The Sun.
London, England, 1867-12-13 00:00:00

LAW AND POLIO.

ACTION FOR DAMAGES.—PERSONAL INJURY.—Mr. Jus•
tice Byles, with a common jury, tried the case of Wilkin
v. Fitter, an action to recover damages for personal
injuries. The plaintiff was a butcher in Leadenhall
Market. The defendant was a salesman in that market,
and in March last the plaintiff bought some meat at
the defendant's shop. His case was, that whilst
there some one called his attention to some flanks of
beef which hung in an unusual part of the shop,
and he went to look at them, and whilst doing so he took
one step back and fell through a hole in the floor, which
led into the basement. His leg caught in the ladder or
stairs which were there, and he hung head downwards.
He was lifted up and sent home, and it was found that
his leg, thigh, and ankle were hurt ; he was confined to his
bed for five weeks, and unable to attend to his business
for two months. The negligence alleged was that the
flap which was made to cover the hole was open. The
defence was that the plaintiff was not invited to go to that
particular part of the shop, and that he had no business
there. Mr. Justice Byles directed the jury that the
plaintiff must make out that either by actual words or by
the course of business the defendant invited the plaintiff
to go to that particular part of the shop. The jury found
for the plaintiff ; damages, £6O.

ARREST OF AN ABSCONDING INCOME TAX COLLECTOR.—
David McWilliam, an income tax collector, absconded
from Wigan in 1866, a defaulter to the amount of £3,000.
He escaped detection until recently, when he was appre-
hended in Staffordshire, where he was working as a pit-
man. Having been removed to Blackburn, McWilliam
has been charged before the magistrates with *he offence
of embezzlement, and remanded for the completion of the
case against him.
REYNOLDS V. THE NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY COM-
PANY.—An action was tried in the Court of Common
Pleas in which the plaintiff, Mr. Reynolds, a warehouse-
man, of Milk-street, Cheapside, sued the North-Eastern
Railway Company for injuries sustained while travelling
on their line. It appeared that plaintiff commenced his
journey at nine o'clock p.m., at Edinburgh, on the 20th
April, 1866, and went to sleep on the seat of a second-
class carriage. When near Berwick, the train, going at
full speed, ran into a truck which had been blown on to
the line from a siding where it had been carelessly left
unsecured. Plaintiff was thrown violently on to the floor
of the carriage, one end of which was staved in. Although
only confined to his bed three days, he received " a shock
to the system" which incapacitated him wholly for three
months, and partly so for twice that period, from attending
to business. The jury for this awarded him, as the
Scotch courts have it, a "solatium" of £7OO.
MANSLAUGHTER. —At the Leeds Assizes, William
Burton, a blacksmith, pleaded guilty to the man-
slaughter of Thomas Moresley, at Doncaster, on the
27th ult. It will be remembered that the deceased was
in the habit of annoying and chaffing the prisoner, who
was his fellow workman, and a person whose irritable
and sensitive temperament rendered him peculiarly
open to such attacks. On the fatal occasion which
led to this trial annoyances of that kind had been conti-
nued for two hours, and at length, the patience of Burton
becoming exhausted, he raised a hammer and struck at
his tormentor. It was said on his behalf that he only
intended to strike with the handle, which was of conside-
rable length, but Moresley drew back, and the iron bead
struck him on the temple, inflicting almost instant death.
Judge Pigott, taking this view of the case, inflicted the
lenient sentence of one month's imprisonment, with hard
labcur.

LIOOLE V. TUE G REIT WESTERN RAILWAY. —PREFEF.ENCI3
STOCK IN LIEU OF DIVIDENDS.— The Lords Justices in
Chancery had before them the case of Hoole v. the Great
Western Railway Company, which involved a question of
great importance to shareholders in railways. It was an
rppeal from Vice-Chancellor Wood. The bill was filed
by Mr. Hoole, who_ is a holder of ordinary stock in the
Vale of Neath section of the Great Western Railway.
The directors of the company having employed their
revenue in discharge of liabilities on capital account, pro-
posed to the shareholders that they (the shareholders) should
accept preference shares instead of their dividends. Mr.
Hook opposed this, and obtained from the Vice-Chancellor
an injunction restraining the issue of the preference stock.
The company now appealed. Lord Justice Cairns said
that there could be no doubt that what the company were
proposing to do was a literal violation of the Act. He
itil) 6huueli ib wao a violation of its spirit. It was, in
fact, issuing stock at a discount,• which the company had
no power to do. If the stock were really capable of being
applied in this way, it ought to be sold for the common
benefit of all, and not issued to those who would accept
it, and while those who did not accept it got nothing at
all. Sir J. Rolt being of the same opinion, the appeal
was dismissed with costs.

