The Sun. — 1856-01-19 (London, England)

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT-RAILWAY LIABILITY-PARKER V.  A FRESH MAN.  THE RUGELEY CASE.-PALMER'S BANK  BUPTCY.  As a motion will be made in the court on Monday to set aside the adjudication of bankruptcy lately issued against W. J. Palmer, it may not be uninteresting to state some particulars of the case. The act of bankruptcy upon which the petition is founded is the lying in prison twenty-one days • and a novel point will be raised to set this aside. The Bankruptcy Law Consolidation Act, 1849, enacts, " That if any such trader, having been arrested for debt, lie in prison 21 days, he shall commit an act of bankruptcy." There are cases showing that the arrest must be for debt only, on this part of the statute ; and that "it the detention, although for debt, be also upon a criminal charge, the time during which the criminal detention takes place cannot be counted." Now comes the curious point of the statute, "or if any such trader having been arrested, or committed to prison for any other cause, shall lie in prison for 21 days after any detainer for debt lodged, he shall be deemed to have committed an act of bankruptcy." So that if Palmer bad been originally committed for the murder, and a detainer then lodged against him, he would, after lying in prison 21 days, have committed an act of bankruptcy ; but having been arrested for debt in the first instance, and the commitment for murder having followed, the calculation of time is stayed from the time of commitment, and it will be argued that the 21 days necessary for an act of bankruptcy have not been fulfilled in his case.  Lord Campbell—And so they are until they withdraw ,heir notice.  Mr. Hill—But supposing a slip occurred on the line, she company would not then be liable for not running the train  Lord Campbell—That would be an excuse. There were exceptions In marine contracts from the perils of the sea, and he saw no reason why railway companies should not be exempt from the perils of the land. Such an accident as that mentioned would be of sufficient importance to excuse them from any irregularities arising therefrom.  Mr. Hill said that the time-tables were merely statements, that the company was willing to contract with persons on certain terms when they came to the station. The learned gentleman referred to the plea of false representation and contended the defendants were no liable.  Lord Campbell said this was certainly a very important case both as regarded the railway companies and the public, and he might say that railways would not be et benefit or accommodation to the public if the representations, contained in the time-tables, were to be treated as waste paper, and were not to be considered as the foundation of a contract. It appeared to him that this company, publishing in express terms, that, in cor.sideratirn of their customers coming to a particular station at a particular hour, that a train should be passing near that time, and on passengers tendering their fares they should be carried by that train from one station to another given station, entitled the plaintiff on a breach of that contract, as stated in this case, to recover against the defendants, both on the grounds of false representation and breach of contract. The judgment must be con. firmed.