The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-01 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.--MAIDSTONE, July 31.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and a Special Jury.
DELEVANTE V. THE LONDON CHATHAM AND DOVER RAIL

WAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover damages for inju
ries that were alleged to have been sustained by the
plaintiffs from the negligence of the servants of the
defendants who denied their pleas that they were
guilty of any negligence, and also alleged that the
damage, if any had been sustained by the plaintiff,
, arose from his own want of care and caution.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Kaye were counsel
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr.
Round were for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, the Rev. Mr. Dele-
vante, is a clergyman of the Church of England,
and the curate of St. Saviour's, Chelsea, and it ap-
peared that, having occasion to go to Paris on the
10th of May, he took a first-class return ticket on
that day, at the Victoria Station, and proceeded to
his destination; and having transacted his busi-
ness he started to return home, and arrived at
Calais about half-past one o'clock on the morn-
ing of the 12th, and at once proceeded on board
the mail steamer Queen, belonging to the defen-
dants, which was about to start, proceeded to
Dover. To get to the vessel he had to
pass along a gangway from the quay, and when
he was on board,
.according to his evidence, ho
proceeded to the
chief cabin, but found that every.
seat was occupied, and he returned on deck, intend-
ing to pass the night there, and while looking for
a seat, it was alleged, that he walked into the sea
through the opening across which the temporary
gangway had been placed to enable passengers to
get on board the vessel. The plaintiff, it appeared,
struck out, as he was able to swim, and succeeded
in catching hold of the paddle box, and on an alarm
being given, he was assisted on board, and he now
claimed damages from the defendants for the injury
done to his clothes and to a watch he had in his
pocket, and also for the shock he had sustained
by being thrown suddenly into the sea under
the circumstances above narrated. It was con-
tended, on the part of the plaintiff, that the acci-
dent had arisen from the negligence of the defen-
dants in removing the gangway, and in not having
lights to show the opening. The evidence, how-
ever, that was adduced on the part of the company
put an entirely different aspect upon the affair, and
from the testimony of numerous witnesses it ap-
peared that at the time in question, so far from
the gangway having been removed, passengers were
actually still coming on board, and that two men
were stQnding with lights close to the spot, and it
was alleged that the plaintiff had actually pushed
past one of these men to get to the place where
he fell, and that the accident was entirely resulting
from his own imprudence and want of caution. It
was 41110 stated that when tia Corm was giyen, and

the plaintiff was discovered clinging to the paddle-
box, the first thing he said was to make an inquiry
about his hat and umbrella, and he was told that it
would be time to think about these things when he
was safe himself ; and it was alleged that after he
had been assisted into the
vessel he me de use of ex-
pressions that it was througi.;
11,* own fi,Ault that the
accident occured.

Mr. Baron Bramwell having sum,Tned uc,
The jury almost immediately retuaied a verdict
for the defendants.

MALFORD V. CHILD.

This was also a special jury cause.
The action was brought to recover damages for a
nuisance occasioned by an extensive brick manu-
factory belonging to the defendant at -Bromley.
Mr. l3ovill, Q.C., Mr. Denman Q.C., and Mr.
Prentice, were for the plaintiff; Mr. Lush, Q.O ,
Mr. J. Browne, and Mr. Matthew were for the
defendant•
The plaintiff in this action is a gentleman, resid-
ing at Bromley, where he has recently built a large
mansion, and alleged that the defendant, by the
manner in which he carried on his manufacture of
bricks in the neighbourhood, and the smells and
other annoyances occasioned thereby, was guilty of
a nuisance. 1.1.1 e defence that appeared to be set
up was that the place in question had alvvays been
used as a brick-field, and that te laintiff was per-
fectly well aware of tht:t fact before he cam e to the
neighbourhood.
The jury, after a long un;
nteresting re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff

(Before Mr. Baron Martin and S?e;cial Juries,)
MENNEL V. THE MAYOR AND CORPOitATIO' vx

ROCHESTER.
This was an action by the plaintiff, who is a
shipowner at Whitby, to recover damages from the
defendants for having, as was alleged, in their cha-
racter of conservators of the River Medway, used
defective and improper moorings, whereby one of
his vessels received injury. The defendants denied
by their pleas that they had been guilty of negli-
gence, and also alleged that the damage had been
occasioned by the anchor belonging to the vessel.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. F. J. Smith, and Mr. Biron
were for the plaintiff; Mr. Denman, Q.C. Mr.
Prentice, and Mr. Lumley Smith were for the de-
fendants.

This cause lasted for several hours, but the facts
were very simple. In August last the corporation
of Rochester had made arrangements that certain
newly-patented moorings should be placed in the
Medway at Rochester, and the work was certified
as being completed on the 15th of October. On
the 28tn of October a vessel called the Tanner was
fastened to the buoy attached to these moorings,
and as the tide fell it was alleged that she grounded
upon a portion of them that was two feet six
above the surface instead of being completely under-
ground, and a hole was made in her, and she sank
and received considerable damage. With regard
to the plea of the defendants, that the injury had
been caused by the vessel's own anchor, several
witnesses swore that at the time the accident h ap-
pened the anchor was hanging over the bows, so
that this could not have been the case.

Mr. Denman made a very able address to the
jury on behalf of the defendants, contending that
they had done all that could reasonably be expected
of persons in their position, and that no negligence
had been established against them. He called no
witnesses.
Mr. Baron Martin in summing up said, that the
only question for the jury was whether it had been
made out by the plaintiff that the defendants had not
used proper care and caution with regard to the moor-
ing apparatus that had been placed in the river that
was under their control. He said that the defen-
dants were not insurers, and that they did not
undertake to prevent accidents. All that the
law required was that they should use reason-
able care and caution with reference to proceedings
of this description, and unless it was made out by
the plaintiff that they had not done so he could not
recover.

The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, the damages to be the sub-
ject of reference, but the defendants had leave to
move the Court upon some points of law.

PRALL V. HAYWARD.

This was an action of slander.

Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Bovill Q.C., and Mr. F, J. Smith
for the defendant.

The parties to this action were professional men,
residing at Rochester, and both hold an official po-
sition in that city, the plaintiff being clerk to the
magistrates, a situation which he has held a great
many years, the defendant being clerk of the peace.
The slander complained of consisted of an allegation
that the plaintiff had neglected his duty in refer-
ence to his not having supplied the copy of the de-
positions against a prisoner who had been commit-
ted for trial in sufficient time to enable him to pre-
pare his defence.
When the case had been partly gone into,
Mr. Baron Martin said he thought the plaintiff
was quite justified in taking steps to vindicate his
character, and that this had been sufficiently accom-
plished, and it was not necessary to proceed further
with the inquiry.
Mrs Lush said the plaintiff had no other object
than to vindicate his character, and after the inti-
mation given by his lordship he was perfectly satis-
fied.

It was then arranged that a juror should be with-
drawn, his lordship observing that both parties had
acted most properly in the matter.
These assizes were brought to a conclusion about
six o'clock.