The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-19 00:00:00

RAILWAY SAFETY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SlR,—Allow me, through the medium of your widely
circulated paper, to suggest, for the consideration of
Railway Directors and the public a very simple method
by which the violence of collision on railroads would be
much diminished, and which, if it did not entirely pre-
vent personal injury, would cause fatal accidents to be
of far less frequent occurrence than at present.
By attaching a large thick cushion, or even two or
three common packs of wool , in front of the engine,
and at the back of the last carriage in each train, or
perhaps better still, between all the carriages, should
trains come in contact either by meeting or overtaking the
other, the shock would be very slightly felt, whilst the de-
struction of the carriages would be almost an impossi-
bility, consequently the safety of passengers considerably
increased. A pack of wool will resist a common
shot in full force ; and history informs us of their being
successfully employed in protecting the walls of be.
siege(' towns, &c. Surely, then, similar means would
render railroad travelling a matter of less risk than it
now is. R. H. B.
Leeds, Royal Hotel, Nov. 17, 1840.

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings at Nisi Prins appointed after Michaelmas Term.

MCDDI,ESEX.

Common Juries.—Thursday, Nov. 26, ( Causes with
Judgment of the Term) ; Monday, Nov. 30 ; Tuesday,
Dec. 1 ; Wednesday, 2 ; and Thursday 3.
Special Juries.—Friday, Dec, 4 ; Saturday, 5 ; Mon-
day, 7; Tuesday, 8; Wednesday, 9; and Thursday, 10.

LONDON.

Adjournment Day.—Friday, Dec. 11.
The Court may return to Middlesex for any cause spe-
cially appointed.

EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Prins, appointed after Michaelmas Tcrm.

MIDDLESEX.

Thursday, Nov. 26, Common Juries.
Friday, Nov. 27, and Saturday, 28, Revenue Causes
(Customs) and Common Juries.
Monday, Nov. 30, Common Juries.
Tuesday, Dec. 1, Revenue Causes (Excise), and Corn.
mon Juries.
Wednesday, Dec. 2; Thursday, 3; Friday, 4; and
Saturday, 5, Special and Common Juries.
Monday, Dec. 7, Common Juries.

LONDON.

Friday, November 27.—T0 adjourn only.
Tuesciay, December 8 (adjournment day).—Common

Juries.

Wednesday, 9; Thursday, 10 ; and Friday 11.—Com-
mon Juries.
Saturday, 12; Monday, 14; Tuesday, 15; Wednesday,
16 ; and Thursday, 17.—Special and Common Juries.
Friday, IS ; Saturday, 19 ; Monday, 21; Tuesday, 22 ;
and Wednesday, 23.—Common Juries.
The Court will sit at half-past nine o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 18.

CAMPBELL V. CAMPBELL.

Mr. SPENCE applied, upon the petition of Colonel
Campbell, the guardian of the infant plaintiff, Miss Camp-
bell, for an extension of the time for that young lady re-
maining with him in Scotland. His Lordship had allowed
the time to be extended from May last until the last day
of this Michaelmas term, upon an application by the
Colonel stating that it was necessary for his interests
that he should be present during the repairs of
his farm, premises, and other buildings on his estate
in Scotland which had been allowed to become
dilapidated during the time he was detained in
London upon the affairs of his ward. Those causes still
continued, and the affidavit of Colonel Campbell stated,
that if he now left his estate, he would suffer very seri-
ous loss. The young lady herself was strongly desirous
of remaining in Scotland, and under these circumstances
the petition asked that the time might be extended till
next Michaelmas Term.
The LORD CHANCELLOR granted the application.
IN THE MATTER OF MAME.

