The Express.
London, England, 1850-01-16 00:00:00

moss—that 1.114. the 'spews of the enlistment and 11. es
• pesayhr, sad be world be disabused; but, U the mist-
ime:lt was fraudulent or unfair, he skin be discharged wish-
svit the payment of ,mart-money. There was ala. • provi-
sion that recruits who might abscond before they were
&mood should be brought afore the magistrates of the di-
v.sion before they were delivrrsd to the matfett autboritirs,
and a warrant obtained for that purpose. The leased
mensal contended that in this ease the plaintiff was not en-
listed by &proper party, inasmuch as it was nos shown that
Bathhouse had lent properly attested, that the learned
judge ought not to have told Use jury that they were to pre-
sume that evrrythiog had boon rightly done up to the time
of his being given into the defendant's custody, inassniseis &sit
ought to baste been proved that the partyenlisting had bet n dulj
attested—that Use enlistment was bad as it was made on a
Sunday, and that the plaintiff had not been taken before the
proper maid tsetse. H. also moved on affidavits whkh eons
tredieted Bathhouse's evident*, and also on the ground of
surprise, it as it was not supposed that each evidence
would be Liven by Bsckhouse, me t the invalidity of the
enlistment would be contested.
The wort took time to consider before granting the rale.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YESTEZDAY.
Strroas BAJloo.—Biros Loam caw lcarses Wziat. Ms.
JtPTICI MAIM; Ms. hums Cassowsza, am) Mx. Jourrecs

*ornaitin. -
BLACILSILI LIND °MINI O. OILLITT.—RIOUT OP 11181 Y.
Tuts was an mrion which had been brought by the plain-
tiffs, who represented the Society f Free Waterman of the
Rim Thema, to try the right of terry. which they claimed,
to en Greenwich to the Isle of D p. The terry was for foot
mearigen and their luggage. Tie ease wee tried beim the
Lord Deist Justice at the sittings at Niel Prins in Middlesex
after last Michaelmas Term, when a verdict was found for
the plaintiffs.
Mr. Petcock, on behalf of the defendant, now moved to
omen the judgment, on the ground that the second count in
the declaration was bad. list Count set forth that the
defendant wrooffully and injuriously, and ag t the will
of the plaintiffs, carried certain persons across the river. The
learned counsel now submitted that there was no cause of
action, iossmuch as the second count ought to hem alleged
that the defendant hod set up a new ferry to the injury of
the old ferry, or that be had fraudulently eralied passengers
NOTOVI the old ferry.
The court wen of opinion the second count in the declara-
tion was good, and that a rale ought riot therefore to be
granted.
Rule refused.
HILCOAC V. TEX

