The Times from London, Greater London, England • Page 11

PRIVY COUNCIL, "jhp cm ww, mcocic. ir VS RrnTCotuiR.) i Ntft Ar lit VT JttJK.tre forUbe Nt 'e tern tnf. riU Mftboroedsn lady. i idt i ti m1.81.? High Court leU tat it wnVeWt in StX.l'ariwip in the Settleweut Depatt at9UlfHL in alienatkm ef hsr Jttr in the iffce in furf the impendent Jmo how Ma were for the 'ap art for were Ml ctlled Ulu, ind tbe appeal a ithirostt. (JlVTM rV crWME COCRt OF CPIGATUHE, iS' "ixH'UT OF AITKAU I.

0u itN'. litEIHLAHt irii. THE TIMES, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12 187G. 11 Uwcuutit', with itifociion it into nr Mg Juki by the Citric what fSltott pkoti o' Newest! and; Jieiag" asked iUJ hot 'kilk at l.e said pot Ibtw, hut the iifrtir.j? thj' who jonm pndel with Glvn's, nd with had tanked (1 40igu balance wa men the jx'rUr tnl, and then signeu 'wit 'Newcastle. 1 stern on litl return he told iiratidt uc 11.

HiUry Sittings toca T.ral. ff hr rpUccd the nfint cuoinicnrc'l in the. rariou' of iU High Cjtt, Acorliri2 the IV ni 1 WiHUw 1V TO, lolihits wuyi from leanni fcttr a the 3U Ji uiofhl frittt of have lasbst from then. wr few tb.n wetfc, tu'l "iUrj from vr thTA frioti of VbcuTis lf i a Jtfinite lr th 15tU of April, the mtutory ttiS of YM'tr Term. 1 the event of Ktr JlSttitoae tt lis the oomroeaeerotut abil of Terra were ajjititel in tonfonnity to the and no fpcuinr iies couin WhiUthriMnsof theUowt.

rrniivnnitJ hr tlie xldition Mtmsicc the emfcof Ea.ter a eorrt ren'lias of ttuory rMii IVjuitr Vna the ofJUj. lint ebrU II this, and, uu.ier the of iebI aalhorol the Jodiotturo Aet IxjM rui'ttitpcftke liisht ourt hve reivel a eecle.us "rrifi u. l.cl to the re l.eformtion lUacm.i!noT mow earner hem wneu. tic the Ml1 Li UfrTtami the of the ftUnU and futi of Holy SL t. Ewter nd Trinity aeiUoni, tcitexd of fflhnj at jJ rerid.

to a toaffopl conrcoient break between Jiwurr and ASt, now moteabie feasit, fnifting t'th tii fluctuation ot the Church Calendar, to thoprejt fecMTtsieace of Ue rrofeasion. and with no correipondinj St to the twHif In the rreeent rear, for instanee the Sur Sittmr will lat from the 11th of January until STlftaof AiTu full weelti without, at far a cn at st he artained, any break rr interminien while, If Enter fell, a onetime htrn, on the 2fth of April, tacCVnru wetdd be occcnied for neirly 15 consecutive rftK On the other liand, if Eaiter fall early. ay. on ti 5th of Mirth, the Easter Vacation will terminate on tit 34 of Aieil, before any of the Circuit are over, thu prise the Jodge barrinten of the Common Law prisn ibeolutely no vacation. But.

a under th nevr ns thAVhitua Vacation of ten day Sunday inch lei trmiaate oa Trinity JlonJar, the Chancery aittisr, in the ee of erly Eater, might be protracted hm tie lith of My until the th of Auput, nearly' it durior the heated titce of ti yejr. The it ytem fEmltins the ottinc to eome it orfeven week eon has not woiIcmI badly, and it baa been found that thi ittin of daily attendance for that period in the twienont. Gl TentilateJ Court in which, with the excep to of the Court of Appeal, the Chancery kotne i con iaVi more than tnffiejent to eihauit the natal and phyicl, of the moat vigorous practitioiur. la ihort break which have hitherto been allowed would area aiaalately neceaMry, not onlr as brcathin; time, in literal eni of the word, but also to enable the Into naiter their brief and the junioii to prejmre tkerpleaiinr, with neeary attention to the interest of tbr cheat uader the preaent hifih preure item of Twt tk minSaU tm tnrat Its, otherwise a word mifht It crl behalf of thou onfortunate ncmWn of the Jiiior Bar, who, a reporter, will compelled to daily asesiisce and mental itrain of the aertreit order for 13 week at a stretch, to the esclmion of all ethtr octnpationa, and with, in their eat, no correiponding bereate of emolnicent to lijhten their dreary taak. If, aa ia feraier ure, th arreart in Chancery were ao coniiderable that tttT emjld not 1 kept under without the aitnca of aiitioaal Jndf or mote tittinj, the conre aWe fcf the prnfea'ion mut.

of eourae, yield to pnblie kecMairr. Rnt tht i notoriously far from being now the The eane li! for the Chancery Division juit iued the arrraje of former year, and, the Vice CkuctSor are to nil up their time by aitticg at A'm Print, tire will certainly not be rufiicieiit butineta to cupy the Ctert satil the 13th of April But it may be hoped that the present time and the 2Dth of February, up to the Sittingn' l'apen hare been made out, aome encttsioa my be made eitiier by a tbort adjournment for tvtfker ten day, or at leait byruinc for one day in rmy week and that the proriiion of Rnle 5 under the Jadiatore Act at to the Hilary and Trinity Sitting may raj permiuira rather than compulaory Uftn Ltii ittt Javes. ilixuyu. one Bagg allay. TBI CCUTTf ESTERS BAlLWAVfOMPASV V.

