The Express.
London, England, 1861-05-31 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-MAY 30.

Sittings at Nisi Prins at Westminster— (Before Mr. Justice
Hill and Common Juries.)

IMAM V. LITCH AND ANOTEMR. —TIIF. sIDLEHEDLNI.ILUI

This was an action for assault. The defendants pleaded
not guilty.
Mr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. Kenealey were counsel for the
plaintiff ; the defendants appeared in person.
The Renault iu question arose out of the circumstances re-
lative to the charges made against the Rev. Mr. Shipway by
certain members of the Baptist congregation at Bible-
hedinglam, Essex. The ill-feeling between the parties
had not yet subsided, and the congregation was divided into
two sections—one hewn desirous that Mr. Shipway should
be superseded by Mr. Boxer, and the other that Mr. Ship-
way should he reinstated pastor. On the 30th December
last notice was given of a church meeting to be held imme-
diately after divine service. At the conclusion of the service
the defendant Letch (whom one of the trustees) proceeded,
at Mr. Boxer's suggestion, to clear the chapel. He directed
Ames, the other defendant, to remove the plaintiff's wife
from the chapel, and in so doing it was alleged he caught
hold of her by the arm and struck her on the back.
The learned Judge said it was mach to be regretted
that these quarrels should have occur red between members
of the s►me religious body. There was a Chancery suit
pending, and under the circumstances he thought the attor-
neys ought to have recommended peace and have prevented
Mr. Serje►nt Shee said that as the defendants hail not
expresses' regret for their conduct (which was the worse
from having occurred in a place of worship) there was no
other course open to the plaintiff but to bring this actioo.
The defendants severally addressed the jury, denying the
assault complained of.
The learned Judge, in summing up the mais to the jury,
observed that the action was not brought till March for an
ansult committed in the December previous, which looked
very much like an attempt to obtain what might be chaise-
tensed as a kind of party triumph.
The jury returned& verdict for the plaintiff—damages one
farthing.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-MAY 30.

Bittiop is Basco. —(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie aad
Justices Williams, %%Ilea aod Bries.l

TUX IiOUTH WALVI RAI! way CONFAB% r. HEDDIAS.-1110ITT8

OP RAILWAY COMPANIES.
The defendant in this ease had entered into en agreement
with the plaintiffs to carry goods and passengers for them
from Milford Haven to Ireland; and the plaintiffs alleged
in their declaration that in consequence of oneof the defend-
ant's vessels not being properly found and worked the plain-
tiffs had to pay for certain golds lost. The question now
raised for the court upon demurrer was whether the plain-
tiffs bad a right to book passengers and goods beyond the
limits of their line, and on to Ireland.
Mr. Lush appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Honyman
for the defendant.
The Court thought that there was nothing in the Com-
pany's Act to prevent them doing as they had done, and that
there was no doubt that when the company was formed the
legislature intended that one of the principal things would
be the conveyance of passengers awl goods to Ireland.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.