The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-06 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice Erie
and Justices Williams, Byles, and Keating.)

ALDRIDGE V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

Mr. M. Smith said that t.hjscase was tried before
Mr. Justice Byles, at Guildhall, when the verdict
was for the plaintiff, for the agreed amount of
£2O, subject to the opinion of the Court upon
a question of law. The circumstances were
these :—The plaintiff was a fruit merchantin
the Borough, and he was in the habit of having
fruit sent up from various parts of the country in
baskets and barrels. The plaintiff sent back some
empty baskets and barrels from London to Tiver-
ton, and according to the usual practice nothing
was charged for conveying them. The things were
carried all right whilst they continued upon the
defendants' line, but when they got off the line, and
before arriving at their destination, delay occurred.
The defendants were now sued for damages for
this delay, and two questions were raised—first,
whether the defendants could be made liable for
delay, considering that they had received no pay-
ment for carrying the goods, and that they inserted
in the ticket upon which they carried them the
condition that they would not be liable for any
damage to articles c irried free of charge; and, se-
condly, whether they were liable for delay which
did not occur on their own line.

- Mr. Justice Byles said it had been held that
when a person was injured upon a line, the com-
pany which issued his ticket was liable, even though
the accident did not happen upon their own line.
Rule granted.
LOCK Y. MATTHEWS.—ACQUIRING TITLE TO LAND.
This was an action of ejectment to recover pos-
session of a piece of land, and at the trial before
Mr. Justice Keating, at Wells, the verdict was sub-
stantially for the defendant.
Sir F. Slade now moved for a rule to enter a
verdict for the plaintiff, and stated that the circum-
stances were these. The land in question was
about six acres in extent, and was formerly part of
the manor of Wilscombe, of which, in 1830, Mr.
Beadon was the lord. In that year an inclosure act
passed, and of course a portion of the land was
allotted to the lord, and the plaintiff's ancestor,
who had been employed in draining the manor,
enclosed the land in question, which was then
worthless, and by h is labour erected a house and con-
siderably improved the land, of which he continued
in undisturbed pcsses.sion from 1830 to 1856, with-
out paying any rent, or otherwise acknowledging
title in anybody 'else. In 1840 Mr. Beadon sold the
manor to Lord Ashburton, under whom defendant
_
claimed. file learned counsel submitted thatrmore,
old
Mr. Lock, having had possession, as he had, for
than 20 years, had acq a stuired, under theSttao btlue in
Statute of
Limitations, the 3 and 4 Wm. IV.,
was, that a
defeasible title. The defendant's case atu
certain conversation which occurred in 16_45. de-
stroyed any right of the plaintiff. Mr. Milton

Rule granted.
KENNEDY T. BROITN AND WIPE.—THE SWINFEN CASE.
The matter was before the court last term. It
will be remembered that Mr. Kennedy, a barrister,
acted on behalf of Mrs. Swinfen in her litigation in
reference to her claims to the Swinfen estate, the
result of which was that she recovered the property .
Subsequently to this she married Mr. Broun, the de-
fendant, and the present action wH3 brought against
he: and her husband to recover £20,000 upon "an
account stated," which was founded upon the ser-
vices rendered by Mr. Kennedy. The case came on
for trial before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn at War-
wick, when the verdict was for the plaintiff for
£20,000, but subsequently a rule was obtained to
enicr a nonsuit upon certain points of law, or for a
new trial misdirection, or that the verdict was
against the weigL: of evidence. The principal ques-
tion of law raised was, wIN ether services rendered by
a barrister can be made the e;.:bject of an account
stated. Last term Mr. Kennedy- wa: heard at some
length in showing cause against the rule, and the
case came on again to-day.
The Lord Chief Justice said that he was very sorry
that in consequence of the same judges not being
present now as were on the bench last term, it would
be necessary to begin the arguments over again.
Mr. Kennedy'accordingly recapitulated the facts
of the case et great length, and had not completed
the statement when the court rose.
The further hearing was adjourned.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.
OAKHAM V. OAKHAM AND OGDEN.

In this case the plaintiff disputed an instrument,
purporting to be the last will and testament of his
cousin, Mr. James Oakham, a retired butcher, who
resided at Wimbledon, Surrey, and possessed con-
siderable property in land and in the funds. The
plaintiff alleged that the testator was not of sound
mind, that the will was not duly executed, and pro-
pounded a prior will.
Mr. W. E. Ward appeared for the plaintiff, and
Dr. Swabey and Mr. Boyle for the defendants.
Witnesses were called, who deposed to the com-
petency of the testator when he executed the will
in dispute, which was dated January, 1855, and by
which he made some alterations in the previous
disposition of his estate, including an increase in an
annuity to his housekeeper. One of the witnesses
said that the lady thanked the testator for the altera-
tion in her favour, to which he replied," You richly
deserve it." All the witnesses examined in support
of the will testified to the sanity of the testator,
and one of them described him as a very acute per-
son in business matters.

On the other side the plaintiff, his wife, and ano-
ther witness were examined,and merely proved that
the testator had an attack of paralysis in 1855, sub-
sequent to the execution of the will.
Sir C. Cresswell said he regretted that the plain-
tiffs should have spent their money in endeavour-
ing, without any ground whatever, to fix perjury
on respectable parties. He felt bound to decree pro-
bate of the will of 1855, and to condemn the plain-
tiffs in the costs of the suit.