SMtTII. Tki wa an appeal from Vice ChanrclIorHall titi jt, a bill by the pUintiff conirany for the purpose rntraiaint the defendant from working certain coal at Ttdutbnry.under their line from Lirmingham to AVolrer kawptoB. Ai the cue wa not rcncln.led at the ruing nf the Court, merre enr rrport. Mr. TxeaireT.

Q.C., Mr. Darey. O.C., and Mr. H. A.

Giffard ppered for the riaintiff Mr. Dickinson, Q.C, Mr. JoU5e for the defendant. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, Jak. a1L CILVKCElir DIVISION.

IBtfoit tht MASTEKof Roua) OtlCBAL tlAKTLU OOL pOLLIERtE CO. V. GIBB. Tti wu a notion for injunction. The plaintiff anyea burine at a wharf at liateliff.

having a rontaje UilfL to the rirer Thame. The defendant i the owner ft wharf and dock, known at Ratcliff crost Dock, adjein jJaintiflV premie. The plaintifft have acrew 115ft fa length, which, not being able to overlap on UtMitera end of their wharf, owing to the existence there pshlic thoreujhfare called lUtclifT cro Stair, Jfe to oeerlap the defehdant wharf to the extent of litl C'loadiog. The plaintiff compliined of a float nabte tpiured front of the defendant' wharf arid pfjtisx lata the tideway, which waa alleged to prevent collier from Uinr brought alongside their own 1J new niored for on injunction to restrain Jt a from olrlJIS tue remain in front law wharf, ea the ground that it was a source of private particular injury to themaeleea as well an ooatruc the rig do cf the river. The defendant's case "that the of the Thame had eanctioned "taad evidence waa given that uch float are not ered to be obstruction of the navigation of the river.

sr. noihurgh. Q.O, and Mr. Caldeeott for the plaintiff Clutty. and Mr.

Lsing for the defendant, were as cooal v. the Kolls granted an injuiaction re rr" oeieaaant until the hearing oi me caue Iroin rrtirt the navigation of the riTer opposite the de "Mw whrf dock to a to prevent the plaintiffs' 7i from cctnis at til reasonable time to, and remain Awasble time alongside, the plaintifft' wharf or Jl 'oucr ine same. tthe Roll wee, aa the Court of Bi uraed that there will be no aittingat day, Thursday, or Friday thu EoU will be engaged in the Brfort Vvt CUnttUor Sir C. HALL.) JtASIsxr A5tl01tIEIU V. XEXEALT.

liZ'" PPlction in an action initituted bthe toe treainrfer. anJ lUnK.r. nf C.Tt.nn to compel him to wirrender up to setof ehambei lelouging to the Inn. and lately oc 5 ky hio a lyncher, he Uing alo one of the ia? if? Sfefoty It appeared that, notwithttand been both dubenched and dUbarred, Dr. Rnl In been rerved.

The writ had Imt bl not be. it airLUtfAX, for the nlainUffa. aimlied. nn'Jer Order Ueniuri 1 1. 10 the Jttdicature AcU, for liberty haT.i IP recovery of possesion of the chamber ti.

VflP Kly might I ordered to execute of hi interest as a trustee of the Society to chamber in question contitutlng l7t Pnrrty. The two claim were closely ioX4" ttld conrcnieatly be tried and dii posed of li(l te eauae of acUen were eonnected, and granted the application. fSj. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Wot the Loed Chiet csmcE, Mr.

TU r. Justice Lcsn.) taiW DirUVm aat in two Court i Banto, "tich there are 66 In the lut, thearrear. of eaaea for tnal are cleared off. tttTww'lf COMrAKT. aoS t4.la the London cause list, waa jNluUiutriaL there Uing about 1(K witnease to IUiiASTWE toa rrncl lasted them to endeavour to euietT i7 whkh lb TUteJJSf.

0RJB IASTER BASKING COMrAWT. ud ha. also been Pt Importance tof tht eoomnnity, especially with Wt 1 wa. an aetioi br a Londce. na Benk to recover mm of fptJtoJZXtKi Ca hadarrsxred with a person at 3 th4taar.

Xh fnnJ tor payment of a JMSl 7im. The would be We ihal? 1 JMT Brandt' wroU to mt ur tweed to Clyn'a for ywar Mm Tour acent.n 4. oi now JS to OlnV rnr a ekatk T.Z. Brandt', eent by a tt "Tw cl Bluet for 300 (tht tmcraat of in o'li, iilrnV The Jt was, aiij nhat'lxtnkifc liisfrn agashtt iiirii" i luink. anil givci tiotet.aud they wrote by that wt to teihng him that they Ijt.

that lie nt reriut tln the Lalascd auu a ins" wiem of lh eptikc and tWyn. by advised I the Nnrtli VTterh liatik that werocrelitei ftii coiint for with the arrival of the letter iicxt lnoriaeg. Sjt debited cw account' with amount by the batik. lu theineaiitimiv Short, who had Atnttle1 to wvis liljn'a at to the aecepUnic, tciegrat'Iinl and te (o llrm Ua to that eilcct. and 'that would do so.

and next dav remit the battucci 'to take up: the. bill. ISttti fci the ruciiutime. Clyu's, having I5d no advise a to the bill, i tnltud thcj aniouut to the. credit of SLcrt at the wcatl'' ank, aii tKy had appliel it to Kt on account.

