The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-19 00:00:00

LAW IiTrET.T.IGEN6E.L(This Day.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before the Lnrd
Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)

CIRELLA V. THE CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY.

This was an action for the recovery of 5001. damages
for injury done to a model of Cronstadt exhibited at
the Crystal Palace last year, arising from the alleged
negligence of the company's servant.. The plaintiff is a
Neapolitan exile, at present residing in Paris, and is a
brother of Prince Cirella. He is a gentleman of some
ability, and he constructed of board and plaster a model
of the town, fortification, and harbour of Cron-
..stadt, which he consigned to the care of an Italian
named Fiz, carrying on business in London as a
merchant and Custom-house agent. He exhibited
the model in Piccadilly, where it was visited by parties
connected with the government, and be was induced to
imagine from what passed that the government would
purchase it. The war however terminating about that
time, his hopes in that quarter were dissipated, and he
applied to the Crystal Palace Company who agreed to
its being exhibited there for a period of not less than
six months, and if sold to be paid 10 per cent. com-
mission. The model was accordingly sent to the palace
Ind placed in that part devoted to tropical plants, where
from beat, &c., it was said it received injury. The question
in dispute was whether the company took sufficient care
of the model, and it was contended by the company that
Fiz approved of the spot for its exhibition, and that he
was to supply a glass case, which he declined to do, and
that the company to protect it put a calico awning over
it. In answer to questions from Mr. Sergeant Hayes
'for the defendant, Fiz said that he offered the model to
' the Crystal Palace Company for 2001.
Lord Chief Baron—Da I understand that you have
the impudence to bring an action for 5001. damages for
injury done to a model you valued at 2001. ?
Witness said he had done so, and on being further
questioned said he had no recollection of having offered
it to Mr. Fergusson, the manager, for 1001. or guineas.
The Lord Chief Baron—lf Mr. Fergusson swears that
you offered it to him for 1001., will you undertake to say
it is a falsehood ?
Witness said he could not, because he had no recollec-
tion of it. The injury to the model took place in the
earls, part of the year 1856, and the action was brought
In June following, but delayed till the present time.
Several witnesses were called, who stated the condi-
ti,-n of the model at the present time, but the Lord
Chief Baron said that the injury must be assessed a, -
cording to its condition in June last year, when the action
was first brought. One of the witnesses, an Italian
modeller valued the model at 7001.
Mr. Sergeant Hayes contended that the model had
received all reasonable care at the hands of the Crystal
Palace Company, and that no real damage or want of
care had been proved against them by the plaintiff's
agent.
Mr. Fergusson deposed that Fiz offered the model to
him for 2001. and afterwards said he should be glad to
take 1001. for it. He was quite clear on that point.
Fiz selected the spot where the model was to be placed,
which was in that part devoted to models, and witness
caused it to be protected by a covering, and it was only
removed on the day of the Qaeen's visit, the Peace tete
day. The model of Sebastopol made at the palace which
was twice the size of the one in question coat 401. That
was a correct one, but this was an incorrect one. Cron-
stadt was represented as a rocky island, whereas, in
truth, it was a low sandy ridge. He considered 501. a
good price for it to a person who wanted it. Every cue
had been taken of the model. The frame or basis of the
model did not appear to have been made of properly
seasoned wood.
The Lord Chief Baron in summing up, rem..rked on
the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff. It

could not be called —obtaining money under films pre-
tences, because that would be a crime, but it looked
very much as if it was made in the hope] that the defen-
dants would pay probably 201. or 501. rather than defend
this action. His lordship also remarked on the absence
of the plaintiff, and said that, in point of fact, the ac-
tion should have been brought by Fiz. His I,,rdt,hip
' also called attention to the delay in proceeding with the
action.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COITRr OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Betore Mr—Commissioner Holroyd.)

IN RE BOOTH.

This bankrupt was described as of the City Central
Saw Mills, Upper Whitecross-street, and had presented
a petition under the Private Arrangement Act, but not
having filed any Accounts, an argument was heard in the
priiate room ; Mr. Slater appearing for the petitioner,
and Mr. Chidley fur creditors, when his Honour decided
thatAhe case should be converted into a bankruptcy,
and it was afterwards heard in open court, and the 30th
of June appointed for choice of assignees.