The Sun.
London, England, 1855-12-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lords Justices of Appeal.)
BAKER V. BAKER.-JUDGMENT.

Their Lordships gave judgment this morning in this
case, which came before them upon appeal from the de-
cision of the Master of the Rolls, by which he declared
that, upon the true construction of the will of a gentle-
man named George Baker, his widow was entitled out of
his estate to an annuity of 2001. before the testator's
mother and sister took anything. The testator by his
will appointed his elder brother, the plaintiff, a trustee
for all the property he possessed in trust to sell it, and
out of the proceeds to pay to his widow an annuity of
2001. as long as she should live or remain his widow,
and upon her death or second marriage it was to be
equally divided among his brothers and an only sister.
The property Wai not sufficient to pay the annuity to
the widow, and in this state of circumstances it was
contended that the true construction of the will must
be to create the relation of tenant for life and remain-
der man, and not that of annuitant and residuary
legatee. The Master of the Rolls held that the widow
was entitled to be paid her annuity before any other
member of the testator's family took any interest in the
fund, and from that decision the brothers and sister of
the testator appealed.
The Lord JUstice Knight Bruce was of opinion that
the judgment of the Master of the Rolls was correct,
and that the appeal ought to be dismissed.
The Lord Justice Turner was of a contrary opinion.
The result of this difference is that the judgment of
the Master of the Rolls is affirmed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord Campbell and a

Special Jury.)

GOODHALL AND ANOTHER V. HYDE AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, trier-
()bents and sugar factors, carrying on business in _the
City, against the defendants, underwriters at Lloyd's,
to recover damages on the average loss on two poli-
cies of insurance on a cargo of sugar, shipped in the
Queen Bee at Bahia, for delivery at any port in
Europe. The policies of insurance were in the usual
terms, free from damage or loss to the extent of S
per cent. Previous to the arrival of the ship, the
plaintiffs sold the cargo through a London merchant
to the Netherland sugar Refinery at Amsterdam, for
7,486/. 9s. 3d., exclusive of freight. On the voyage
the ship encountered bad weather, and a portion of
the cargo was washed out of the vessel. At Amster-
dam, the deficiency of the cargo was ascertained to
be 19 per cent. from all circumstances, 12 per cent.
of it damaged by cater. The present action was
brought to assess the real amount of damage for which
the defendants were liable.

The Jary had not returned their verdict when we
went to press.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
DEWES V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an at-
torney residing at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, and also deputy
clerk of the county court and clerk to the divisional jus-
tices of Leicester and Derby, to recover damages of the
defendants for injuries received on their railway.
It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff and
his wife arrived at Leicester on the 2d January, on their
WAY to London, and had to wait there some time in
consequence of the up express train being late. An
accident bad occurred that night on the railway between
Ullathorpe and Rugby, whereby a horse-box had been
thrown across the rails, which, not being removed by
the time the express train came up, ran into it with con-
siderable violence. The collision threw the plaintiff and
his wife forward, and by the rebound the plaintiff had
come in contact with the back of the carriage, c tusing
considerable concussion of the brain. Mrs. Dawes
also received considerable injury. All the bones in
her stays were broken, and her knee was so much
injured that sbe had Lem unable to kneel since.
After some considerable delay the train proceeded to
Rugby, when they were visited by a medical gentleman
named Dickinson. He did not call on them the follow-
ing day, and they proceeded on Co town by the three
o'clock train, when, being unable to transact his
business, from the injuries the plaintiff had received,
they returned to their homes. Since that time the plain-
tiff had suffered considerably. He was unable to attend
to business or suffer the least noise.
The defendants did not dispute the accident, or the
injuries received by the plaintiff, and the question was
the assessment of damages.

The jury hal not returned their verdict when our
parcel was despatched.

COMMON PLEAS.

(Before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury.)
WELLS AND WISE V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a per-
son in humble circumstances, to recover damages from
the defendants for injuries received by his wile, from the
alleged neglect of the company's servants.
It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff's wife
that she went to the Paddington station on the sth July,
to inquire for several packages that had been forwarded
to her by rail. Whilst there, she accompanied the clerk
and a porter to one of the warehouses to look for the
articles, and then stepped on to what she afterwards
discovered was an " hydraulic lift," used for conveying
goods up and down from one floor to the other, which
immediately commenced ascending, and in her fright
she screamed out and jumped off, and severely injured
her leg aid side. Medical and other evidence was called,
who proved the nature of the injuries received by Mrs.
Wells, and her confinement to her house for many
weeks. She was not now entirely recovered, and she
would always feel the consequences of the injuries from
exertion.
The defence was, that the accident complained of did
not arise from the neglect of the defendants' servants,
but the conduct of Mrs. Wells. When the clerk and
porter went with her to the warehouse, she was directed
to stand on the " hydraulic lift," and was placcl be-
tween them to be taken to the upper rooms of the
warehouse in search of the articles ; at the same time
being told not to feel alarmed, as all was safe. AE soon,
however, as the "lift" began to move, Mrs. Marks
was frightened and jumped off the " lift," whereby she
received the injuries complained of.

..
- - The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages
51.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.;

SOUTHWARK.
A !igALTLTING THE POLlCE.—Daniel Driscoll, a ruffianly
looking fellow, who has been several times convicted for
committing serious and cowardly assaults on the police,
was brought before Mr. A'Beckett charged as follows :
Police Constable 101 M said he was on duty in
Tooley•street about eleven o'clock last night when he
saw the prisoner drunk and disorderly, and collecting a
mob in the street. He went up to him and told him to
go home quietly, when he made use of an oath and re-
fused. Perceiving that he was making more noise he
told him he must take him to the station house, when
he struck him several times, and would have hurt him
had not another constable come to his assistance.
Mr. A Beckett fined him 10s. or seven days' imprison•
meat.