This von the 'tnorning of the ICth.j the day which tho bill was payable at tltyn's. Iateja t(ie: same day came to the bank at Sewcastleiaod nsJied them if they had cot receivetl the and tcljing them that the inonVv had brch ent to ilyu' to meet the! hill, and asked Jthctn to remit it back for" the pur', which they in ilo; unle; at all events, Jte iWliol the to makoup the 1,000, whi.li ho didjnut do. On 'tie. 17th Brandt wrote to.Short Your hnkcr mailt hav got al vice of our payment of iTA'iO to (Uvr. All yon hive to ida is to get them to runit tho of the' bill there, had aireadr trieil fo getlthetu to do but they declined, and 'insisted 'on their light 1 u.

retain the to his credit, 'and In" thu result the bill wa dishonoured and l'nindt had to pay it aod then they I brought this (action to tveutcr the amount they had paid uing, not whow they had jaid it, bat the Newcastln whom it had been remittal. The case 1 was tried iiiit the Ase t. Kingston before the Lord Ifaivn; who tfiought that in la" the.plam tiffs were clearly entitled to recover.fand directed a verdict in their favar. There was an application for a new trial, which was granted, tho iourt thinking that there might tN a i'tiou as to mercantile usage whether Glyn i having no lluiher instructions, than that the money was for MIort'at Newcastle, and bing also told tht he banked withtiic Northdlistcrn Hank there, were not warranted remitting tti H'oney to hi credit there and whether, at I all event, tfcc Newcastle Hank were not justified, on ceiving the money when reniittetl to tluiii, jn placing It to the credit of his atoount. The cese was then trieit again 1 at the As.ir at the IJnl Ct.ie.f Justice, whoi bowel ej took the same view as.the lurd Chief liaron, and directHt'a verdict for the plaittiffs, but reaerved the juction of Uw for the Court whether, on the facu, hich were' iiiuilar to thrwe.

whirii appeared at the tint trinl evidoat waa rather more fullv 2VeU. the plaintufi yere entitled to recover, and that ijueiUon wa ow arguiMl. Mr. Wrtkiii Williams, Q.C.; Mr. 'Cohen.

Q.C., and Mr. Hollama were lor the plaintiffs Mr. Hawkins, Q.U., Mr. Serjeant Tairy, and Mr, l'atcbvtt were for the ImibIc The argument for the plaintiff wa that the check wa ent to bill, and that Olyn' had no authority to remit the inoney to the Newcatle Bank, and that the porter hail uii authority to give such direction. On the part of the Newcastle Dank it wa contended that, whatever waa intended, the check waa not ent with any direction to meet the bill, and that the sending it ''for Short," a hf bad no account with them, implieil that it was to be ivtuittrd to him, and it could only be remitted through his linkers and.i further; that, whether or not thejiorter had authority to give uch a direction, be had told Brandt wliat he had done, and they acquiesced in it and afterwanl ratified it.

Moreover; it wa argued as the. rheck was payable' to Short or bearer." the drawer could not ue to recover the amount, but that if anybody wa ito sne for it. Short only was entitled. And it tniisvd that this was, in decided by the Court of Error in the well known case nf Glyni v. Misa." Further, it waa argued that if Glyn'a had no authority to renufc IDC rooory io.cncauc, iuyu uiji" nuv, tvi It, either to or Short, and that Glyn' should le ued for it.

At the cloaelof the arguments, which lasted till the, end of the day, Tbe Col'Kt Sve judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The Lokd CuiEi Jcrtice, in giving judgment, said the case wis clear asd simple. Tlio Newcastle Bank knew, just after entering sum to Short credit, that it wa not Intemled to be received by them but that it wa to meet a bill 'at Glyn', and only came to them by a rash error on the of the clerk at Glyn't and be did not hesitate to say that' the retention of the money by the Newcattle Bank wa mot dishonest; The clerk at Glyn' had no authority whatever to remit the meney to Newcastle. I'nasibly Glyn mhjht have been sued, but the case was practically the same as if Glyn' Imft sent the check itself to Newcastle without authority. The check could be recovered in an action of trover, and an action would equally lie for the proceeds.

Nothing that occurred after the sending moniy to Glyris wa materiaL There was no authority to send it te the Newcastle Bank, and they were HableT for.the money. Law and justice in this case, he thougbt.jjoccurred. Mr. Justice MelloP. eonenrred.

Money which wa aent to Glyn' to meet a bill payable tbere had by tome misadventure got into the hands of the Newcastle Bank, and they ought not to have retained it and were, therefore, liable to refund it Mr. Justice Lrsii also concurred. The money wa paid to tilrn's without any specific instructions, and no doubt if abort had had an account with them they could have placed' it to his credit but ho had no account with them, and Ithcy, without authority, ent it to the Newcastle Bank. The. money had only got into the hands of the Newcastle Bank by If they had made adj ranee cn the credit 'of it, perhaps they could 'have retained it bit it wa nut so, and their account was not altered.

They hadrio; righl, therefore, to tho money, and were bound to repay it Judgment for the plaintiffs. Second DmsioxAL SUtinn in Banco, before Jvtticti Blackbcrs, QCAty, and Field.) SlOnUITT SORTU nASTEKX RAILWAY COMrANT. Thi was i an action to recover damages for injury done to certain valuable drawing through the alleged negligence of the defendant, and at the trial before Mr. Justice Field at Durham tle. jury returned a verdict for the' plaintiff damage 175, but leave was reserved for the defendant te move.

3ir. Charles Kcssell, Q.C. (with whom wa Mr. Gainsford Bmee), now showed cans against a rule which had been obtained to enter a verdict for the defendants on the ground that they were protected by th Carriers Act. limiting the liability of earricj and also on the ground tlxt tne! gocxl were not 'personal luggage.

