The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Common Jury.)
EDMONDS 1. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN BAIL-

WAY COMPANY.
Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr. Manisty were counsel':
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Elwin James, Q.C., and Mr.
Plupson were counsel for the defendants.
The action was brought by the plaintiff, a mail guard
in the service of the Post-office, to recover damages from
the defendants for injury received by him through the
alleged negligence of the defendants' servants. It ap-
peared from the evidence that on the ❑ight of the 231
Dec. 1%4 the plaintiff was engaged in the travelling
post-office on the defendants' line, and that when between
Chester and Crewe the mail train ran into a stationary

goods train which was unable to proceed in consequence
of the slippery state of the rails, whereby he was thrown
down in the post-office carriage and received a concussion
of the brain. Since that time he had suffered greatly,

and there were great doubts if he would be able to return
to his official duties again. He was at the time of the
accident in receipt of a salary of 1301., and since the acci-
dent he had been temporarily pensioned for 12 months
at 361. 6i. If he did not recover, he would in September
next be permanently pensioned to that amount. Another
officer, who was in the carriage at the time, and was
slightly injured, had been compensated by the defen-
dants. They were the only tiro persons in the train
that were injured by the accident.
Mr. James &aid that this was an accident presenting
peculiar features. The man was placed in a carriage
under the control of the Postmaster-General, and to the
fitting up of the carriage according to the Postmaster-
General's directions in all probability the accident was to
be attributed, because it was strange no other person in the
train that night was injured. He put that forward
more in extenuation of damages than to get rid of any
liability. The company considered when the state of
the weather—a sleety, frosty night—was taken into
account, that every precaution was used by the conduc-
tor of the luggage train to prevent a collision.
His Lortif hip having summed up, the jury retired to
consider their verdict.

Whils another case was proceeding,
The Lord Chief Baron inquired whether the counsel
in the case of Edmonds v. the London and North• Western
Company were in Court, and having received a reply in
the affirmative, said he had received a note from the
jury stating that eleven of them had agreed to a verdict
for a certain amount, and that there was one dissentient.
Would the parties take that verdict by consent ?
Mr. James—Well, my lord, we don't exactly know
who is the dissentient.
The Lord Chief Baron—Then you won't ?
Mr. James—Oh yes, we will. (A. laugh.)
All the parties having agreed, the jury were called in
and returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, 500/.
A verdict to that amount was then recorded.
HUGHES V. WALKER—SQUABBLING PARSONS.

Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins appeared
for the plaintiff; Sir F. Thesiger and Mr Lush for the
defendant.

The plaintiff in this action was the Rev. J. Hughes,
and the defendant, the Rev. J. E. C. Walker, and the
declaration complained that the defendant hal written
and published various libels and slanderous words
against the plaintiff's character. The defendant pleaded
guilty, and to several of the counts he pleaded a justi-
fication.
The Bishop of Winchester occupied a seat on the
bench.
Mr. James, in stating the case to the jury, said that
the libel complained of contained a series of pain-
ful accusations against the plaintiff of such a
nature, that: if true, the plaintiff could not re-
main longer a clergyman of the Church of Eng-
land. The plaintiff officiated as curate of the small
village of Chelsham, in Surrey, and the defendant
was vicar of Farnham, immediately adjoining. In 1852
the plaintiff was first appointed to his curacy. He was
a single man, and he (Mr. James) thought he might
venture to say in the presence of the bishop of the
diocese that he was " a hard working, ill-paid curate"--
" passing rich with 40/. a year," for that was the
amount of his stipend—but no fault to his lordship.
There was a small parochial school in the parish, of
which Mr. Burrell was the master, and the plaintiff,
being a single man, took up his residecce in the school-
house.
The Lord Chief Baron said that he had read the
alleged libels, and as he thought that neither the public,
the Church, nor morality would gain anything by their
publication, it would be better to refer the matter.
Mr. James said he had no objection to such a course
on condition that the award be afterwards made public.
After a conference between the respective parties, the
matter was referred to Mr. Whately, Sec., who imme-
diately retired to a private room with the parties and
entered on the investigation without the assistance of
counsel.
[We understand that the alleged libels charge the
plaintiff with the use of improper language to children.]

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE PAUL -THE CITY OF LONDON UNION FRATJDEI.

The question of disputing the adjudication in this case
lasted up to 6 o'clock yesterday, and was then adjourned
till Thursday next.

IN BE FREUND.
This bankrupt was described as of West-street, Fins-
bury, Sicq., boarding-Nouse keeper, and bad petitioned
the Cuurt under the arrangement clauses. He
had held the appointment of Government Inspec-
tor-General of Hospitals in the Crimea, and now
came up to pass his last examination, on account'
prepared by Messrs. Butler and Cannings. Tb•
debts are set down at about 3,009/. He had re-
ceived 1,133/. 12s. as Inspector-General, and 1,1891. as
fees as a physician. The property was inconsiderable,
I but the losses and expenses had been very heavy, 2,9871.,
chiefly arising from Mrs. Freund having opened a school
at Osborne House, Regent%-park, and subsequently
opening the hoarding-how.e. His expenses as Inspector-
General amounted to about 6001.
Mr. Jones, of Chelmsford, appeared for the ass:peel!,
and Mr. Chidley fur the bankrupt, who passed his ex3*
mination.

IN RE VAN HAADE.
This bankrupt was described as a jeweller, and came
up to pass his last txlmination.
Mr. Bagley
oppose, on the ground that the accounts were unsatis-
factory. appeared on behalf of the assignees to
Mr. Dupre, for the bankrupt, said ho could give tt
better account, as he bought watches, &c.,in the "11T11)
from pawnbrokers, &c., and had no account of prices.
His Honour (Fonblanque) said he w ould give the
baukrupt an opportunity of making an account, and 1
he didnot he !bust take the consequence when he came
up for his certificate.
Adjournel for that purpose. '