EQUITABLE JumsDicTion—Vice-Chancellor Stuart has
had before him a case which he characterised as eminently►
one for equitable jurisdiction. It was a motion to restrain
an action at law brought on a bond which provided that
during the joint lives of two persons and the life of thE.
survivor a certain annuity should be paid. The plaintiff's
bill alleged that a second bond was given to the persons
named in the first bond, and in lieu thereof, and that the
first bond was cancelled ; but as there had been no release
under seal he had no defence at law, and hence this motion
for an injunction. His Honour 'anted the injunction as
prayed.
NON-DELIVERT OF A PARCEL.—Mr. Baron Bramwell,
in the Second Court of Exchequer, tried the action
Restall against the London and South-Western Railway.
From the evidence it appeared that in 1865 the plaintiff, a
tailor at Farnham, executed a deed of composition for ss.
in the pound with his creditors. The deed was sent as a
parcel to London from Farnham, to the plaintiff's solicitor,
who was to get it registered. Through some mistake the
parcel was not delivered in time. The solicitor was not
able to get the deed registered before the expiration of
the twenty-eight days required by the Act. The deed
was therefore of no use. The plaintiff was com
pelled to pay the whole of his debts to some of his
creditors and more than ss. in the pound to others.
Besides, there was the cost of the deed. He therefore
sued for damages for breach of contract in not delivering
the parcel in time. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff;
damages, £5.

SHOCKING SUICIDE AT BIRMINGHAM.—AH in-
quest was held on Thursday on Mr. Bridges, the solicitor,
of Birmingham, who committed suicide in so shocking a
manner on Tuesday..by throwing himself upon the rails in
front of an express train at Stechford Station. The
medical evidence was to the effect that he was suffering
from delirium tremens, and the jury returned the stereo.
typed verdict in such cases of " Temporary insanity."
FOOD PRICES IN CANADA.—On Saturday, the
16th ult., the following were the market prices of poultry
at Kingston, Canada :—Geese, is. to Is. 4d. each ; tur-
keys, is. id. to is. 3d. each ; ducks, is. 6d. a pair;
chickens, is. a pair. Beef, mutton, and pork were pro.
portionately cheap—that is to say, beef was selling for
about 5 cent 3 per lb., mutton at about 43 cents, and pork
at 4 cents per lb. Kingston, it is true, is a cheap market
a 3 compared with Montreal and Toronto, but, with these
exceptions, the above prices may be taken as the average
of the Canadian markets generally.

Tim LATE MR. JOIIN AMEs.—We have heard
that this gentleman has left £l,OOO to the Bristol Infir-
mary, awl we believe some other charitable bequests.
His wealth is, we hear, estimated at nearer a million than
half a million of money. Among other legacies, he has
left, it is said, £30,000 each to seven of his nephews. It
is also reported that rather a curious and characteristic
provision is made in his will. It appears that Mr. Ames
had some few years"-ago a prolonged and severely con-
tested lawsuit with the town authorities of Lyme Regis,
close to which his domain and residence were situated.
The suit was on the subject of a church or public pathway
through the grounds, which Mr. Ames desired to shut up,
but the attempt was resisted by the town, and, after
much litigation, the latter was successful. Mr. Ames
then had two very high walls built, one on either side of the
path, so that though parties could still pass through, they
had no view on either side, and, as may be supposed, the
once pleasP.it walk no longer possessed its former charms.
in his will, it is stated, Mr. Ames has left a certain sum
to keep the walls in repair, and charged the possessor of
the estate with the duty of p.4,4Miping theme in all
intezrity,,,Brietol Timm