It appeared that the plaintiff; left London for Barnard Castle, taking the drawing with him. Having stayed at York all night, the morning he proceeded. 6i his journey, placing the drawings in the charge of the guard, and i telling him that they were very valuable. They were labelled for and the guard took them into bis van. On leaving Darlington, the plaintiff, tvtu informed that his luggaje was all right, but when he reached hi destination tho drawing were missing.

mistake they had been sent on to Durham, abd by some mean got (injured to th extent of 75. On tfhc part of the plaintiff it wa contended that the negligence or wrongful act of the det'endsfit in taking the goods i to Durliam, where they were injured, deprived them of the proteciionof the Carrinr" Act, and that they were liable for the full amount of th damage. Mr. HER.icnr.LL, O.a.and having been heard in upport of the rule, i Mr. Justice BLACK lit'RN said he was of opinion that the verdict fonad for the plaintiff should be set aside and thu rnle made kbolute, on the ground that the defendant were protected by the Carrier' Vet, the good being pictures, and the plaintiff, not having declared their value and offered to pay the additional sum necessary.

With regard to tho question of negligence, he thought that a glazed drawing unprotected by a case might easily be Injured by a slight blow in the course of transit, without auy segligcace! The other JCDOES alio thought that the defendant were entitled to the protection ef tho Carriers' Act Bale absolute. KOPITOFF V. VILSOS. The action wa brought to recover damages for the loss of six armour plates and six casts of bolts consigned to the Kusslan Government, to be used in the construction of a turret ship caL'ed Peter the Great The plate and bolts were shipped on board the defendant' nip Walamo which down' on a Toj age from Hull to Cronstadt, in consequence, as alleged, of a hole being knocked in the side by one or 'more of the platea, which had broken loose in the hold. The plaintiff cane was that the plates broke laote through being improperly stowed and secured, and th defendant', that the accident wa caused by the heavy weather and the excessive rolling of the ship.

The trial wat held lefore Mr. Justice Blackburn ia July last at when tho jury, after long deliberation, found that the vessel at the time ot sailing wa not in such a state a regarded stowage at to be reasonably fit to encounter the ordinary peril of such a voyage, and that the loa was occasioned by that unfitness. Utwn that findlne a Terdict was entered for the pUintiff, but leave was reserved to the, defendant to more, hubeequently, a rule was obtained to aet aside the verdict and enter a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the defendant wat relieved from liability by the bill oMading, which excepted the perilt of the sea, aad the negligence of master and crew and also for a new trial on the ground of misdirection by the learned Judge. Mr. Cehen.

Q.C. Mr. Bntt, Q.C, and Mr. J. CvMatbew were for the plaintiff Sir Henry James, Q.C., the Hoe.

Alfred Theaigeri Q.C, Enkine Pollock, 'and Mr. Johnstone for the defendant At the last sitting Mr. Cohen showed cause, and Mr. Thesicer. on th part of the hipowner, now resumed and concluded his argument in support of the rule.

The COCRT intimated that they would merre judgment COMMON PLEAS SiUinat in Banco, Ufort Lord Chief utile CoiXBXDat, Mr.Jvtkt Mr. Jutt ice Archibald. Thi wa the first day of the Hilary Sittings under the new Judi sature Act, and there being no motion from the Bar, the Court rroeeeded to take the new Trial Paper. V. TAVLOR TUATCHEE V.

TAYLOR. These (were two actios for false imprisonment, tried together before Mr. Justice Brett and a special jury in December, 1874. The defendant waa a partner In the brewery of Mr. Halt the member for Oxford, and the Mrs.

Griffiths, a publio vocalist, and Mis TbaUher wa her titter. Z. The short facta of the caae, which were fully reported in Tht Timet, were that on the night ot the 21 of July, the defendant baring taken hi ticket from Oxford for Beading, missed a box of egg Jiu the train wa about to sjkajt. When the train got to llcadiag the box wa found in a comjartiaeat in which th plaintiff were tcttad, tpoa i wbicli the defendant revjueited the stitionfnaster to take thctn lx)th into cuHody. The Atationuiatr, howerer, re I fused, and the deft rulant then telegraphed to Jndoa, and 1 the plaintiff were arrested whes t'Ue train reached Pad I dinstoh and wefe iockisl up for the nijht The defendant at th trul pleaded Not Guilty by I statute, and a jutin.ition," and the iury uion the first of these plea found 4n lua favour, but uon the second they found for.the plaiatiiJ.4.

A rule aftcrwaril obtaineil utton the Krouud th.it.there was noeviilihce of fact which I warranted tho iuvr in findina that the defendant was justitt under tie "statute and lo uiou the ground that either present or prospective lldUon. ferfcna should lritisi ii5.he 1. aw IJBrtiti? adopted the report a or iered tae setue time. 'But, as we havo said, we think ther ws evidence of neligrr.ce on the part of the defindanta uhich cauaed delar in leaving Manchester and we further think that thero waa evidence that the delay ia leaving Manchester' 1 merit tob vanVl in the 'minlier forSMted. by it waa a oi me laie amvai it icvu, au i ot ycc nuproirtouity ot arriving in tiroci.t tscaruorousn.

mere wis eviuetie, we tuive no right to interfere with the con cl iiiiton. A theuamases. we think tliai the rule at'ri butcil to B. in ILimlin v. liri at Northern lutil 'wajr.

pi Uir Exchequer S.C, and 1 H. and 408) is a gwl expression of tae law. Ve think it may jiroperlj be eaid that, if the jarty buund to perform a contract doc. not jierforra it, the other do so tor unit a an 1 at near as may the learned Jude misdirrcted tha iurr a to the meaningif ili ir. t.l.

