The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-09 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before Lord
Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
SPECIAL JURYMEN AND THEIR FEES.

At the sitting of the Court a special juryman
summoned in the case of Zychlinski v. Maltby com-
plained to the Court that on two previous occasions
the jury had been summoned, but at the last mo-
ment the cause had been withdrawn. The same
thing had now happened again, and he submitted
that it was hard that the jury should have re-
peatedly to attend without receiving any fee ; for
if they had failed to attend they would probably
have been fined £lO each.

The Lord Chief Justice said he felt the hardship
of the case, and he could assure the jurymen that
he exercised all the power which the law gave him
in favour of jurors, and when that was exhausted
he often tried his powers of persuasion, though fre-
quently without effect. If he were consulted upon
the subject by those who made the law he would
suggest that they should give to the judge power to
order payment of fees in such cases as had been re-
ferred to.

FOSTER V. THE BANK OF LONDON-DISCLOSING A
CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT.

This was an action to recover damages in conse-
quence of the state of the plaintiff's account at the
bank having been disclosed, which led to the ba-
lance being drawn out in payment of a bill of
exchange.

Mr. Lush appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Bovill and Mr. J. Brown for the defendants.

The plaintiff was a young man, who at the time
the action was brought was under age, but still he
bad been in business as a merchant, and had kept
an account at the Bank of London. The short facts
were that Messrs. La Perre de Ros and Co., in con-
sequence of some dispute with the plaintif, saw fit
to present an acceptance of his for £542, which had
been for a long time in their hands, and was consi-
derably overdue. The cashier at the bank replied
that t here were not sufficient funds ; but the assis-
tant manager, who stood by, said " How can that
be, there was plenty of money this morning."
Some other words passed, from which the state of
the account was gathered, and the gentleman who
presented the bill asked whether if £lO4 were paid
into the plaintiff's account the bill would be paid,
and being answered " Yes," he paid in that sum,
and in that way drew out nearly the whole of the
plaintiff's balance.
In the course of the address of the defendant's
counsel, the case, in consequence of an intimation
from the jury, was stopped, and a verdict was en-
tered for the plaintiff for £438.

- -
It was submitted, as a matter of law, that there
was no duty on the part of a banker not to disclose
the state of a customer's account.

The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion
that there was such a duty, and he also thought
that it was a question for the jury, and they had
expressed their opinion, but he would reserve leave
to move the court.
PENNY V. MANN.—ASSAIILT.
This was an action by a servant girl to recover
damages for an assault ; and the circumstances have
been already before the public in an action against
Dr. Clarke, her master, who had given a certificate
that she was a lunatic. The present action was
against Miss Mann, Mrs. Clarke 's sister, who acted
as housekeeper in the doctor's establishment.
Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr.
Huddleston and Mr. Barrow for the defendant.
The plaintiff's case was that in 1860 she was in
the service of Dr. Clarke, of Staines, and that in
Nlarch of that year she was about to leave; and, in
consequence of some words between Mrs. Clarke,
Miss Mann, and the plaintiff, they insisted upon
searching her boxes, and when they got upstairs
they locked the door, all three being in the room.
Some words took place, when the plaintiff said that
Miss Mann had worried her, and Miss Mann there-
upon struck her on the side of the head. When the
door was opened plaintiff ran downstairs for assist-
ance, but was pursued by Miss Mann, who seized
her, and with violence prevented her going out.
Mrs. Clarke also threatened to strike her with the
surgery fireirons, even if she killed her. The plain-
tiff was held down at the bottom of the stairs by
the two ladies until two men came in. Her hair
was all down, and she was scratched end bruised,
the bruises being seen for several days.
In cross-examination she said that she told Miss
Mann that she would do no more work there. She
did not lay hold of Miss Mann until she caught
hold of witness. Miss Mann called her sister, say-
ing that witness was killing her. Witness did not
say that she would kill Mrs. Clarke also. She did
not bite through Miss Mann's hand, but she might
have bruised her in the struggle.
Re-examined—She used no more violence than
was necessary in self-defence.
John Laver, a policeman, said he was called in.
Miss Mann showed him a mark round her wrist,
saying it was in consequence of the plaintiff biting
her. There were no teeth-marks, and it looked
like the result of a grasp, He saw no assault, but
two men were holding her. Her comb was broken
in three pieces, and her shoulder was so hurt she
could hardly move her arm. Plaintiff said Miss
Mann had struck her.