In August last, a petition of appeal was presented to
the Court by a person of the name of Jones, who for a
year and a half, or two years, has been a prisoner in the
Fleet, for the purpose of obtaining the discharge of cer-
tain orders made in this matter, by which he would also
have obtained his discharge. The Lord Chancellor, how-
ever, thought there was no ground for discharging those
orders, and dismissed the petition of appeal with costs.
This unfortunate individual afterwards presented another
petition without asking the leave of the Court, which was,
of course, dismissed.
Mr. WAKEFIELD now applied for leave to present a pe-
tition to re-hear the original petition of appeal. The
Learned Gentleman stated he had gone through the paper,
and was of opinion that if the case had been accurately
stated, his Lordship would have reversed the order.—
Leave granted.
The Loan CHANCELLOR then heard original causes.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 18.
The MASTER of the ROLLS was engaged the whole o.
the day with the case of

FARROW V. REECE.

The bill was filed by parties claiming to be the assignees
of a mortgage, to the extent of 4,0001 , granted by the late
Sir Watts Horton, upon one of his estates, together with
others, descended to Captain Reece, the defendant, on his
marriage with Miss Horton, in 1813, who was the only child
of Sir W., but subject to the debts and incumbrances upon it.
For many years the interest it pon the mortgage was paid by
the agents of Capt. Reece, the validity of which, by innu-
merable letters, he had recognised. There was, however,
no endorsement of the mortgage upon the title-deeds of
the estate, and about twelve years ago Captain Reece
commenced disputing the validity of the mortgage,
and refused any longer to pay the interest upon
it, on the ground that he did not receive notice of it
at the period of his marriage. The bill was filed in 1832
for a redemption of the mortgage or a foreclosure.
The MASTErt of the Roi,Ls, at the conclusion of the
arguments of Counsel, delivered judgment, observing that
there was nothing whatever in the case which could in any
way call into serious question the right which the
plaintiff claimed ; and, as he had no doubt whatever, both
of the validity of the mortgage and of Captain Recce
having had either direct or constr:.e;,:‘ e notice of the exis-
tence of the mortgage, there must be a decree according
to the prayer of the bill ; and an account taken of what
was due, and the defendant must pay the costs of the suit.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 18.
OELESSER V. TOWNE.
This was an action for a malicious prosecution. The
plaintiff had been a witness in a cause in which the present
defendant was concerned, and had given evidence against
him. The defendant alleged that some of that evidence
was false, and he indicted the plaintiff for perjury. The
plaintiff was acquitted, and he then brought the present
action. A verdict had been given for the plaintiff with
8001. damages, and a rule had since been obtained to set
as,cle that verdict and have a new trial, on the ground
that the damages were excessive, or to enter a nonsuit on
the ground that as the declaration in the action was in ge-
neral terms as for a malicious prosecution on all the as..
signments of the alleged perjury, and as the proof had
not gone to show a want of probable cause with respect to
all such allegations, but only with respect to one, the ver-
dict must be considered as founded on one allegation alone,
and then the declaration, being general, the verdict,
which appeared to be a general verdict, could not be sup-
ported.
The Attorney-General and Sir F. Pollock appeared to
show cause against the rule, and Mr. Kelly, Mr. B. An-
drews, and Mr. Cobbett to support it.
Lord DENMAN intimated a doubt whether he had pro-
perly left the question to the .fury, but threw out a sugges-
tion that it would be a sensible proceeding for the parties
to come to some arrangement, and thus save further dis-
cussion.

LYNCH V. NURPON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff,. a.little boy,
by his next friend, to recover damages for an injury which
had happened to him under the following
ascircumtances:—
The defendant was a tradesman, who used
.horse and
cart, soliciting orders in the way of his business, and
on one occasion he left the horse and cart at a
door, with no one to mind them, and went into a
house in the usual way. While there, the plaintiff
and some other little boys got playing about the horse
and climbing up into the cart, ar,d, though repeatedly
warned not to do so, continued their amusements till at
last the horse got frightened and ran away, arid the
plaintiff was thereby hurt. A verdict had been given for
the plaintiff—damages 501. A rule had since been ob.
tamed calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the ver-
dict should not be set aside and a nonsuit entered on the
ground that it was a rule of law that if a party was in any
degree the cause of an accident, by which he himself be-
came a sufferer, he could not recover damages in respect
of that accident.
Mr. Sergtant SIIEE showed cause the rule, which was
supported by Mr. KELLY.
The Couar took time to consider the question;