charging the jury, observed that the
question for them to consider was whether the 301. paid into
court was or was not sufficient compensation for the injury
sustained, and from which the plaintiff was still suffering.
The jury, after consulting for a few minutes, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages 701.
Lord Campbell observed that, as the plaintiff appeared to
be entirely dependent open the compensation, he should
have judgment within a month.
Mr. Phipeon assured his lordship that the company would
cheerfully comply with the order.

CORI tr. COLT.
• In this case the plaintiff was a little girl, who sued i■
forma pauper* by her next friend, the action tine brought
to recover damages from the defendant for an injury sus-
tained through alleged negligent driving on his put. The
accident occurred at Whitechapel, through which the de-
fendant was driving a spring cart, with a log of mahogany in
it. The child was seen crossing the road, near the horse and
cart,and the defendant was called upon by *event people to be
on his guard—notwithstanding which the child was knceled
down, and one of the wheels paved over its body. It had
since, however, recovered from the Works which it had
thus sustained.

After some discussion u to whether the declaration wu in
trespass or case,
Lord Campbell left it to the jury to say, fint, whether
there had bent negligence, and next, what damages
should be awarded.

The jury found that there had been negligence, and gave
damages 101.
Lord Campbell said that be would nonauit the plaintiff,
giving her leave to move the court to enter a verdict
furilol.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YLSTIRDAY.
Nw rms.-11moms Ma P. Pni.s.oca, C. 8., MILDLIALL
brave. Jt.
Tai AITOINET•OINERAL V T. SNITUBON.—FHAUDI ON

raa Rayllgvs.

The Attorinip-General,ttrelielic;ioC-Generel, If r.Wateon,
Q C., and Mr. J. Wilde were counsel for the crown; Mr.
Serjunt Wilkins and Mr. Wordsworth represented the de-
fendant.

Thus was an information, at the instants of the Inland
Revenue Department, to recover penalties to the amount of
9001. from the defendant, for using unentered pre
mina for the manufacture of tobacco, and for hav-
ing in his passeuion, in the month of December last,
a large quantity of adaltarated tobacco found in tut casks,
end a cask of rhubarb powder, which in colour resembled
Scotch snuff, and was capable of being mixed with purl
snuff for the purpose of adulteration. The defendant car-
ried on business at York as a tobacco manufacturer. After
the examination of several witnesses in support of the pro-
'soul n, a verdict was entered, by consent, for the crown, to
secure the payment of a certain sum fixed upon. (It was %in-
dent:sod 5001.1
THR ATTORNIT GiNIIIAL V. CHABLIS THOMAS
SMITHSON.
This was also an information to recover penalties for
adding to and mixing with tobacco, whilst in the course
of manufacture, other materials than water, and for having
tobacco so manufactured. The defendant was a wholesale
tobacco dealer at L,icester, and ion of the defendant in the
last case. Before the learned Solic.tor-General had con-
cluded his statement it was arranged that a general verdict
should be entered, by consent, for the crown, to secure the
payment of 1001.
TBl ATTORNEY-GENERAL O. JAMLS Bo ren.
This was a similar information, to recover penalties from
the defendant, a tobacco manufacturer at Leeds, in York-
shire, for adulterating tobacco in the month of February last,
and for having adulterated tobacco in his possession.
A general verdict was entered for the crown, by consent of
the defendant's counsel, to secure the payment of 2001.
The !earned counsel who conducted the first of these
eases on behalf of the crown appeared likewise in the two
other cues.

EXCIIEQUER CHAMBER-YESTERDAY.
lISIMIL I'AITOBOV lOW TIM J1:1•01•1 Or THIS Clegrea
Bucu AMU CONNOR PLEAS ON EISUOS ?WM out COURT OP Ex-
_cutoiHica.

TH-171.11Amta-HATEN Docr COMPANY v. B RRRRR AND

Orm ana.—J ono starer.
In this c us, which arose on a special demurrer in an ac-
tion of covenant, the court gave judgment, affirming that
of the Court of Exchequer.
EDMONDS P. THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN OP IRE-
LAND RAILWAY C
As this is a case of considerable interest to railway pro
prietors, and as it is understood that a large number of
actions are contiagent on the decision, we briefly recapitu-
late the facts of the case, which were partly heard at the
sittings after last Hilary Term. The writ of error was on
a bill of exceptions to the direction of Mr. Baron Parke in
an action fur debt, tried at the assizes at King-
ston. The plaintiffs (now the defendants in error)
sued le,r the amount of certain calls, and he and the':
defendant pleaded that he never was indebted, and that he
was not a holder of shares in the said company. Prom the
evidence given at the trial it appeared that in Jean's'', 1846,
Mr. Edmond's received an allotment of 100 shares an a then
projected railway scheme called the Midland Great Western
Railway (Mullingar and Galway Extension), and that he
duly paid the deposits and signed the parliamentary con-
tract. Prior to that an act of parliament had been obtained
Inc ,rporating the Midland Great Western Essilway Company,
established for the purpose of making a line from Dublin to
Mullingar. On the 19th of Sept., 1846, a meeting of that
company was held, and a report of the directors read, recom-
mending that it should be amalgamated with the a:tension
company. Nose of the directors of the extension project
were present, and resolutions for amalgamation were passed.
Mr. Edmonds, having been subsequently required to pay
certain calls, objected, on the ground that he was not a share-
holder in the incorporated company.
The learned Baron told the jury that if the parliament-
ary and subscription contract and shareholders' agreement
had been satisfactorily proved, the directors had the power
to amalgamate, and, consequently, that Edmonds wag liable
in payment of the calls. 'the jury thereupon found for the
company for the amount claimed. It was contended, in
support of the case raised by the plaintiff in error, that the
provisional directors of the extension company had no
power to amalgamate without the authority of an act of
parliament; that the power of t►e directors expired in
July, 1846, at the term of the certifloab of provisional re-
gistration; that the nine directors had no power to amalga-
mate; that to bind the plaintiff in error he must have
accepted the proposal; th►t he was never a shareholder
in the incorporated company ; and that the declaration did
nut state, at the time that the calla were made, that he was
indebted to the company ; and that his name was not pleased
upon any register of the Incorporated company at the tins
the first call was made.

Mr. Peacock was heard yesterday et great length in an-
swer to the various points urged by Sir Frcdctick Thtsiger
at the hearten of the cue after Hilary Term.
Sir F. Thesiner proceeded to reply, but the argument was
net concluded at the rising of the court.