The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-16 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Nov. 15.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron MARTIN and a
Common Jury.)
LONGMEID AND WIFE V. HALLIDAY.

This aetion was brought to recover compensation in
damages for injuries sustained by the wife of the plain-
tiff in consequence of the imperfect manufacture of one
of the defendant's lamps, whereby she was seriously
burnt.

Mr. Miller and Mr. Millar, jun., appeared for the
plaintiffs, and Mr. Watson and Mr. Webster conducted
the defendant's case.

The plaintiff is a journeyman tailor, working at
Messrs. Stultz's, and his wife kept a coffee-shop in Fox-
court, Gray's Inn-lane. The dt fendant, who carries on
an extensive business at Manchester, Huddersfield, Shef-
field, and Bradford, and also keeps a shop on Hol-
born-hill, it appears sold to the plaintiffs one of
his patent self-generating lamps for the consump-
tion of mineral spirits, napthe for instance, which
prodpce a very brilliant light, superior even to gas it-
self. On the 17th of March, some time after the pur-
chase, while his wife was in the act of suspending the
lamp, the solder of the main tube gave way, and the
lighted spirit contained within it ran down her arm,
and ignited her clothes. Her arms and other parts of
her body were so severely burnt that it was deemed ad-
visable to take her to the hospital, and some days
elapsed before she was considered entirely out of
danger. On the part of the plaintiff it was alleged that
the unfirtunate occurrence did not arise from any ne-
glect or want of proper attention on the part of his
wife, but took place owing to the improper and careless
manner in which the article was manufactured. On
these points the Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs sub-
mitted that the defendant was clearly responsible for the
accident, and that the jury ought to award damages
commensurate to the injury inflicted.
sir. Joseph Raynes, the medical man who attended
Mrs. Longmeid after the accident, said he found the
whole arm burnt, and also the breast, but not so se-
verely. The inflaretnation,extended very rapidly, and she
suffered excruciating pain. She was in considerable
danger for many days. The muscle of her arm was now
contracted, and she had not the free use of her fingers.
Mr. Masan, surgeon at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, de-
posed that Mrs. Longrceid was an inmate of that esta-
blishment for six weeks. and remained an out-patient for
some months afterwards. Her life was in danger for
several days after admission. The fingers and muscles
cf the arm were permanently contracted.
Several other witnesses were called to prove the pur-
chase at the defendant's shop of the lamp, and that it had
been imperfectly made.
Mr. WATSON submitted, on the part of the defendant,
that when the lamp was purchased no warranty, either
expressly or impliedly, was given that it was free from
danger. It appeared that the defendant was in the
habit of issuieg bills to customers and to the public, in-
timating that the lamp was unattended with danger, but
it hsd not been proved that one of these had been gireu
to Mrs. Longmeid. Even if it had, he contended that
the bill would not constitute n gofui contract as to the
safety of the lamp. Tt e 14,-nrned Counsel also took
another ohjecti )n of rather novel character. The action
was brought jointly by the phintlff and his wife, and
be contended that, as ihe wife was not one of the con-
tracting parties, it there was any contract at all at the
purchase she could not join her husband in an action to
recover damages for grievances sustained by her.
Mr. Baron MARTIN said he would allow Mr. Watson
to move the C )urt above for leave to enter a nonsuit.

ZS. W&TSON having addressed the jury,
Er. Baron MARTIN told the jury, in the course of an
admirable summing up. that he was of opinion the plain-
titri wire entitled to a verdict it They thought the ;amp
was of 3 defective construction. •

Tte jury fund for the plaintiffs—Damages, 20/.
The trial occupied the whole day.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 15.
(Before Mr. Commissioner EVANS.)
IN THE MATTER OF CAPTAIN WARNER.
There was a meeting for the choice of assignees
under the pltition issued against Captain Samuel A.
Warns.r, of S .uthampton-street, Strand, projectile
Mr. John Robins, of Tooley-street, printer, was
cho en assignee.
The amount of debts proved was insignificant.
It is said th' whole of the bankrupt's liabilities
amount to 16,0001. There are at present no divisible
assets ; those in expectancy consist of claims upon
the British and Portuguese Governments.
Mr. Lawrence was solicitor for the bankrupt.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE )
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF WILLIAM ELLIOTT.
The bankrupt was a baker at Islington. His cer-
tificate was suspended for twelve months some time
bark. This was a dividend meeting.
Mr. HILLEARY, as solicitor for the assignees, made
the following statement:—That the bankrupt had,
since the suspension of his bankruptcy, paid away
2001. to 300/. to creditors.
The baf.krupt alleg d that this money was entirely
the result of his own earnings ; and
Mr. HILLEARY contended that, as the bankrupt
was uncertificated, such payment to those creditors
must go in diminution of their dividends.
Tile matter stands over.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evasis.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF B. 0. GWALTER.
The bankrupt was a baker and horse-dealer at East
Ham. This was a meeting for the choice of assignees.
Messrs. Hilleary are solicitors to the assignees.
Mr. HILLEARY stated that the bankrupt had, pre-
viously to the bankruptcy, offered to his creditors ss.
in the pound. The creditors, believing he could make
a better offer, refused, and put him in the Gazette.
Subsequently to the filing of the petition, property
belonging to Gwalter, to the amount of 2001., was
found concealed in a house near the London Hospital.
It was also found that the bankrupt had assigned a
valuable lease to his father in-law, on the eve of bank-
ruptcy, which the latter had been induced to give up.
Messrs. Pond and Cooper, of Mark-lane, were
chosen assignees.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE REIGATE AND DORKING
BANK-IN RB NASH AND NEALE.
This was a meeting for the proof of debts. The
Court was occupied during a great part of the day in
hearing a claim against the estate for 1,2001., pre-
ferred by Mr. Lewin on behalf of Mr. Clutton, under
the following circumstances :
The bank closed at the usual hour on Saturday
evening, the 22d of June last. At half-past eight
o'clock on the evening of that day Messrs. Clutton
sent by their messenger upwards of 1,1001. to be de-
posited in the bank, of which they were customers.
gkhe money was handed by the messenger to a Mr.
Johnson, the manager of the bank, who save the
bearer a receipt for it. The receipt, though given
the evening of the 22d, was dated the 24thT
ohn
and one of the partners,e
bank never again opened,
Joseph Nash, about the very same period at which
the money was so delivered, signed a declaration of
insolvency, which he put into the hands of his own
solicitor. The question at issue was, whether Messrs.
Clutton should not be paid back the whole sum, or be
merely permitted to prove in common with all the
other creditors.
Mr. Bagley appeared as counsel, and Messrs.
La wrance and Plews as sblicitors, for tl e official as-
signee.

It was contended by Mr. LEWIN, upon several
grounds, that the whole sum ought to be returned.
Mr. BAGLEY argued that the Messrs. Clutton were
only entitled to prove as ordinary creditors.
Judgment postponed.
h' •

•
'-‘
144741
/k,,•77:7_, plc . 3or WlNvEa.—Yesterday several cart-
(r.,..?
;7aottiltsiatielsiocle-o,4efaralyhalf an inch in thickness, were delivered
fishmonger in Bond-street. A crowd of
7. 1 \ '..:Fr 3of bled to lit \ witness what was regarded as the first
.....) _,.a ve, p. ic‘this season.
'.
7i
01

• v 6,
• No' zj,

!
1 ,