Glasgow Courier. — 1853-03-29 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

IWO. Mr. William Cam], cashier to Messrs. Bird—Knew the defendant, who had negotiations with Messrs. Bird about the sale of a patent. He had paid the defendant cheques in respect of the patent—Ll2o and £l2s—three months afterwards. Cross-examined—He knew Iwo-thirds of this sum went to Gautier. . . _  wail I  The letter read to the jury by the learned counsel was then pat in. This was the plaintiff's ease. Mr. Serjeant WILKINS then addressed the jury for the defendant— The question before them was one of business and one of contract. This was notes action for seduction, but for breach of a marriage contract, and the question was what damage the plaintiff had sustained for the breach of it. He should not be surprised if next assizes an action should be brought for the seduction. Some sentiments had escaped the lips of the Frenchman in which he could not agree, and he hoped he should never have to see the day when, nationally speaking, the sentiments about marriage which he had expressed should prevail in this country. In France such opinions were common, and it behoved the keeper of • lodging-house to be careful how a person was admitted into such a house with such known sentiments of hie nation. The condition of the plaintiff was that of maid of all work—making the beds, cleaning the 1 rooms, and, i n frequency of intercourse with these Frenchmen, who, knbwing the sentiments which they generally entertained with regard to amours, was very likely to lead to such a consequence as had resulted. The appearance, too, and manners of Frenchmen, though not very winning among we of the male sex, was said to be fascinating among women. The learned Serjeant then commented on the absence of Mr. Ostler as a witness. All was left to the testimony of Mrs. Ostler, whose evidence, however coloured, could not be contradicted. The condition of the plaintiff in having had a child, no doubt, was to be deplored, but that was not the subject of the present action. What had the plaintiff lost, according to the showing of the plaintiff's own witness ? a man who was almost a lunatic—in a state of destitution, and about to commit suicide. He possessed • right in a patent which had been mortgaged. The learned counsel begged them not to be led astray by the appeal of his learned friend. Broken hearts did not prevail past one-and-twenty, and the plaintiff's heart, they might depend on it, would not be broken that day month. If they gave what his learned friend called 'exemplary damages,' they would have the defendant "ping through the Insolvent Court. He left the case in their hands to deal with as they believed it deserved. His LORDSHIP then summed sip the evidence. The plaintiff's uncle and aunt appeared to have behaved remarkably well in the matter, and if such opinions as had been alluded to prevailed in France, Frenchmen, when they came into this country, must be amenable to the laws of thin country. The Jury, after a short absence, found a verdict for the plaintift—Daakages, £lOO.  SILIVAPCY OP OOMPANI Vol _ _  Under -dm not Roden,  tin pro= '47fiti; ) pot cky be roods  having Nei lellige , tigneraridd !Milton* 0/ ate deeded' of this division of te Court: A The ease was fulfr argued in the begintling of this week, and the Con advised it to-day. The Loan Petal !yr maid—This was a double action for damages at oomi4os law, and for penalties ander the statute. He was no prepaied to adopt the view that these two conelusioes were inconsistent with each other. But at presedt they had only to deal with theit SI to penalties This was not • criminal indictment and was not to be dish with as such. But it was a penal action, and to be strictly dealt with. Such actions required to be more _strictly dealt with than ordinary actions. The summons aught be 'efficiently framed for general conelusions, but not for penal consequences. MI was not prepared to-my that • summons of penalties ' might not be made more clear by a condom:tendency', but . still the present was defective in such • way as not to adquit of this. The thing dealt with here is an operation lOn an existing road. The statute did pot.regoh cases of . mere footpath; but he was notpiepared to say that It 'did not reach roads made for driving cattle to and from ;market, Or roads for other purposes. Such roads might ilm expensively made, and might be extremely useful, and would, therefore, come within the meaning of the statute. Section 47 (which imposes the penalties) was nothing at all without section 46 (which enacts that roads Interfered with shall have other roads substituted for them). To make the summons relevant it should have set forth that the railway company did cut, sink, &C., existing roads without making substitutes. It was also necessary to state the time when that was done. He inferred, from , the statement made in the summons, that, while the bridge existed, the pursuer's access had not been out off. There was no statement as to when the railway company commenced their operations, and therefore there was no statement when then contravened the statute The bridge most be held to have been a subetiinte road. It was for the company taking down this bridge that the pursuer raised his action. But the removal of a substitute road was not a case within the statute. It was • ease for damages at common law. It was not 01,44 stated he* long this state of matters lasted. Tffere should have been • "pedal time stated. From the statement it was net clear that the road interfered with was the road to which the statute would apply. A. road through a field would not be such, but • regularly formed road so already mentioned might be so. Upon the whole view of the case, he thought the summons not eufficiently precise. The summons should always stand epos itself, although the condescendence might in some eases explain the extent and scope included in it. He therefore thought the case, as regarded the action for penalties, had not been relevantly laid. Lord FULL/kitten was much of the same opinion as his Lordship. He could not receive the summons as comb plying with the statute, as he thought the road referred to was not within the statute. Lord CI: