The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-10 00:00:00

that was so or not. If the jurymen believed what the
plaintiff stated, their verdict must be for him ; if they
disbelieved it, the verdict must be against him ; but
they would require strong evidence to show that he
had wilfully acted as a pirate after he had had rea-
sonable means of escape. It was said that he might
have escaped when the American was in sight, and
he was on board one of the captured vessels ; but con-
sidering the small distance of the pirate schooner,
and the force on board it, the jury would say whether
that was an enterprize that was at all likely to sue,
ceed. He should now go through the evidence given
this day-
The jury here interposed, and said that that was
not necessary.
Lord CAMPBELL would then leave the matter with
the jury. He should only further observe that the
conduct of the defendant when he was in the hands of
the pirates showed what compulsion was exercised
over a captive. As to the letters of Mr. Cobden they
ought not to have been written in that scurrilous tone,
but they ought not to prejudice the jury against the
plaintiff. . _

The jury retired for a short time, and then brought
in a verdict for tho plaintiff, damages 101.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 9.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, after Michaelmas Term,
before the LORD CHIEF BARON and Middlesex
Special Juries.)
LAIDLAW V. LEACH.

This action, which was part heard on Saturday,
was resumed and concluded to-day. It was brought
to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract
entered into by the parties. The defendant paid 201.
into court, and put several pleas on the record, which
alleged substantially that the plaintiff had absented
himself ithout leave from his duty, and that he was
incompetent to perform what he had undertaken.
Mr. Knowles, with Mr. Henderson, was counsel
for the plaintiff; and Sir Frederick Thesiger and Mr.
Bramwell for the defendant.

It appeared. that the plaintiff is a surgeon of great
professional reputation, having been twenty years ago
surgeon to the Middlesex Hospital, and, subsequently
in practice at Alexandria, from which city he returned
to this country in 1848. Towards the close of that
year he was engaged by the defendant, who is the
keeper of a private lunatic asylum at Britonferry,
Glamorganshire, as medical officer to the establishment,
at a salary of 1001. per annum, with board and resi-
dence for himself and wife. Shortly after entering upon
his engagement, the plaintiff was requested by the Board
of Health to attend i❑ London and give evidence be-
fore them on the subject of the operation of the qua
rantine laws in Egypt, and he obtained four days'
leave of absence from the defendant for that purpose.
He gave his evidence before the board, and was re-
quested by them to give evidence on a second occa-
sion, for which purpose he prolonged his stay in
London. During this time, however, he was visited
with a severe attack of influenza, which laid him up
for some days. In the meanwhile a letter reached
him from the defendant, informing him that as he had
exceeded his leave of absence he had broken his en-
gagement, and another gentleman had beerkappointed
in his place. The plaintiff immediately returned to
Britonferry, and told the defendant that he consi-
dered himself engaged for a year, at the same time
taking possession of his apartments in the house. This
act was opposed by the defendant, who placed one of
his household to watch the approaches to this part of
the building, for the purpose of intercepting all sup-
plies of food to the plaintiff. This state of thiegs
lasted for 48 hours, when the plaintiff left the house
with his wife, and returned to London. An offer of
201. was subsequently made to the plaintiff, as
compensation for his services, but this was refused,
and the defendant now paid it into court.
Dr. Southwood Smith, and Dr. Watson and Haw-
kins, in their evidence, described the plaintiff as a
man of ability, judgment, and experience.
Sir FREDERICK TISESIGER, on the part of the defen-
dant, contended that the plaintiff had clearly broken
his contract with the defendant, by exceeding his
leave of absence by ten days, rind that he was inca-
pable of performing the duty he had undertaken, in-
asmuch as he had not kept his books in accordance
with the directions of the statute.

The LORD CHIEF BARON expresssd a strong
opinion to-day that there was not reasonable or pro-
bable cause for the plaintiff's remaining away so long.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on
the third plea, and on so much of the 7th as alleged
that the plaintiff was unnecessarily absent. The re-
maining issues were found for the plaintiff, but the
general effect of the verdict is in favour of the de-
fendant.

OAKLEY V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action promoted by the Treasury to
recover back from the London and North-Western
Railway company the sum of 16s. 9d., under the pro-
visions of the 7th and Bth Victoria, c. 85, s. 12, as for
money paid to the use of the company. The defen-
dants pleaded non assumpeit, on which issue was
joined.