'ffnin rnmminiii and iii ifillinVtheni that if iarty ny 1 i 1 1 tw h3 him tha mil n.ttmwl in suru a line iinaga riiieii i Rave uic uicuu iuv nt 1. 1. i 1 l. V. ilrthi'r I tirt cm rtt! i ifi'iwn lilnrrrwTrn note aim irvMwc uum; iu i.ic.v, did honestly and fnd fW lielicie, that th plaintiffs had J.

in the case ol JIoi)bs r. lndon and estrn stolen the los, the defendant would be entitled to the I'ailwy (41 Q. 1L wJij aays the verdict. rule is that the itamages to be recoverwl in an action for a i Mr. and 'Mr.

Nevill "showed cause Mr. Digby Sey 'breach of contract to Supply iomethin are the lU'ierence jnonr, and Mr. eupportel the rule. etwee that which should have been supplied and the i At the conclusion of the argurneuts, which lasted coit ofcobtaining something equally good, or, if that is not I throughout the day, the CoCUT said they would take time attainable, of the lt uisfitute. We think that in thi to corsider iudzmeut case there was evidence upon which the County Court LE BLA.VCHE V.

LO.XUOX AND WK1TER RAILWA fm that the lianthj wtJ nJt reasonably called upon to COMTANY. wait at York tor the late train, and mi'ht reasonably tale This was. a special caae fiom a County; Cbart, which the special train to Scarborough, being tor such distance raise I the question, for the first time before a Superior at suca ia, price and, therefoie, we think that the County Court, How tar railway companies are liable ior the conse C'urtJndge wa in law. in holding that the plain quemeof not keeping time with i their train according to tiff might charge defendant with the cots of the i i i w. r' ineir puoiisnea iiine Kiiis iffjrnL from the workinrof thm Judicatare Ia Norember ttere were 2., and there are the sereral dirisiocs, 42, besides 27 Bankruptcy appeal and two appeals from iaf eritr Courts.

THE PfEUC Vor.IP Rrr.rLATWS Act." Clifton an.1 others r. the J. Ridsdale. The rtoctor Olr. Broiksl hsi jui Sleil the prayer, as directed ly Lord i'enzacce, on behalf of Mr.

Brdsdale. the ljicumtect of St Peter's, Folkestone, couched ia the followiirg ord The Proctor for th" rejcnient will humbiy fry that ti partr mar be JismisW irora all furthef ibcrrDce of iurtice ia the matter of th? taul rprejentatioc. That the eomrvJiirinU mar be Mnuemnea la tlie cnU cz ana oneorrne Ttata waj vt yirtedtobe Xcciat train. do nbt ay that in every cae of a jfis senger misting a train iii 'correi'pondenco with that in which he is, though he mis it by the default of the company's servants, he is, therefore, immediately to take a special train for anr distance at any coat, or that a man, and Mr. Justice Lindlry having taken ttmi to I Jmige or jury would bo bound to allow every ease, or ider, judgment was delivered to day by Mr.

Justice justified in'allowihg in every case, for the cost of a special 1 L. 1 'II, The case was argued last sittings by Mr. Hersehell. Q.C.,: and Mr. H.

11. Webotcr for the appellants and by Mr. Charles Russe'll. O.C.. nnd Crumi for the rcstwndent The Court composed ol Mr.

Justice Brett, Mr. Justice Jienman, cons Brett i and. as the case was one of treat tiubltc interest, we publish the judgment, in which the fact fully appear i Mr. Jutico iument of the expres train. The question must always be whetner it was a reasonable thing to do, having regard to all the cir cumstances.

When to taken special tram is a reasonable Brett said, Thi was an appeal from t' thing to do, we oro of opinion that it is sufficiently the County Court Judge Blooms natural result of the breacn of contract to bring it within i i. i i ii .1.. bury. The claim was for tho eost of a p. ctal train irora Leeds to scarborouili, winen tram tno piamim iu ordered in consequence of his being brought from Liverpool to Leeds too late for the ordinary train from Leeds to Scar botough.

The pUintiif took a first class ticket at the def cndanta' station iii Liverpool by the '2 p.m. train lot Scar I borough, rid Kccles. Staliybridge, Huddersfield, Leeds, and York. The ticket had endorsed upon it the words, I issued, kc, subject to the company' regulations and to the condition in tho time table of th respective com time panic over whoso linei this ticket is ivail The, of the defendants' company contained the fell the Itzal rule. "We are of opinion that the judgment ai pealed against was aubatantialiy correct, and that the appeal must be dismissed, wllh costs.

WASHER V. ELLIOTT. This was a rule at the last aittings before 3Ir. Jnstics Grove, Mr. Justice Archibald, and Justice Lindley, and it raised the question whether the Lord Mayor's Court had jurisdiction, under the Debtor Act, 1W, to mike an order iu repect of a judgment of a ui rior, Court where the amount did not exceed u0, and where the defendant did not reside at the time, nor did i ADMIRALTY DIYI5IC X.

Ikjort tXr Jf Sir O. J. PHILLIMORE.) 'in THoELOi 'v. Ttis vris cause of Lalrage. 1 In 'the raoath of joctotjer last the Itoapero, a i erarw steamship 4fi tois, wti! uu a vojtJ from ydga to i.rl?ibTivith sleepers, nnd oit the locrr liias wiu tea ry which crned away her Itieboat and'bilwark aaajextirrnsted her pre.

