The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-17 00:00:00

NWRITECHAPEL.

Each kind of Meat commanded I;,steady sale on the
following terms:—Beef, from 2s 6d to 3s 6d; Mutton,
2s 8d to 4s 4d; Veal, 3s 4d to 4s 4d; and Pork, 3s to 46
6d per Blbs by the carcase.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
cox V. MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Baron PARKE delivered judgment in this case,
and in two other cases, which stood in a similar situa-
tion. The action was an assumpsit, and was tried be-
fore Mr. Justice Maule at the last Warwick assizes,
when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, leave being
given by the Learned Judge to move to enter a nonsuit.
The rule for a nonsuit was argued at the sittings of the
Court last term. The facts of the case were these :--
A labouring man met with an accident whilst removing
a truck on the defendant's railway, and the case being a
serious one, the assistance of the plaintiff, who is a
medical man, was obtained, and he was requested to per-
form the operation of amputation, which he did success-
fully. This action was, therefore, brought to recover
compensation for that service from the company. It
appeared that it was a station master in the employ of
the company who called in the plaintiff,
and it was contended that he bad the power
to enter into a contract with the plaintiff on behalf
of the company. The principal question was, had he
such authority. The Learned Counsel for the defendants
contended that the company were not liable, because,
being a corporation, they could only make a contract
under their common seal: On the other side it was
argued, that such an argument could not apply to the
employment of the plaintiff, and that when anything oc-
curred on a railway which might be prejudicial to the
interests of the company, it was the duty of any officer
in their employ, who happened to be near, to obtain
every reasonable assistance in order to lessen the da-
mage which might be sustained, and that the com-
pany were responsible for the services rendered,
they having been obtained for their own benefit.
The evidence consisted of the proof of the payment
by the company, on three other occasions, of surgeons'
bills, for attending persons who had been hurt upon the
railway, but the Court had expressed an opinion that
such was not sufficient evidence to go to a jury-
The question, therefore, did not turn upon that special
circumstance, but depended upon the authority of the
servant wbo gave the order. The defendants said, that
neither under the common nor the statute law had the
company bound themselves by the contract. The com-
pany are of opinion that power to enter into the contract
was not incident either to employment of the guard or
the superintendent. If a passenger by a coach were to
have his arm broken, and the coachman or guard were
to get surgical aid, could it be maintained that the pro-
prietor was bound to pay the doctor's bill? The Court
were of opinion that it could not, although it might be
for the benefit of the master to have the damage dimi-
Dished by a speedy cure. It was not to be supposed that
the result of their decision would be prejudicial to the
person who happened to be injured. It rarely happened
that a surgeon was not ready to render every assistance
to the sufferer, and the sufferer was entitled to corn-
ponsation for the injury sustained, and the expenses in-
curred, if it appeared there had been any breach of duty
on the part of the company. Little mischief would
therefore be done to the interests of medical men, who
could recover against his patient, and the public would
be subject to no serious inconvenience. This rule of
law was applicable to all partnerships as well as cora-
panics in reference to the extent of authority given to
an agent or servant.

COURT made the rule absolute to enter a nonsuit
in the three cases mentioned.

SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
CHILDE V. POOLE.
NOVEL AND IMPORTANT DEFENCE.—.This wag SS
action to recover the sum of 171. 10s. on a bill of ev'
change, of which the defendant was alleged to be the
ace 0 ptor. _

The defendant did not deny the acceptance, but put
in a plea of non assumpsit.
The Learned SECONDARY said it was rather an un•
usual thing for a person to admit his acceptance ye
deny his promise to pay; but perhaps the jury would
agree with him that the acceptance itself was a promig
to pay.
A witness was called, who proved the presentation of
the bill when it became due, and that defendant said he
would call and settle it. Knew defendant personally,
having " had the pleasure" of serving him with a writ
when he (defendant) acted like a gentleman.
The SECONDARY—How does a man act as a gentleman
when he is served with a writ? Witness—Why he pall
the money directly.—(Laughter.)
The defendant's attorney took the objection on the
faith of the case "Finlayson v. APKenzie, ' 3 Bingbare'l
New Cases, that a plea of non assumpsit brought the case
within the old rules, and that the acceptance and 113•
dorsement must be proved. no
The Learned SECONDARY—We live and learn, and
will give the jury an opportunity of learning as much as
they can; so I will send for the case.
The book was sent tor, the Learned SECONDARY obi
serving that the objection was a very shrewd one, an
one which the defendant was entitled to make the most
of but he (the Secondary) did not think much of it.
On referring to the case, the Learned SEcoNvAlb,
said he was not prepared to say the objection was eove],
ly without foundation, and it being a very no to
point, he would hold the writ for two or three dais
have the opinion of the Court above.
Verdict for the plaintiff:
This was the only ease heard.

APpROACIIIING MARRIAGE IN HIGH LIFE.--
t
undvistand that Mr. 13atason, M.P., eldest sou ot.
Rubert l3ateson, Bart., is shortly to lead to the 13P—or
neal alter Miss Rice Trevor, the lovely and ace°
plished daughter of the Hon. Colonel Rice Trevor.