The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-17 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE,

ACTION AGAINST A RAILWAY COMPANY.—In the Court
of Common Picas an action was brought against the
south Eastern Railway Company by a domestic servant
named Connor, for injuries received by her in a collision on
the defendants' line. It seemed that the day was ex-
tremely foggy, and whilst the train that the plaintiff was
in stopped at Cannon-street station another train ran into
it. The plaintiff received injuries to her leg, and was
attended by a doctor for a month. The jury awarded £25
damages.

ACTION FOB INJURIES SUSTAINED.—In the Court of
Exchequer Major-General Downing brought an action
against Messrs. Mowlem ,Eurt,and Freeman,the well-known
contractors, for injuries sustained by him in consequence
of their negligence. On the 2nd October last the general
was crossing the road in Hyde Park, near Victoria-gate,
CM the Baywater side, when something caught his foot and
threw him down with peat violence. On getting up he
found it was a cord which some paviors had put down to
guide them in laying straight certain kerbstones between
the carriage way and a grass plat. The negligence com-
plained of was in not taking precautions to warn the
pulAic of the danger of passing in the direction of the cord.
It appeared that the contract for executing the worl:s
where the accident occurred was made by the defendants
with her Majesty's Commissioners of Works, but that they
had sub-let the work to a man named Burdett, who em-
pleyed men on his own account to do it, and paid them himsel
For the defence it was contended that the road; in question
was not a public highway, and that the workmen had a
perfect right to put down a cord to-keep the kerb straight.
The jury found for the plaintiff ; damages, one farthing.

How AERATED WINES ARE MADE.—In the Bail
Court the case of Cox v. Barnett was heard. It was an
action to recover damages for improperly making a machine
for P crating wines. It appeared that the defendant was a
manufacturer of the machines in question, and the plaintiff
bought one for making champagne and other aerated
wines. The defendant in his circular said : " Many light
wines when, made gaseous are equal to champagne.
The mixtures for artificial champagne are quite as
palatable as the real wine, and much cheaper.
The difference can hardly be detected, but those made
from mixtures will not keep more than six months,
while the light wines aerated are equal to and
will keep as long as champagne of the highest brand."
A machine capable of making 100 dozen quart bottles
was bought by the plaintiff for £135. For the purpose of
making the plaintiff seems to have purchased three
hogsheads of Hungarian light wines, which he mixed with
a syrup formed of port, sherry, Madeira, and fine light
sugar, and the mixture was then passed through the
machine, which in many respects was similar to
the common soda-water machines, and the result
was expected to be Sillery and other descrip.
tions of champagne. The plaintiff, however, having
got his machine and paid his money, did not get
his champagne. " The wine" (?), although to use the
phrase of a witness, "it came forth from the machine to
an experienced eye clear, in an hour or two became cloudy
and milky," and this cloudiness increased with age. After
repeated complaints it was discovered that there were bits
of solder in the cylinder of the machine. Persons who
drank the " champagne " complained of blistered mouths
and lips, and on an analysis by Dr. Matheson, of St.
Mary's Hospital, it was discovered to contain lead. £75
had been paid into court, and the jury awarded £35 in
addition to it.