The ioatswat fan.en.wsTo wasneu nTtrnoari ana urowned. nus were made scarcely any headway, and. the waterm i 1, heriasifri ad. Tist fiducg tnacc Owner Pride, ef HuL, w. r.M.a cme up ivith hr about cWt a.rru cf the 1 jth of Octoberl and fcr some hour.

rdteiKt her cpoh tcJttS 11 clock anblber r.hinr smack, the Monmouth, Prcspero iu o'cieck of the next norring. Tt Value the rospero and her carj was abint iSy 'Wr. tlti Uut, Q.L., tud A'pinaH lor tbe owners and crew of the Owner "Pride Mr. arkon for t. (Before TtiOAS Cihiibers, fie ConMo Strjttttt.) the'owner of th ijlonmouth Dr.

Deane, Q.C, and Mr. John Brown, a clerk. ieaJed t'imtfn to stctliag T'V. 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 VI. I.

TJie 29) to the owner and crew of the eaibcuiing fhe sums of il, li7 2.. au 1J3 7 tii, Ot tier's 100 to tii ojaers and crw of th moneys or the am gcntle. i.ia and Iikewwi" to lelmiouly nP. ana isoous. ocsoc cous am.ca.

too mdi. ondee tUPtAKe IVoraMi, "Aet taw. and brotigat cer into the number atout CESTIiAL CHIMISAL VOUUT. Vaw. 11.

Monmouth, but allowed only one set of costs. entries as to the 2 train Ix ave Liverpool, arrive Manchester, a leave Manchester, 3 20; arrive Leeds, 5 leave Leeds 5 20 arrive York 05.J rriye Scar bitough, 7 30. Certain conditions wero set out in the time J'wul i ths cause of action accrue, within the City of London. The actiou Was urion a bill of exehanza, in which the plaintiff had recovered judgment in this Court for I'td Oi. the defendant being the acceptor of the bill.

The bill wa accepted and made payable at 2C, Parliament tables, which were the subject of the discussion. The train, strectj wh.re defendant then resided and carried on COURT QF BANKRUPTCY, Jan lL before Mr. fiegutrtir Vzvrz, tifliitg at Chief Jurlje.) IN4 RE J. AVE tLE. This was an application on behalf of the truste under thej li iuidntion ol James Wealc, wine merchant, carrying on business at 1, Adam street Adelphi, for a declaration that a deed of assignment eisecuted by the debtor of certain policies of assurance was rnid.

Mr. Grantham appeared in snpjiort of the application Mn Do Gox, Q.t.aad Mr. J. Linklatec for the respondent It would eera that ca of March, 1353, the debtor (since deceaed), in contemplation of tharriige executed a deed of settlement, by which he covenanted to; pay to trustee during hjs lifetime, or, by his escctitor, within three months alter death, the mm of CJ.COO, with interest at 5 per if such sum were not paid in his lifetime. In the latter jurt of 1871 Mr.

Bull, the father in law of the debtor, and with whom he had been in partnership, mad a complaint that he could not: obtain a balance sheet of tne previous year from his partner. The trustee of the settlement afterwards pressed for some security that ttusjebtor would perform hi eortnaat for payment of theiSTPOO, and on the lOih of April, he executed aa aaignmnt to'Mer It Male and 1L M. "SVeale the latter being one of, the trustees under'the ettlement ef three polide of assurance effected with the Scottish Widow tund. sub ject to a prior charge, thereon. The trustee in liquidation uiiucr tir.uni'siaucrB ai.v iu tnuiutr, business, aud neither pUintiif defendant resided 1 T.vu liiaw wid ucuiur wis unau.c to pay ni ueui at vxic or three minutes after 2.

i.ro., left Manchester at 3 3j, nd B0J hnincss in the City of Shortly I lt' of this heed, but the aj of tho policies stated arrived at Leeds at 5 27. The ordinary and corresponding ttcr judgment an onif WM mtde by a Judge at Chamber thty believed him to solvent. In September, tram for rk had leit at i'0. Tlie plamttff pioccedetl to upon i under the Debtors' Act lor the payment tlta debtor filed hii jwtition forliquidation, when lork by th next train, which left Leeds at 5j. and 0f the debt by instalments of 1'laweek.

Four ot these liabilities wete returned at 15,000, with asset, 1. 500. The aext tram then fromTork insUlments Were paid but, the defendant having fallen iie now skel that the deed to ScarlKrougli would; leave at 8 aad wa timed jnto arrears a to nbseiuent instalments, a summon was I Aytu, aouuui ve tiecureu toiu. to arrive at Scarborough at 10 0 p.m. Jhe pUm rniirt n.I.r tha After hennr.s the argument of counsel.

tiff thereupon took a succial train, by which he afrivpd at Scarborough between 8 SO and 9 p.m. TJie County Court Judge came to the conclusion that there was a want of attention to insure punctuality, and an unreasonable delay while the train wat on the defendants' line, which caused the late arrival at Leeds and the loss of the ordinary train to' Scarborough, nd, refusing to non suit tho plaintiff, he held that the plaintiff was justified in taking the express train, and wa entitled to charge the cost of it against the defendants. The conditions beiore referred to were as follows 1.. The arrival time denotes when the train may be expected, but the passengers, to. insure being booked, should be at the principal stations five minute earlier, and the intermediate stations ten minutes earlier.

