The Express.
London, England, 1868-07-02 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

After termvNi.i Prius Sittings at Ouildliall.—(Before
the Lord Chief Justice and a Sptvial Jury.)
ALLAN r. PUITISII AND PoUMW N MAILINIC
1N:1111AM:it COMPANY (I,11401'ND) .
. .

'l•he further hearing of this ease Wali relumol this
111011011 g.
Mr. tserjciiiit Parry, Mr. Baker t retitle, and Mr. rtat'cr
lt:gby counsel fur the plitinthf. Mr. Serpiant
?dr. Milward, (1.41., Mr. Henry Juales, and Mr.
Chat Icn liuw•ll appeared for the defendants.
'I lic plaintiff having closed his ease with the evidence
Call( 41 yestai tiny,
hir. tsci jetint liallontine intimated he should call no
wituci-sos for the defence. . .

Mr. iserjetud Parry then summed up the plaintiff's case.
Ile 1.6,1 could only be tainted upon clear proof of
firma, and the onus of that proof was on the defendants.
'1 hey had declined the challenge, and intended to rely on
SIMIC discrepancy in the evidence, the peculiarities of the
plaintiff, or the prejudices that might exist in this
country against him. The plaintiff relied with confidence
upon en English jury; and ho had selected to have
Ins ease tried by twelve commercial men of the City
of London, rather than at Westminster or Surrey.
A learned judge had said that solid evidence was of
tar greater value than criticism, however ably urged by
learned counsel; and therefore he (Mr. Serjeant Parry)
asked them to consider the evidence in all its bearings,
and try it by the only test that should be applied to it ;
and, having done that, he submitted they could
have no doubt whatever that the plaintiff
was entitled to recover in this action. Risk
Allah came from the East, and if they tried
him as they would a native Engliahman with all the
habits and customs of the country, they would unfairly
try the plaintiff. They all knew that nothing was more
common in the East than for Orientals to carry their
money about with them, having no faith in banks as de-
poeitones for money. There was clear proof that Risk
Allah had the property, which negatived the idea
of a fraudulent schema He could not be
presented to them as a man utterly unworthy of credit,
for he had proved his connexions and dealings with men
of respectability, both in London and on the Continent.
It was not because a foreigner did something contrary to
their experiences that he was to be branded with fraud
without • tittle of evidence being brought against
him, nothing was more natural than that the plaintiff
should wish to save 301. or 401. by insuring the mono
rather than by transmitting it through a banker at •• high
rate of commission. The evidence clearly proved that it
was usual for that to be done when the exchange was in
favour of the sender, and he could save money by it. Re
denied that Riek Allah was the adventurer the defendants
wished to represent him, and that being a man of consum-
mate ability he bad wrested his talent from its proper
channel to rob and plunder other people. The company
declined the risk and responsibility of putting the "group"
on board, and as to the imputation that the parcel did not
contain the money, was it likely a man who intended to
commit a fined would attempt to make up the " group "
openly as the plaintiff did, and hand it to the bank clerk (who
could immediately have pulled it to pieoes), to see it was
properly done.? The whole of the evidence taken by com-
1111k151011 at Constantinople proved that Risk Allah acci-
dentally fell into the Bosphorus, said that ho narrowly
escaped with hie life.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, in replying upon the case, said
Risk Allah Bey had no right to complain of the treatment
of this country, for whether Turk or Christian, a foreigner
received impartial. justice in our English courts. The de-
fendants relied in this case upon a close analysis of
the plaintiff's evidence and that produced in sup-
port of his case. It was the most extraor-
dinary case that had ever been brought into
a court of justice, whether as one of con-
summate fraud or entire honesty. If fraudulent
it bad been carried out by an ingenuity and refine-
ment of fraud they had seldom witnessed—a matter long
contemplated before its actual completion—surrounded by
every element which defeated...justice, to be perfected by
the evidence of the plaintiff, which might be de-
scribed, if untrue, as the refinement of perjury.
The mode in which the plaintiff had given his evidence
might easily deceive ordinary minds in inquiring into the
truth of his statement, and bring them to a wrong con-
clusion.
[The learned counsel was proceeding when our report
left.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Prins in London.—(Before Mr. Justice
Bytes and a Common Jury.)

