The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-15 00:00:00

SHERIFF'S COURT.

RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THE PUBLIC.-IMPORTANT
CASE.-JEWELL V. THE LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN

RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an action to recover £9 158.—£4 10s. the value
of a "tilt" lost by defendants, and £5 ss. damages sus-
tained in consequence of such loss. Defendants had paid
£4 10s. into Court.

Plaintiff's wife (who had had great trouble in the matter)
said her husband was a dealer in fancy goods, which he sold
about the country. Some time since she purchased a new
tilt, which she booked for Blisworth. The booking-office-
keeper promised her it should be forwarded at once, but it
never reached her husband, who could not in consequence
attend a certain bazaar.

His Honour remembered the case. Plaintiff had pre-
viously sued the booking-office-keeper.

Mr. Swan, for the company, contended that the moneypaid
in was sufficient to meet the merits of the case. As to the
£5 ss. damages, it was very, clear that plaintiff could not
claim that. The well-known case of Hurley and Baxen-
dale effectually settled that point.
His Honour feared it was so. Railway companies had it
all their own way. If I were to buy a cargo of corn for
20s. per quarter which I wished to send to a starving town
where I knew it would fetch 80s. per quarter, the railway
company might say, " Oh, no ; we won't take it now, we'll
supply the starving town ourselves ;" and I should beonly
able to recover the difference between the 20s. and what I
could buy (at the time) another cargo of corn for. Mrs.
Sewell, I am very sorry for you, but you cannot recover
this £5 ss.

Mrs. Sewell—There were two horses kept for ten days.
I ran all over the place and could not even get a civil
answer out of the company.

His Honour—That is just the way. I wish there was n.
judge having unlimited powers, so that he might be able to
deal with cases of this kind.

Mr. Swan thought it was very lucky the railway com-
panies were so protected, as they would be inundated wiyr.
demands of this nature.

His Honour—Oh I they can protect themselves. Well,.
Mrs. Sewell, I can only order you the money in court, but
as it was not paid in according to rule, you will have costs..
Every farthing I can award you I will, and I only wish it
were double.

Mr. Swan, deprecatingly, hoped the next case he had
would be a better one.

His Honour—lt is not your fault, Mr. Swan, you do your
duty, but look at this poor man what he has suffered
through the loss of this tilt.

NASH V. THE LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COMPANY

SINGULAR AND DANGEROUS COLLISION IN THE CITY.
Plaintiff is scab proprietor, and he now sought to recover
damages sustained through the alleged negligence in driv-
ing of defendants' servant.
Mr. Buchanan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Beard
for the company.
The evidence was of the usual conflicting character.
For the plaintiff it was said that the omnibus impal ed
with the pole the cab, and it was only a mercy that the
horse was not killed.
For the defendants, it was sworn that the cab came wi th
such force that the shaft knocked one of the omnibus horf es
on to its haunchvi, and rendered it unfit for work ever
since.

Mr. Buchanan considered it extremely unlikely that
patent safety cab could have driven with such fury in 4
dense part of the city like the Poultry, while Mr. Beard
obseved, without one dissentient, that omnibuses were m►t
celebrated for railroad speed in Cheapside.

His Honour coincided in the observation, and thought i!t
likely that plaintiff thought ho had an opportunity to dar,l;
in, and was unexpectedly met by the 'bus. No negligent
had been shown, and defendants would have a verdict witl
costs.

POLICE INTELLIG.ENCE-(T.HIS DAY.