Mr. Knowles appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir
Frederick Thesiger for the defendants.

It appeared th—at the plaintiff was a police-constable,
and that on the 13th of August, 1849, he presented
himself at the Liverpool station of the London and
North-Western Railway, and after exhibiting his
police ticket, claimed to be conveyed to London at the
rate of one penny per mile, in payment for which he
tendered the sum of 16s. 9d. The clerk to whom the
plaintiff applied, and whose business it was to grant
the police passes, informed him that the express train
was about to start, it being then near five o'clock in
the afternoon, and that he had express orders to re
fuse any person to go by that train at the rate of a
penny a mile. The plaintiff said it was important
that he should be in London at eleven o'clock the
same night, and then paid 1/. 13s. to travel by the
express train, which was at the rate of twopence per
mile. Upon this state of facts the present action
was brought to try the right of the defendants
to claim that rate of remuneration for the con-
veyance of a police officer. The action was brought
under the provisions of the 7th and Bth Vic-
toria, c. 85, which attaches certain conditions
to the coveyance of persons travelling in pursuance
of public duties. This statute recites an Act
passed in the Bth year of the same reign, and pro-
vides that all railway companies, incorporated by Act
of Parliament, shall be bound to convey officers be-
longing to the marines, the military, and the police,
at fares not exceeding twopence per mile, for which
those officers shall be entitled to travel in first-class
carriages. By the section of the Act upon which
this action was brought, it is further enacted that
privates in those forces shall be conveyed at the rate
of a penny per mile, and upon this it was contended
that the company should refund the excess fare.
In the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses,
it turned out that he was connected with the Bath
police, appointed under the Municipal Corporation
Act, and that he was travelling to the principal towns
in the kingdom, in pursuance of instructions to that
effect, for the purpose of procuring recruits for the
Bath police.

IkSir;FREDERIcx TRESIGER, at an early stage of
the case, took several objections in point of law to the
maintenance of the action, which he submitted to the
Learned Judge. He observed that the material facts
of the case were not in dispute, but that it was a pre-
liminary question of law, whether a single policeman
could avail himself of this law, when the Act, by
speaking of the " removal of forces," evidently ap-
plied to a great number of men.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said that that was an
objection which was well worthy of consideration
hereafter, and he also doubted whether an officer of
the Bath municipal police, traveling to recruit that
force, could avail himself of the privilege conferred by
the Act. He was of opinion, moreover, that it was
not necessary for the plaintiff's discharge of his duty
that he should have been in London as early as be said,
therefore he might have travelled by the mail train,
when probably no objection would have been raised.
Under all the circumstances, as he could not decide
any matter of law sitting there at nisi prius, he should
recommend that the plaintiff should be nonsuited,
and that the question of law be discussed afterwards.
In accordance with his Lordship's suggestion, a
nonsuit was at length entered, and leave was reserved
to the plaintiff to move to set aside the nonsuit, and
enter a verdict with damages as in the declaration.
The LORD Came. BARON refused to certify for a
special jury, and remarked upon the impropriety cf
bringing an action for 16s. 9d. The certificate of its
being a proper case to try in a superior court he di-
rected to abide the event of the rule.

This was the last day of the sittings at Westmin•.
ster.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 9.
IN JLE J. DONOVAN.

The bankrupt was, in 1848, a fishmonger in Ox-
ford-itreet, his debts being 7,5501., his assets 7,2001.
He then united to his business of fishmonger that of
a timber-merchant, trading in partnership with Mr.
Valiance. In April last he become bankrupt, and the
result shows unsecured debts of about 5,0001., and
assets 300/. This was the certificate meeting.
Mr. Simons appeared for the assignsee, Mr. Lucas
for:Mr. Newton, a creditor on a bill of exchange, and
Mr. Lawrance for the bankrupt.
The ground of objection on the part of Mr. New-
ton was that the bankrupt had put in a false plea in
defending an action.
His HONOUR, however, decided that Mr. Newton's
hands were not clean in the matter, and that he
should not be justified in giving him a certificate,
putting him in the position of a judgment creditor.
On the grounds of bad book-keeping and entering
upon a trade of which he knew nothing, the certifi-
cate of the bankrupt would be suspended three
months, and then be of the third class only. Protec-
tion was granted.

The Earl De Gre# bas arrived in St. Janus's-
square, from West-park, Beds. ,