The door of the booking oUics will be closed jwDctually at the hour fixed for the departure of the trains, af ter which no person ran be admitted. "2. Time Bill. The published time bill of thi company are only intended to give the time at which passengers may be certain to obtain their tickets for any journey from the various station, it being understood that the trains shall not start before the appoiuted time; Every attention will be paid to insure punctuality a far as it is practicable, but the director give notice that the company do not undertake that the tram shall start or arrive at tbe time pecined in the bill, nor will they be account' able for any loss, in convenience or injury which may arise from delays or detention. The right to stop the train at any atatioh on the Una, though not marked a a (topping station, i reserved.

3. The granting of ticket to passenger to place on the company's line, is an arrangement made for the con renience of the public, but the company do not hold.them elve responsible for any delay, detention, or other loss or injury whatsoever arising off their lines, or from the acts or default of other parties nor for the correctness of the times over the lines of other companies, nor for the arrival of thi company' own train in time for the nominally corresponding train of any othsr company or party." It was argued before us on behalf of ttie defendants, the appellants, that, taking the ticket, the time table, and the couditions together, there was no contract at all. a to any time of arrival that there was no contract to arrive at the time stated in the time table that there was no contract to make reasonable effort to arrive at the stated timet: that even if negligence were proved, by reason of which the train did not arrive in a reasonable tim, and damage were thereby caused, the conditions sared the defendants from any liability: that no question could be raied as to whether the condition were or were not reasonable, for the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts did not apply to contract for the conveyance of passenger that there was no evidence of negligence or want of reasonable effort that, at all events, the plaintiff was not entitled, under the circumstances, to take and charge the defendant with a special train. It wa argued for the plaintiff that either there wa an cipTCss contract that tbe defendant would use every attention to insure punctuality as far as practicable, or an implied contract that they woald make reasonable efforts that the train should arrive at the itated tin es that there wa evidence of negligence on the part, of the defendants which caused the delay, and that th plaintiff wa reasonably justified in taking the special train, and was therefore justified in charging tho cost of it to the defendant. The questions are, 1st, what facts and documents formed the contract 2d, hat was the contract 3d, was there any evidence of breach of contract 4th, were the damages such at might be legally pronounced As to the first, we are of opinion that the facts ments which' formed the contract "were the taking and granting the ticket, tho time and conditions.

If there were no conditions, or if tho ticket did not refer to them, it would be necassary to infer the terms of the contract by implication from the fact pf granting and receiving a ticket for such a service but it is clear, a it seem to us, that the passenger is referred to the conditions to find the modification of the contract which would be implied without them. It is that reference which makes them part of the coatract but then, as, to the tccond question, the refsrence canaot in such case make only the negative or restrictive parts of the condition binding as parts of the contract it must equally make the affirmative and explanatory parts of the conditions parts of, the coatract The first condition and the first part of the second, taken together, 6eem to amount to a contract that every person who arrives at a chief station fire minutes, or at an intermediate station ten minutes before the advertised time of departure of a train, shall receive a ticket to bb carried and. shall be carried by that train. The Vecoad part of the second condition is relied upon by the company, and, we think, rightly relied npon, to modify the contract which would without it be implied, and to prevent the advertising of tho times of arrival and departure amounting to an absolute coutract that the; train will arrive or depart exsctly at such time. It prevents any liability for any loss, inconvenience, or injury which may arise from, delays or detention, however long, being coasidcred as' mere delay or detention, that is to say, the company docs not contract that'" there will not, in fact, delay or detention of the longest period.

For inttance, the does not contract against delay or detention, however long, caused by mow or accident, or the like but as the negative and restrictive part of th condition is part of the contract, so, wa think, is the affirmative and explanatory part therefore think that the defendants did, by the statement to that effect in the "conditions, contract that they would pay every attention thit is to say, make every reasonable effort to ensure punctuality as tar as practicable. We further think that, without the conditions, there must bo an implied contract that the defendants would use reasonable efforts that their trains should both, start and arrive at the stated times, and that there is nothing in. the conditions to restrict that undertaking. third condition, in the like manner, negatives an absolute contract that punctuality shall be kept either by tho defendants or by the other core panics, aod negatives any responsibility of the defendants for the default as to punctuality of the other companies as, for xample, for even a 'want of reasonable effort by those companies to insure punctuality but it does not absolve the defendants from reasonable efforts on 'their part to meet the corresponding trains of tho other The next question is whether there was any evidence of a neglect by the defendant' servants of the coatract to make every reasonable effort to insure punctuality, and of such neglect, if any, bemr a cause of the injury alleged by the plaintiff. Now, we do not think that the mere fact of there being some want of riunctaality, either in starting a train from it first or any.

intermediate station or in the arrival at any. station, would be necessarily any evidence of a want of reasonable effort A delay of a few minutes in the original starting may, aa it seems to us, obviously occur though every reasonable effort is made to start the train punctually, and, therefore, would of itself be no evidence of what ought to be acted upon or left to a jury of a want of reasonable effort If any delay, howerer short, is to be evidence of a breach of contract the company is practically bound to aa absolute contract to tart to the moment, we hare held is not the true construction of their contract Neither 3 the mere fact of tome unpunctuality in arriving at or leaving an inter mediate station evidence by itself of neglect of a reasonable effort to secure punctuality but an unusual or long delay would, we think, be evidence calling apon the com pauy to account for it by ahewing how it occurred, as by the breaking of an engine pipe, or collision, or snow, or wet preventing friction, or accident, or by a Hidden, unexpected, and pot to be reasonably expected pi enure of passengers lomething which prevented punctuality, notwithstanding reasonable effort to secure it had been made. We think that in this esse the delay of 15 minutes in starting for Manchester was of itself sufficient to require explanation, and that the delay at St Helen's Junction required explanation and that these two facts were evidence of negligence that is to say, ot want of reasonable effort to be punctual. "U'e should observe that we need not agree, ana do not agree, with the idea that the defendants ought to have closed the doors at Liverpool before the advertised time in order to that out tardy passengers, for the first condition containa an undertaking that the booking office will be closid punctually, and the second fthtt the train Will not start fxem any station before the advertised issued out ot tbe l.ord flavor 1 Act. to which the defendant appeared under protest, and upon which an order wa made for payment of 12 a month.

