The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Lord Campbell acd a Common Jury,
LINLET AND WIFE V. UMPLEBY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a coffee-
house keeper, residing in Camden-town. to recover
damages for injuries received by his wife, from the
alleged careless driving of the defendant, a draper, of
Holborn.
It appeared from the plaintiff's case, that about 9
o'clock on the evening of the 6th of August, Mrs. Linley
was in High-street, Camden-town, and when near York-
street, as she was crossing the street, she was knocked
down by a horse and dog-cart, and was seriously in
jured. A man, named Bands, was standing at the corner
of York-street conversing with a friend named Pullen at
the time of the accident. They , noticed a dog-
cart with a gentleman and lady in it coming
at a rapid rate from the direction of mother
Red Cap, and saw it near the cab-stand knock the old
lady (the plaintiff's wife) down. According to Band's
statement after she was knocked down the horse jumped
over her, and one of the wheels of the dog-cart passed
along her body, and she was •' crumpled all up in one
heap," or, as Puller said, " screwed up like a ball."
Some of the witnesses described the defendant as having
a high-stepping horse, which was going at a slashing
pace, and others that he was driving at a rate of 10
miles per hour, and that after the accident he threw
down the reins on the horse's back, which caused him to go
at a speed of 14 or 15 miles an hour. All the witnesses
stated that no alarm was raised before the old lady was
knocked down, but thatimmediately on it the lady in the
cart screamed out. The defendant was followed, stopped,
and returned to the plaintiff's house, and promised
to call again, but he never did so, and refused to make
compensation to the plaintiff. Mr. Weather, a surgeon,
examined the plaintiff's wife immediately after the acci-
dent, and found her suffering, among other things, with
an injury of the thigh. It did not present any serious
appearance, but on the following day fever came on and
she was in danger fOr some time. Sbe was now suffering
to some extent from the injury, and would continue to
do so.

The defence was, that the accident did not arise from
the negligence of the defendant, but from want of care
on the part of the old lady in stepping off the kerb to
cross the road, and that the defendant had no desire to
avoid responsibility, if any attached to him.
The defendant was called, and stated that he was
accompanied on the ecca•ion by Miss Pierce, his niece.
He was coming from Hampstead, and his horse was
very much jaded at the time. Seeing the old lady was
about to cross off the kerb, he called out to her, but sbe
took no notice of it. He then shouted lustily, and she
accelerated her pace to pass in front of his horse, and in
doing so she was knocked down from running against
and striking the shoulder of the horse. That frighteneJ
the horse, and he immediately tried to pull him up; but
as he was a high-spirited animal he was unable to do so
until he had run fifty yards. Defendant at once went
_ _

back and gave his name and address, and expressed his
sorrow at what had occurred, owing to the old lady's
negligence, but he did not promise to visit her after-

wards.

The niece was called, and proved that she said
to her uncle, "Mind the old woman." Her uncle
accordingly shouted out, and pulled up immedi-
ately. He pulled up as much as possible before the old
lady was struck. The horse was much startled and ran
off.

Other witnesses were called in support of the defen•
dant's case.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
801.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)
NOAKES V. NEALE.
This was an action to recover 1501. upon a promissory
note. The defendant pleaded that he did not make it.
The plaintiff was a hope facvor in the borough of
Southwark, and the defendant was a licensed victualler,
who kept the Camden Arms at Pembury, near Tun-
bridge. A person named Goding, who was a
hop grower at Pembury, called upon the plaintiff and
asked him to advance him a sum of money.
It was at very common practice for hop factors to advance
money to hop growers upon the understanding that the
growers should send them their next growth of hops.
This arrangement was entered into upon the present oc-
casion. Goding produced a blank promissory note with
Neale's signature at the bottom, and it was filled up for
1501., Goding adding his own name. Inquiries as to the
character of Goding and Neale having been satisfactorily
answered by the Vicar of Pembury, the money was
advanced. When the bill became due, the plaintiff
heard that Goding was in difficulties, and he therefore
applied to Neale for payment. He took no notice of
the application, and a month having elapsed, the present
action was brought.

From the number of witnesses to be examined in this
ease, in all probability it will not be concluded to-day.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Common Jury.)
PALMER V. HALL.-SLANDER.

Mr. Joyce appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Powell
for the defendant.

The plaintiff is a surgeon residing at Mortlake, and
the defendant is a corn-chandler carrying on business at
the same place. The defendant some time since met with
an accident to his arm, and he called on the complainant
to attend him, but he could do no good for him. The
defendant afterwards went to St. Thomas's Hospital, but
the surgeons there did not succeed in curing him. On
his return to Mortlake the defendant went into a bar
ber's shop, and there spoke very disparagingly of the
plaintiff.

Mr. Baron Martin said this was a very proper action
to be tried, because the words might injure the plaintiff
in his profesaianal character.
A verdict tvas then taken by consent for the plaintiff
—damages, 40s.

CRIMINAL COURT---(This Day.)

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)
UTTERING A FORGED NOTE.

Montague Carnie, aged 27, clerk, was charged with
feloniously uttering a forged 51. Bank of England note.
Mr. Giffard and Mr. Bailey prosecuted. The prisoner
was undefended.

It appeared from the evidence, that the prisoner took
a beershop in the neighbourhood of %Valworth, and some
taxes were due on the houses from the previous
occupier, named Church. The tax-collector called
on the prisoner for the amount, and told him
that if it was not paid a distress would be put
on the premises. The prisoner asked for time,
and in the evening he called at the tax collector's
residence, and tendered his wife a £5 note in payment
for the taxes, which she got changed in the neighbour.
hood. A few days after it was returned to her as a
forgery. The prisoner was then applied to, and he said
he took it in the regular way of business over the counter.
An indistinct name was on it in the prisoner's hand-
writing. He, however, offered to make arrangements
for repaying the £5, but whilst this was negotiating he
left the beershop. He was found about three weeks
after at a beershop at Chelsea.

The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and the
learned Judge said it was.a very proper verdict, for the
case only amounted at the most to one of suspicion.

NEW COURT.
SENTENCE ON SNELL FOR THE GREAT NORTHERN
RAILWAY FRAUDS..

William Snell, 19 years of age, •.. ho yesterday pleaded
guilty to indictments charging him with defrauding the
Great Northern Railway Company, was this morning
placed at the dock before the Common Serjeant to re•
ceive sentence.
His lordithip, in addressing him, said he had taken
into consideration all the circumstances connected with
this painful case, and he regretted to see a young man
so respectaoly connected as he was standing in that
dock. He appeared to have been led away by sudden
temptation, and to have converted the money to his
own use from the impulse cf the moment rather than
from habitual dual ,neaty. He sentenced him to 18
months' imprisonment, with hard labour.