OP CANTERBURY AM

Yuan.
This was an action which had been brought under the 9th
and If th of Viet., cep. 312, which was • private aet for
making a railway from Liverpool to Bury, and by that act of
parlieureut it was presided that the railway was not
to interfere with the chapel of St. Matthew's
at Liverpool, or with the churchyard ground
and passage connected therewith. The case was
tried before the Lord Chief Justin, at the sittings at Nisi
Penis at 0 uildhell after last Michaelmas term, when a verdka
was found for the plaintiff; the damages to ce assessed
the second conga of the declaration at 1,5411. The Liverpool
and Bury Railway Company were, by their act of puke-
meat, prohibited from interfering with fit. Matthew's Chapel
without the COLMOI of the Archbishop of York and the
Bishop of Chester, end on payment of such • sum of money
as should be @greed upon by the archbishop nod the bishop.
In ascertaining the amount to be paid. regard was to be bed
to the caret of a ate of equal dimensious, and kw
building a new char el, to contain 730 people, and V
the defeedants thought fit for the purchase of the
surf lus pew rents beyond the yearly sum of 951.
to be reserved thereout for the minister, clerk, and Benton.
The declaration in the first count averred that the pamege
and Fart of the ground near the chapel did not form pan of
the site of the chapel, and that it belonged to the plaintiff,
indite.' its value was 2,0001 ,and that the railway, havingtaken
the land, refused to pay Dr Hilcost that sum. The second
lcount aU:gi d that the defendants did not take proper means
to &mermen the value of the land, which it war their duty to
de, sod that the railway company had taken possession of
the land without pay log its proper 'slue for it. In 1b36 the
plaintiff purchued the chapel and ground for 1,2004, and in
1646 the act of parliament in question was obtained, and
clauses were iorerted in it making the defendants
the arbitrators to determine the value of the chapel
and ground. The defendants, acting under the act
of parliament, heard evidence as to the value of the chapel
and the land. Mr. Holmes, • surveyor, was eicamined on
behalf of the plaintiff, and he estimated the land as building
land to be worth 31. 109 a yard. On behalf of the compuey
the I ,ed war valued as land that could not be built upon,
and it was estimated to be worth 8111. The defendants
awarded for the land and pew-rents above 051. the sum of
ytenoe, which the plaintiff ',fused to accept. The company
having indemnified the defendants, took possession of the
land, and the plaintiff brought the present action agaibst
them.
Mr. Berjeant Byles, on behalf of the plaintiff, now moved
for a rule to show cute why the verdict should not be entered
for the plaintiff en the 6th count, it bevies been found in
his kerne en all the other counts.
The court granted a rule aid.
LYSAOIit C. BRYANT. —BILLS OT EXCEMNOE.
Thie was an action which had been brought by Rear Ad-
miral Lytaght, folding at Bath, against en But Ikeis, mer-
chant, to recover 8001 , the amount of a bill of exchange, cf
whi,ll the defendant wan the drawer. The bill was ac
opted by • person named Matthews, who sub-equ. ally be-
came • bankrupt ; and was endorsed by the defendant to
the firm of Messrs. Lysaght and Smithet, But India at r-
eheats, the senior partner in the firm being the sin of th
pl,,intiff, Admiral Lynght. The cue was tried before the
Lord Chief Justice at the sittings at Nisi Pries at Guildhall
atter last Michaelmas Term, when • verdict was found for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant Byles, ou behalf of the defendant, now moved
for a rule calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the ver-
dict should not be set aside, and a new trial bad, or why a
nonsuit should not be entered. The first part of the learned
serjeant's application was founded upon the assumption that
the verdict 1110 a perverse one, being against the evidence.
At the trial cue of the principal questions in
dispute was, whether the bill was endorsed
by Messrs. Lysaght and Smithet before c r
atter it beanie due. Messrs. Lysaght and Smithet, on the
trial of the cense, deposed that Admiral Lysaght hat' ad-
vanced them as much as 6,0001., and that the bOOl. bill in
question was one of the several ucurities that was set apart
for the purpose of suturing the repayment to the plaintiff of
the money which had been borrowed of him. Messes.Lyught
sad Smithet distinctly swore that although they could not
la the exact day when they endorsed the bill, still it was be-
kee it became due. On behalf of the defendant,amoogst other
witnesses, the notary's clerk who had copied the bill when
bought to his employer's office for the purpose of bring
need was called, and he stated that when he copied it the
eadoemeunt r f Messrs. Lyasght end Smithet was not upon
it. Mr. Duff, the notary, and his clerks also deposed
that it was the custom in the offices of notaries
to copy all the names upon a bill of exchange. Mr. New-
lin, also a notary, gave similar testimony. It was upon this
evidence, which had been adduced on behalf of the defend-
est, that the learned seek:sat now submitted that the jury
had given a perverse verdict, in finding that the hi!' was
ead-used to the plaintiff before it became due. The ground
upon which the learned serjeant moved to enter a nonsuit
was, that the notice of the dishonour of the bill was not a
I peed one, inasmuch as it was made by Messrs Lysaght and
Insithet in their own names, and was not a notice that could
I be taken es coming from the plaintiff.
The Court expressed their opinion that with respect to
the first point which had been raised for their
tenaideration the verdict could not be said to
be a peewees* one, because a question of fact
u,en which thine was contradictory evidence, was to be de-
aided, and the jury were the proper parties to judge of the
evidence. It could not be said to be a perverse verdict, be-
, cause the jury chose rather to infer that the notary's clerk
had made a mistake in copying the bill, than that Messrs.
Lyseight and Smithet had sworn what they knew to be false.
With regard to the aotke of dishonour not being a good one.
the Court thought that it was because as Meson. Lyaaght
and Smithet held this bill as the agents of the plaintiff, it was
competent for them to give the notice of dishonour is the
form they had done. Those gentlemen were also the prior
endorsers of the bill, and they could give notice of dishonour
in their own IllaUlea, usaemech as they stood in such a posi-
tion towards the plaintiff with respect to that bill that be
could have sued them upon it. The Court were of opinion,
under the circumstances of the ease, that no rule ought to be
,ranted.—Rule refused.