The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-16 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Erle,
and Justices Williams, Willes, and Keating.)
PRIESTLY V. AI'LE.IN.-RAILWAY ACCIDENT.

The defendant in this case was the lessee of the
South Staffordshire Railway, and the action was
brought against him to recover damages for injuries
sustained on that line. The case was tried at
Guildhall, before the Lord Chief Justice, when the
jury found for the plaintiff—damages £750.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., now moved for a rule
for a new trial upon the grounds that the verdict
was against the evidence, and that the defendant
had been taken by surprise. The declaration set
out three grounds of alleged negligence, that the
tire of a wheel which broke was defective, that
there were no means of communicating from the
passengers to the driver, and that the speed at
which the train was going was excessive. These
allegations of negligence the defendant went down
to trial prepared to contest, and did so successfully
contest that the plaintiff shifted his ground, and
upon the strength of an answer given by a guard
who was called by the defendant, contended that
the accident had arisen in consequence of an old
dilapidated van having been attached to the train.
This course took the defendant by surprise, and he
had not had a proper opportunity of answering the
case which had been at length set up.
Rule granted.
SALMON V. RILEY—THE FUNCTIONS OF THE
JUDGE AND JURY.

This was an action for slander tried before Mr.
Justice Willes, and the jury had given the plaintiff
one farthing damages.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas, on behalf of the plaintiff,
to .day moved for a rule for a new trial. The slander
imputed to the plaintiff that she kept a young
woman, named Georgianna Best, for the purpose of
prostitution. This young woman was examined at
considerable length, and she proved that there was
no truth in the slander. At the conclusion of the
evidence the judge asked him (Mr. Sergeant
Thomas) whether he was not going to call the plain-
tiff herself, and on being answered in the negative,
he said, " Then what more than a farthing damages
can you ask of the jury." Upon this the defendant's
counsel declined to call witnesses, upon the plea of
justification. The judge in summing up asked the
jury to consider what was the reason that the plain-
tiff had not been called, and he also made other
remarks.

The Lord Chief Justice said he had known many
advocates who, when they saw that they had
nothing else to rely on, were glad if they could get
a grievance against a judge, for it gave them a
chance of damages. (A laugh.)
Mr. Sergeant Thomas submitted that the judge
by suggesting the amount of damages, and by other
remarks which he had made, had almost taken the
matter out of the hands of the jury, and therefore
that there had net been a satisfactory trial.
The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion
that the judge in making the remarks had acted
within the province of his duty. It was his duty to
make such observations as his experience suggested
to him, and it was clear that if he made any perti-
nent observation he must do so at the risk of dis-
pleasing one side or the other.

Rule —refused.
RE COBBETT-APPLICATION FORA HABEAS CORPUS.

Mrs. Cobbett moved for a writ of habeas corpus
to bring up her husband from the Queen's Prison
in order to be discharged from custody. The ground
of the judgment was, that there was no judgment
for the ca. sa. upon which he had been taken in
execution, and this being so, she contended that he
was falsely imprisoned, and she trusted that their
lordships would order the writ that ho might be
speedily set at liberty.
The Lord Chief Justice said that in his opinion
the writ was regular upon the face of it, and there-
fore the person who had Mr. Cobbett in custody
was justified in keeping him. The custody was
lawful so far as the writ of habeas corpus was con-
cerned.

Application refused.
BENNET Y. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY
COMPANY.

The plaintiff in this case was formerly a foreman
shunter in the employ of the Eastern Counties Rail-
way Company, and was stationed at Peterborough.
Early on the morning of Sept. 30, 1859, an engine
of the Great Northern Railway Company came into
the Eastern Counties station at Peterborough, and
whilst there it struck the plaintiff, and so hurt him
that he lost his leg. For this injury he claimed
damages, and at the trial before the Lord Chief
Justice at Guildhall the jury gave him £5OO.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., now moved for a new trial,
and stated that the evidence was that the Great
Northern servants, whilst in the Eastern Counties
station, were under the command of this company's
station master, just the same as their own servants
were. This being so, it was submitted that the
plaintiff and the engine-driver were, in law, for the
time being, fellow-servants, and therefore this ac-
tion would not lie against the company.
The Lord Chief Justice said that in his opinion
this case was not at all within the principle appli-
cable to fellow-servants.
Rule refused.