The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-20 00:00:00

tending mere to his wife than to the interests of
.his
-vessel, and he wrote to the plaintiff complaining
" that ladies cal I)Dard were a great nuisance, as
they turned the head of the captain. Vessels were
built to sail for the benefit of the owners an not as
gondolas." The plaintiff eventually got a freight
for Liverpool, and on his arriving on his return
voyage at Constantinople he received another letter
from the defendant Written in the same strain, and
desiring him to send home his wife. The plaintiff re-
fused to do this, and wrote back an angry letter to
the defendant, telling him " to get it out of his
pumpkin head" that his wife had turned his head.
On the plaintiff's arrival at Liverpool he received a
letter dismissing him from the mastership of the
vessel ; and he was desired by the consul to give up
the command and his ship's papers to the owner,
which he did, The plaintiff then made a claim
for
what was due to him, and offered to take £4O if it
were paid to him then, as he was without money
and in a foreign country. The defendant, however,
refused to pay him, and set up a counter claim for
the maintenance and passage of the plaintiff's wife
to Liverpool.
After a long trial the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
GREEN AND WIFE V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORK'

SHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover compensation for
an injury suffered by the plaintiff's wife at a rail-
way accident between Wigan and Liverpool in
June, 1857. There was also an allegation that the
company had fraudulently endeavoured to settle
the damage sustained by the plaintiff's wife by
giving her 12s. as full compensation while she was
suffering from the injury.
Mr. Pope appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Williams for the defend-
ants.
It appeared that in June, 1857, a passenger train
filled with third class passengers came into colli-
sion with a luggage train near Wigan, and as mall
as 260 passengers were injured. The plaintiff's
wife was riding in one of the carriages, and Was
violently thrown with her back against the car-
riage, and then pitched with her face against the
window. She was bruised and injured in her
back, and she received a cut on the face, and had
her teeth loosened. Since that time she had never
recovered the proper use of her teeth, and had pains
in her back, which prevented her following her
usual occupation of a washerwoman, by which
she had formerly earned 6s. or 7s. a week.
Since the accident she had not earned altogether
above 50s. When the surgeon of the company wee
dressing her injury he told her she would perhalo
be better in a fortnight, and he gave her 12s. a°
compensation for tie injury, which she then ac-
cepted. On the part of the defendants it was con-
tended that this sum of money was bona fide given
as compensation for what at the time was Neel.
dered to be a mere slight cut on the face.
His lordship having summed up,
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for L 1.5.1,
ot
and found that there was no fraud on the part
the company.
Two other similar actions against the comPaLYO
were settled, the defendants agreeing to pay
damages for one, and £l5 damages for the other.