' Mr. Huddleston said that on the day in question
the plaintiff's conduct was very strange and excit-
able, and ultimately she, in a most infuriated state,
seized Miss Mann, bit her, and threatened to kill
her. Neither Mrs. Clarke nor Miss Mann had
touched the plaintiff, except to restrain her violence
until they could get some assistance.
Plaintiff
Miss Mann said that, having heard a ring at the
bell, they asked the plaintiff what it was. Plaintiff
question
said, (.: It is somebody for me ;" and,
being repeated, she said that she was awes a thief, and
said she imagined they thought she osnno liar. She
said she would
in a few minutes she returnhede;
boxes searched, fetch a policeman and havet
see the contents of the
un-
less they went with hell'
;went. The door was not
boxes. To pacify
their faces, saying, " Is that
article after artice
locked. She tumlbhl.eenrdtthee things out, and held up
oi ur's ?" The plaintiff was very
your's ?" " I s that .
U. t to put them all in the
insolent ; she said she shoould do no more work there,
and that she was go.ng‘ D , n
Don t go out in that way,
the plaintiff seized her by the neck, and
hereuPon
sskihisletl aiwnn ; ei
w
papers.
was very much alarmed. Witness called for as
said, ,
and her sister came and said, " You are
my sister." She then flew at Mrs. Clarke and
kicked her. She bit witness's hand, and the mark
was still there. She said, "Let me get up upstairs,
won't I smash your Windows and jump out." They

sent the nurserymaid fora policeman, but as one could
not be found, they sent next door to Mr. Rogers, tho
plumber, and one of his young men came, but she was
so violent that he said, " Go and fetch One of my
mates," and the two held her by the we ists. Witness
never struck the plaintiff, but she held her because
they were afraid of her violence.

Cross-examined—When the plumber's men came
the plaintiff knelt clown to pray, as she said, but
her language was incoherent. She implored the
nursemaid to go for a surgeon or gravedigger and a
priest, and said she was to be buried that night, and
that the nursemaid was to be prepared to be buried
with her. (Laughter.)
The jury at this point of the evidence stopped the
case, and found a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Beforce Sir C. Cresswell.)
RE TIIE GRAND DUCHESS OF BADEN.

Dr. Philiimore applied to the Court to grant pro-
bate in this case. A similar application had been
made to the Court some time ago, but his lordship
declined to accede to the request then made, for th©
reason that the Court desired to be informed how
the question was affected by the state of the law at
Baden. The will bore date the 19th July, 1841, and
the testatrix appointed each of her three daughters
—Princess Wasa, Princess Hohenzollern, and the
Duchess of Hamilton and Brandon—executrix lega-
tees. Probate was asked for that portion of the pro-
perty which was in England. The question was
whether a will so made had been revoked by certain
expressions contained in it. An affidavit was put in
made by Mr. E. Zimmerman, a learned German
jurisconsult, which set forth that, according to the
law of Baden, a will, to be valid, must be signed by
two notaries and two witnesses, or by one notary
and four witnesses, or by six witnesses. It further
stated that the present instrument would be held
good, according to the law of Baden, as proof of the
execution of a testamentary disposition. There was
no doubt it was the intention of the deceased to
leave her English property one way and her foreign
property another7s s s

-Sir C. Cresswell—l think you may take probate.
It was only desired by the Court to be informed
how far the instrument might have been affected by
the law of Baden. That information being supplied,
I think whatever difficulty at first presented itself
is removed.