The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-17 00:00:00

LAW INTEL.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
APPEAL-IVYTHES V. LABOUCHERE.

This is an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir
William Page Wood and the Lords Justices of Appeal,
finding that £.30,000 is due, on taking accounts, upon the
sqeurities granted by the late Mr. M'Gregor and others, to
the directors of the Liverpool Commercial Bank, and the
Eastern Counties Railway for £lOO,OOO. .

Mr. Rolt, Q.C., is now being heard for the appellant.
The arguments will continue the whole day.

APPEAL-SHEPPARD V. OXENFORD.

The Lord Chancellor, at the conclusion of the arguments
of the appellant's counsel in this case yesterday afternoon,
affirmed the decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page
Wood, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)
Jt7DG3IENT.-RACRET V. ALEXANDER.

His Honour, the Master of the Rolls, in delivering
judgment said, I am of opinion that the plaintiff has wholly
failed to snake out his case. Taking the most favourable
view that I can take for the plaintiff, I am disposed
to agree with the contention and suppose that Mrs.
Sarah Alexander did give instructions for the prepara-
tion of the deed that was executed by her, as a
mortgage over her property at Fencham, Surrey, on
the 30th November, 1857, for £5OO, and placed it
in the hands of her solicitor, Mr. Evans, as an eskcrow se-
curity for that amount to any person who might advance
the money. Yet she did not authorise Mr. Evans or his
clerk, Mr. Beattie, to borrow from the plaintiff £440, and
afterwards £75 on that security, and apply it in payment of
an account due by her to him. His Honour considered the
evidence given in the cause extremely contradictory, but it
appeared that the mortgage deed was not to be handed over
to the mortgagee until the money was paid to her, and as
the money was not paid to her the plaintiff was not entitled
to the mortgage security executed byher over her property.
His Honour dismissed the bill with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Lord Campbell and a Special Jury.)

SMITH V. TILE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

This case, which occupied the court until a late hour last
evening, was resumed this morning.

The plaintiff was a coramercial traveller for the firm of
Serjeant, Webb, and Smith, drysalters of London, at a
salary of £l3O a-year, and a guinea a-day for expenses.
On the 13th of August last he was a passenger by the Great
Northern down express train, which leaves King's-cross at
8 45 in the evening, and he was a severe-sufferer by the '
accident which happened about midnights three-quarters
of a mile from the Coulton station. He was laid up for a
month at a village inn with concussion of the brain, con-
sequent upon a wound on the head, and medical men gave
it as their opinion that his general condition was
weakened, his health impaired, and his mental powers
diminished since his comparative recovery. The accident
arose from a fish train having sunk and come
to a standstill, in consequence of the ballast under the rails
being washed away by an unparalleled flood. The express
train, in which plaintiff was a passenger, dashed into the
trucks, the engine was thrown off the line, the carriages
were broken and upset, and the passengers thrown out,
some into a ditch up to their necks in water, and some into
an adjoining field. Many were the injuries received, and
this is only one of a series of actions which have been
brought against the company to recover compensation.
The case of " Maitland and Wife v. The Great Northern
Railway Company," which was tried in the Court of
Exchequer last week, was one of them, and the evidence
in this case was very nearly a repetition. The company
denied their liability, and attributed the accident to
the demolition of a bridge over the river Beck, which,
instead o damming back the water, as it had done
while it stood, released an immense body to swell and give
impetus to the collected waters near the line, about 31
miles distant It was proved beyond doubt that the bridge
gave way at half-past eleven, and that at ten minutes to
twelve, or about ten minutes before the accident, a heavy
train passed over the spot where the rails became displaced
in perfect safety. Scientific witnesses proved from meteo-
rological observations at East Retford and Highfield, near
Nottingham, that the rainfall was twice as much in an
hour and a-half on the day of the accident as on an average
during the whole month of August.
Mr. Edwin James, Mr. Sergeant Hayes, and Mr. Badde-
ley appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Mr.
Phipson, Mr. It. Clarke, and Mr. Honeyman for the rail-
way company.
The jury had not returned their verdict when we went
to press.