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

TETIFIXTECIIAPEL.

Each kind of Meat commanded a steady sale on the
following terms:—Beef, from 2s 6d to 3s 6d; Mutton►
2s 8d to 4s 4d; Veal, 35 4d to 4s 4d; and Pork, 3s to 49
6d per 81bs 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. Ju lice Manic 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 nonsuic.
'1 lie 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 tne plaintiff, who is a
medical man, was obtained, acd 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 the company who called in the plaintiff,
and it was contended that he had 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 on-
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 di-
' rnage which might be sustained, and that the COw
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 who gave the order. The defendants said, that
neither under the common nor the statute law had the
company bound themselves by the contract. The corn'puny 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 b°
for the benefit of the master to have the damage digit
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 coni-
ponsation for the injury sustained, and the expenses or
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 woulc!,
be subject to no serious inconvenience. This rule of
law was applicable to all partnerships as well as coal-
panics in reference to the extent of authority given to
an agent or servant.
Tile COURT made the rule absolute to enter a no/15ot'
in the three cases mentioned.

SECONDARIES'.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMEs.)
CHILDE V. POOLE.

NOVEL AND IMPORTANT DEFENCE.—This was arl
action to recover the sum of 171. los. on a bill of e%-
change, of which the defendant was alleged to be the
acceptor.
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.t,
deny his promise to pay ; but perhaps the jury would
agree with him that the acceptance itself was a promise
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 personallP
having " had the pleasure" of serving him with a u 136
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 We
the money directly.--(Laughter.)
The defendant's attorney took the objection on the
faith of the case "Finlaysun v. M'Kenzie," 3 Binghatu'e
New Cases, that a plea of non assumpsit brought the Case
within the old rules, and that the acceptance and in"
dorsenient must be proved. 7,
A I
The Learned SECONDARY—We live and learn, en—
will give the jury an opp.,rtunity of learning as much a 3
they can; so I will send for the case.
The book was sent for, the Learned SEcoNDARY 013d.
serving that the objection was a very shrewd one, ee
one which the defendant was entitled to make the n 305
of but he (the Secondary) did not think much of it.
On referring to the case, the Learned SEcobtr.l.
said he was not prepared to say the objection was eel
tir,ly without foundation, and it being a very uov,,
point, he would hold the writ for two or three days "
have the opinion of the Court above.

Verdict for the plaintiff.
This was the only case heard.

APPROACHING INIARMAGE IN HIGH LIPE.----1Y
understand that Mr. Bateson, M.P., eldest son of 01,
Robert Bateson, Bart., is shortly to lead to the hr tie,
weal alter Miss Rice Trevor, the lovely and ticc°"-
Ogled daughter tg the lieu, cvleuel Rice Wrever.