The Atherstone, Nuneaton, and Warwickshire Times. — 1880-12-04 (Atherstone, Warwickshire, England)

THE COVENTRY COLLIERY ARBITRATION.  The arbitration as to the amount of compensa— tion to be paid for trespassing was resumed on Thursday, before Mr. J. D. Griffiths, at the Westminster Palace Hotel. The plaintiffs (Messrs. Darlington and NVhieldon), are the owners of the Hawkesbury Colliery, situate near Coventry, and the defendant (Mr. Wilson), owns an adjoining colliery, near Exhall, and the latter had worked out a certain quantity of the plaintiffs coal, the damage for which was referred to the present arbitrator:—Mr. Matthews, Q.C. and Mr. Fitz. Adams appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Jell and Mr. Dugdale fin the defendaut—The whole question turns upon the cost of working, and the deductions to be made. The defendant paid into court £3365 in full satisfaction of the claim, and the plaintiff's case is that that is not enough. Witnesses had been examined on behalf of the claimants; and on Thursday A. A. Tansley agent for the plaintiff's colliery was recalled and put in papers showing the profit realised in the Hawkesbury Colliery on coal and stone, and explained the accounts. This closed the case of the claimants.—Mr. Jelf then proceeded to state the case on the part of the defendant. Putting it shortly it was this, that Mr. Wilson had paid into court a sum far more than enough to satisfy every legal liability, and not only that but enough to satisfy any obligation which between man and man rested upon him in dealing with one gentleman and another under circumstances of mutual misfortune as the circumstance in the case was proved to be. The sum paid into court ought to be accepted as a liberal settlement between the parties, and in proceeding with the action the plaintiffs were, he considered, unjustifiably inflicting the greatest hardship on the client. It was nothing Mr. Wilson had done himself that was complained of, but it was said that because Mr. Elliot, his certificated manager, trespassed on this slang, and took coals beonging to it that Mr. Wilson was answerable for this act of trespass. But there was no strict legal liability in this case. A master was answerable for trespass for damage occasioned by his servants' negligence in doing a lawful act in the course of his service, but not so if the ac t was in itself unlawful, or was not proved to be authorised by the master, and this he maintained was the case in respect to Mr. Wilson. Taking everything into consideration, and when they saw that seine three or four thousand pounds had been paid over, he thought the arbitrator would find that this was a case in which there was a desire on the part of Mr. Darlington to have his pound of flesh, and he thought the arbitrator would take care that he did not get a drop of blood with it. The arbitration was adjourned till Monday.  An aged couple, named Riudisbacher, living in an isolated house in the suburb of Schatfroth, in Berne. were aroused by a noise in the stable. The husband went to sec what it was, but had no sooner emerged into the garden than he was killed with a crowbar by a man hiding behind a tree. The wife, hearing him cry, rushed out, and was murdered in her turn. An old servant and a neighbour, who came to the rescue, were also killed with the same weapon. The murderer dragged the bodies of his victims to a dust heap, entered the house, and having stolen 1,000 franca from the drawers, decamped. Severalarrests have been made on suspicion.