The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-05-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, TUESDAY, April 30.
PICRFORD V. GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action in which the plaintiff, the well-
known carrier, sought to recover compensation from the
defendants for the breach of an alleged contract to for-
ward certain goods of a perishable character from Liver-
pool to London on the night of their delivery at the
Liverpool goods station. At the trial it appeared that the
goods in question were taken to the Wapping station at
ten minutes past six in the evening, when the carman was
told by the warehouseman that he was in plenty of time.
The goods, however, did not go forward on that evening,
and the owners having enforced their losses from the
plaintiff, he in turn brought this action against the railway
company. On cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses
it was shown that there was a large board on the premi•
ses in Wapping, the purport of which was that " goods
received after 4 o'clock p. m. would go forward to next
working day," there being but one goods train from
Liverpool to London on each of the week days.
The jury having found for the defendant under the direc-
tion of the learned judge, Lord Abinger, on the ground
that there was no evidence of a special contract to for-
ward these goods on the same evening, a rule nisi was af-
terwards obtained for a new trial, on the ground of mis-
direction, and that there was no evidence to warrant the
verdict of the jury.
Mr. Erle and Mr. Crompton now showed cause. The
action was on a supposed special contract, which was a
deviation from the general one set forth to the public by
the board, and it was one which the servant of the compa-
ny could have no authority to make so as to bind the de-
fendants. The contract rather was to send forward the
goods so received at the earliest reasonable time, and
though goods might have been forwarded when left later
than 7 o'clock even, still the company were not bound to
do so. There was no evidence whatever to warrant the
jury in saying that there was any special contract, in the
first place; and in the next, there was no misdirection in
his Lordship's telling the jury that in his opinion there
was none, which was all he did say.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Cardwell supported the rule, and
contended that the learned judge was not justified in leav-
ing the facts to the jury as be had done, for the defend-
ants ought to be bound by the agreement entered into by
their clerk or weigher at the station. That person had
informed the plaintiff's agent that the goods were in time,
and that, coupled with the enquiry, certainly was very
good evidence of a special contract in respect of the goods
so delivered.

The Court was of opinion that there bad been a misdi-
rection on this point and therefore—
The rule was made absolute for a new trial.

It is said that Mr. Serjeant Goulburn, brother of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, is to succeed the late Mr.
Merivale as one of the Commissioners of the Court of
Bankruptcy. The salary is £2OOO.
It was expected that yesterday morning the Solicitor-
General would move the Court of Queen's Bench for a
criminal information against Mr. Humfrey, the barrister,
for his speech against the Duke of Marlborouch at the
recent election for' Woodstock.