WALDROX V. BLIENDALE.
The plaintiff in this case was an omnibus conductor, and
he sued to recover damages from Mesers. Pickford and Co.
for serious injuries suffered through the negligence of one
of their vau drivers.
Mr. D. Seymour, (.1.C., and Mr. Pope appeared 'for the
plaintiff; Mr. Gifford, Q.C., and Mr. Watkin Williams
for the defendant.
On the 10th March last the plaintiff was behind a
Brixton omnibus when it stopped to pick up passengers
opposite Craig's-court, Charing-cross. A Camden-town
minibus was behind, and that stopped also.
There Wee a cpon the near aide, and at this moment
the van came salong, and in passing between the cart and
the omnibuses, it caught the fore wheel of the Camden,
town omnibus, forced it on, and drove the pole against
the plaintiff's right leg. The consequence was a compound
fracture of both bones. He was taken to Charing-cross Hos-
pital, where the bones were set, but the soft parts
had been so involved with the broken bones that the
doctors thought that the plaintiff would not again be able
to follow any employment requirin,gmuch ezertionormuch
standingon the limb, because such a course of life
would produce what they called ulcered leg. The
plain • was now only able to move about on two crutches,
and it was said that it would be twelve months more
before he would be able to follow any employment what-
ever. He would also have for life what was technically
called a "crooked leg," the defect being that the bones
hail been so set as to make the leg too straight.
The main question intim cause was whether the accident
tad happened through the negligence of the defendant's
driver. 'l'he plaintiff 's case was that the van was driven
carelessly, and that the mischief was entirely due to this.
Oa the other band, it was said that the cause of the
accident was that, just as the van was passing through,
the driver of the Camden-town omnibus pulled his horses
out and endeavoured to pass before the van.
The jury, after considering the question of damages for
a few minutes, found for the plaintiff for 4001.
The defendant's counsel applied for a stay of execution
upon the ground that the damages were excessive, but his
lordship said that he must confirm the finding and decline
to interfere.

COURT OF PROBATB AND DIVORCE..
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde and a Special Jury.)
JON FA) V. LANS AND !MACS:ILAN.
The hearing of this probate case was resumed this
morning.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram were counsel for
the plaintiffs; and Mr. H. T. Cole and Mr. Lopes for the
defendants.
On the part of the defendants several additional wit-
norms wore called. Among those were Mr. George Henry
Burgess, who is clerk to Mr. Spackman, who was ex-
amined the previous day, and who was one of the attesting
witnesses to the bill of the 17th October and the codicil of
the 12th November,lB66, and saw the testator execute both.
Ile corroborated Mr. Bpackman' s evidence as to what took
place on the occasion of the execution of both these docu-
ments. On the will being read over to the testator, Mrs.
JOllOl urged that some cottage property, a printing press,
and some books which she had purchased, and which she
said she valued more than her life, should be left to
her absolutely, and not as provided by the will. To that
the testutor assented ; but the title-deeds of the cottage
property not being then forthcoming, the alteration could
not be thou made, and it was arranged that what Mrs.
Jones desired should be provided for by a codicil.
Such, however, was never done to his knowledge.
Mr. Charles John Jones, a nephew of the testator's,
who takes the real property after Mrs. Jones death, and
a third of the personalty under the will of the 17th
October, set up by the defendants, was next called,
and stated the intimate relations which subeiated
between him and the testator, who had brought him
up and educated him after his father's death. After
his uncle was taken ill, the plaintiff endeavoured to pre-
vent his seeing his uncle,bui he forced his way into the
boom in order to do so. Hisunele told him that he had exe-
cuted the will on the 17th October, and also the purport of
it. On the 11th November following he forced his way into
his uncle's bedroom, upon which Mrs. Jones followed him,
and in her presence he asked his uncle whether M. Jones
had made kiznelfn anything, to which his uncle replied
thatihe had • .nothing.
[The case was proceeding when our report left.]

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Bofors Yr. Commierioner Winslow.)
IN NZ RASP= werramarszna
The bankrupt, who will be remembered u a former can-
didate for the representation of
wrier of
was described
as a rasriufacturer of waahing-powder, of Bow, since acting
as manager of rice mills at Dublin. At • former
rifting, for chaos of assignees, a woof for 11,2521. was
tendered *fret the Waite. ohleay m respect of cella by
the Okla ablator of " Barre Theivetzwie (Limited),"