The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-16 00:00:00

COMPANY.

Mr. Karslake, Q.CI., and Mr. H. James, appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, Mr. Sergeant Tindal
Atkinson, and Mr. Wood for the defendant.

The action was brought to recover damages for injuries
alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the de-
fendants, who denied the charge. The plaintiff lived at
Woolston, and had carried on the business of butcher,
fishmonger, poulterer, at Portswood, both places being
near Southampton. The accident occurred on the after-
noon of the 7th September last, while he was walking up
and down the lower platform of the company's station at
Portswood, waiting for the train to Southampton. The
platform was constructed of gravel and wood, and
his foot slipped • into a hole and he fell on his
back. His nervous system and spine were so
seriously injured that he was compelled to use crutches,
and suffered from paralytic symptoms up to the present
time. His wife and family depended on him for support,
and since the accident be had lost his business.

William Jordan corroborated the greater part of the pre-
ceding narrative, and said that last year his business from
all sources brought him about £300.' While he was laid
up a rival started in the same business, and he was obliged
to dispose of his things to maintain himself and his family.
He attributed the accident,solely to the gross negligence of
the defendants, who had not sufficiently provided for the
safety of persons using the platform.
Some witnesses were called on behalf of the plaintiff,
and one of them deposed to the fact of having several
times seen holes in the lower platform at the Patswood
station.

As the defendants limited their plea merely to non-lia•
bility the medical testimony was dispensed with.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. P. Stuart.)
ARDEN Y. PARRY, EDWARD V. PARRY.

The surveyors to whom the question of modifying the
proposed wall at the rear of the building had been referred
yesterday were unable to agree, the surveyor on behalf of
Mr. Parry being of opinion that the alteration could not
be effected without materially injuring the building.
His Honour expressed his regret that an arrangement
had not been made between the parties.
On the suggestion of the court a modification in the
plan was agreed to.
Mr. Malins observed that the terms exacted from his
client were very hard.

His Honour, who said he could not then make any order
to stay proceedings in the cause, granted an injunction to
restrain the defendant from erecting the wall except in
conformity with the modification specified.

SHERIFF'S COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
LEVY V. BENJAMIN.-MISPRISION OF FELONY. -IMPORTANT

DECISION.

This was an action in which the plaintiff had agreed to
refrain from prosecuting defendant's son, in consideration
of defendant undertaking to pay the value of tho goods
that his son had stolen.

His Honour, upon reading the form of the undertaking
said—" This will not do. How did you obtain this ?"

Plaintiff—l entrusted defendant's son with four coats,
and he took them to a house with my man. He managed,
however, to get away from my man, and made off with the
goods.
His Honour— In fact he stole them.

Plaintiff—That was so.
His Honour—And you agreed not to prosecuto upon
being paid ?

Plaintiff —I did try to catch him, and spoke to the police.
The police endeavoured to catch the son, and then the old
people came to me and paid me two pounds down, giving
me the undertaking upon which I now sue.
His Honour—Then you admit that you desisted from
prosecuting the thief in consequence of his relatives pay-
ing the value of the stolen goods ?
Plaintiff—l do.

His Honour—You have committed a very serious °Mince,
i
Have you ever heard of such a thing as misprision of
felony ?
Plaintiff—Yes, I know it.

His Honour—And for committing that offence you have
rendered yourself liable to an indictment, upon conviction,
to seven years' transportation. It is perfectly clear that
you cannot recover in this case, and I am not sure that it
is not my duty to send the document upon which you have
sued to the clerk of the Central Criminal Court.

Plaintiff appeared rather astonished at the position in
which he had placed himself, and his Honour, after pinning
the undertaking to the process of the court, said I find a
verdict for the defendant, who is entitled to get back the
money he has already paid.
Verdict for defendant.

POLIC.E INTELLIGENCE.—Thin Day,