The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-18 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie,
and Justices Willes, Byles, and Keating )

VAN TOLL V. THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.-

LOSS OF JEWELLERY.

The plaintiff in this case had recovered a verdict
for £2O for jewellery lost out of a bag deposited at
the cloak-room, London-bridge ; and the question
was whether a verdict should be entered for the de-
fendants upon the ground that they were protected
from liability by a condition printed upon the back
of the ticket handed to the plaintiff, and which said
that they would not be liable for parcels worth
more than £lO unless the nature of such parcels
was declared. The matter was argued yesterday,
and the court now gave judgment.
The Lord Chief Justice said in addition to the
notice being printed upon the back of the ticket, a
large printed copy was stuck up in the office. The
plaintiff said that she did not see the large one, and
no one asked whether she had read that upon the
ticket. Looking however at all the circumstances
and at the reasonable nature of the condition, he
thought that it must be taken that the plaintiff had
notice of it. The main contention on the part of
the plaintiff was that the companl- had received the
goods as common carriers, and that as they had not
complied with the conditions in the 7th section of
the Railway and Canal Traffic Act in reference to
the " receiving, forwarding, and delivering" goods,
they were absolutely liable. The court however was
of opinion that they did not receive the parcel in
their character of common carriers, and that they
were entitled to make special terms in reference to
their liability. _ _ _

Rule absolute to enter a verdict for the defen.
dants.

MASON V. HEATH.-PHOTOGRAPHIC LIKENESS OF
THE LATE PRINCE CONSORT.

The plaintiff in this case was a publisher of pho-
tographic likenesses in Paternoster-row, and the
defendant, a photographic artist, was a member
of the firm of Murray and Heath, in Piccadilly.
The action was to recover two negative portraits
of his late Royal Highness, and at the trial be-
fore the Lord Chief Justice, at Guildhall, there
was contradictory evidence as to whether the
plaintiff was to have one or two negatives, and
there was also a difference as to what the plain-
tiff should pay, he offering five guineas for two
negatives, and the defendant demanding fifteen
guineas for one. The jury found that there was no
contract that the plaintiff should have two nega-
tives, but they said that they thought he should
have one of them upon payment of five guineas.
In answer to his lordship, the jury added that they
thought that there was a contract that one negative
should be delivered to the plaintiff, and leave was
therefore reserved to him to move to amend the
record and to enter a verdict for himself.

Mr. M. Smith now moved pursuant to this leave.

The Lord Chief Justice, in granting the rule,
suggested that some arrangement should be come
to to carry out the suggestion made by the jury.
Rule granted.
WILLIAMSON V. THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.-THE CLAYTON TUNNEL ACCI-
DENT.

The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries sus-
tained by the Clayton Tunnel accident, and the com-
pany haying paid £4OO into court, the jury found a
verdict in their favour, thinking this amount suffi-
cient compensation.
Mr. Sergeant Shee now moved for a rule for a
new trial.
The Lord Chief Justice, however, stopped him,
that he knew all about the case, he hav-
by saying
ing been informed of the circumstances, believing
that the action was in the Court of Queen's Bench;
for he should not have talked over the matter if he
had known that he should have to deal with it
Mr. Sergeant Shee said he was glad that his lord-
ship knew the circumstances, for he believed that
was for the interest of both parties.
The Lord Chief Justice communicated with his
learned brothers, and afterwards said that as there
was some personal matter involved they would
grant a rule without having the circumstances fur-
ther stated.

Mr. Sergeant Shee said he was not aware of any
personal matter except a misunderstanding between
him and a learned friend as to:a statement of fact.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the granting of
a rule would probably lead to a settlement.
Rule granted.
STAGG V. ELLIOTT.-ALLEGED FORGERY.
This was an action to recover the amount of a
bill of exchange purporting to be accepted for the
defendant by his son, George Elliott; and the ques-
tion at the trial was whether George Elliott had
accepted the bill, or whether the acceptance was
forged by a person named Bradley. The evidence
was of a very conflicting character, but ultimately
the jury found for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Shee now moved for a rule for a
new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was
weight_ of evidence,
against the and he also sub-
mitted this question of law. George Elliott, it
was admitted, had authority to accept bills for his
father in the course of trade, but the bill in question,

according to the statement of Bradley, was not
accepted in the way of trade, but for the accommo-
dation of George Elliott. Tt was contended that
authority to accept trade bills gave no authority to
accept accommodation bills.
Rule granted upon the question of law, but not
in reference to the evidence. . _

The court was occupied during the remainder of
the day hearing arguments in cases of new trial
which were of no public interest; and at the con-
clusion of the business Mr. Horncastle, the senior
usher, adjourned the court until Wednesday next,
the intermediate time being devoted to the Easter
holidays.
Sittings at Nisi,Prius in Middlesex.--(Before Mr.

Justice Williams and a Common Jury.)

SUTTON V. PAIN AND ANOTHER-COMMISSION.

The plaintiff in this case, a lady, was described as
an agent, and she sued the defendants, who are so-
licitors, to recover £5O commission, for introducing
to them Mr. Healey, who became a partner in the
firm.
Mr. Best and Mr. Grifiths appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Day for the defendants.
The plaintiff's case was that she saw Mr. Harri-
son, one of the defendants, who said that Mr. Pain
being about to retire, he (Harrison) wanted a suit-
able partner, and afterwards it was arranged that if
the plaintiff should procure him a partner, she
should receive £5 per cent. upon the amount paid
by the incoming partner. She thereupon went to
Mr. Pullen, where she heard of Mr. Healey, who
through her communication to Mr. Pullen was in-
troduced to the defendants, and became a partner,
paying £l,OOO.
The defendants case was that there was no truth
in the statement that it was arranged that the
plaintiff was to have commission, and some letters
were put in with the view of showing that the
plaintiff had expected to share Pullen's commission
instead of making a charge herself. Mr. Pullen
had been paid his commission, £5O, by Mr. Mealy.
The jury, after considering the matter for a short
time, found a verdict for the plaintiff for £5O.