Under circumstances, a rule njti for a prohibition having been obtained, Mr. Noel Paterson showed cause and Jlr. Cnanncll supported the rule and, the point being a novel one, the Court took time to consult the Judges of the other Courts. Mr. Justici Archibald now read the judercent of the Court, to the effect that the Lord Mayor's Court had no such jurisdiction as had lecn contended for.

"The ques tion turned upon the construction of 1 art 1 of tne Debtors Act ISM', where the language ot tne ota section, on wnicn the plaintiff ndiod. was most cenersL It was clear, how ever, that the Inferior Courts contemplated had power to make orders and to commit to prison, not only tn respect ot i I iU I Vm 1 aim iinitn. circumstance io respect of those of the Superior Court But what was tho meaning of the expression "com petent Court," so far as it applied to inferior Courts and was tnero any limitation beside amount 10 me junsuicuoa of Inferior Courta under the Act in reference to debts due in pursuance of judgments of the Superior Court I There was no interpretation in any clause of the Act of the woid or the expression comietent Court but, having regard to the subject matter of the Court were of opinion that, in order to give a reasonable and consisteat construction to the 0th section of the Act, the word Court and the expression competent Court must be understood to mean a Court acting within the local limits of its existing jurisdiction, and witk reference, to person within those limits, against whom, therefore, a warrant of the Court for committal could be eaforeed. At regarded a preliminary order for payment by intalmcnts, no doubt under the power to vary "such order, Infrrior Courts might rescind or vary their own order for payment by instilment but it seemed an extravagant construction of she Act to hold that by. force of the words any Court" it was intended to enable an Inferior Court to rescind or, a in the present instance, to vary an order of a Superior Court on a judgment of the latter, and thu virtually make the Inferior Court a Court of Appeal over the Superior The intention of the Act it appeared to be, in an Inferiot Court the power of committal and of making order in respect of judgment of the Superior Courts not exceeding j0, was not to extend its local jurisdiction in any way, but merely to render it, within it proper local limits, auxiliary to the Superior Courts.

Upon the whole, therefore, without deciding the question whether it was necessary, for the purpose of giving the Lord Mayor" Gourt power to make the order in question, that the original cause of action hould havo accrued within its jurisdiction, the Court wa. satisfied that the Act conferred no Such powers in relation to debtors who did not reside or carry on business within the City of London, and, fortiori, where the debtor was not at tbe time of the summons actually within the limit of jurisdiction. Therefore, ill further proceeding upon the summons and order in question houid bere straincik, and the rule for a prohibition made absolute, with costs. EXCHEQUER (Sittingt in Banco, before the Lord Chiei Barox, Baront Pollock and Hcddlestok.) This bainj; tte Hilary Sittings, the above learned Judges took their seat on the bench at half patt 10 o'clock. RIDIKG ET UXOR V.

gJHTH The rule in thi case wat argued tb dar. Mr. Ambrose. O.C.. and Mr.

Worsfcy showed cause a grocer, imputing in suosiance nr auuiierj wiia a clergyman. A rule was moved for to enter a nonsuit or a verdict for the defendant, pursuant te leave reserved, on the ground that there was no evidence of special There was also a motion in an eit of judgment, on the groundsthat there wa no gufficient statement of special damage, and that the action wa not maintainable at the suit of the plaintiff in right of the alleged slander the wife The COURT, however, diteliarged the rule, holding that His HONOIR held that the deed was executed in pursn auce of the covenant contained in tbe tettlcmtot of March, 1853, and that it was immaterial, in this view of the case, td (consider the stats of th debtor's" circumstance at the time. The application would therefore be dismissed, with COStS. 11 THE RAILWAY" COMMISSION. EVERSIIED Y.

TIIE LOXDO AND S0RTH WISTERr RAILWAY itJMrASY. jThis was an application to restrain. the London and North Western Railway Company from giving an undue preference to certain large brewing firms at Burton en Irent The applicant vr rc Mr. Sydney Erershed, Mesr. Robinson and jand Mr.

John Bell, carrying on the business of brewers at Mr. illa. Q.C, and Jlr. Meadows White appeared for the applicant Mr.j Pope, Q.C., and Mr. Carter for the respondent.

It appeared, by an Act paed in 1S59 the Midland Itulway Company had constructed various branch lines running from the niain line to various part of the town of Burton, over which, as well as over the main line, the respondent, for the purpose of their traffic, hsd running powers. Those branch lilies pasted over the business premises of certain 'brewers, who were competitors in trade with the applicant, more especially Messrs. Bass, Rateliffe and Grettpn, Messrs. Samuel AUsopp and Sons, Ind, Coope, and Messrs. Thomas Salt and.

Mes.rs. Worthiagtori and Ca, and the Burton Brewery Company. These firms had Iai 1 down private lines connecting their business premises' with the branch line mid by the North 'Weitern Railway Company. Both the applicants" and their competitors employed the North Western Bail way Company a carriers for theeanveyance.of barley, malt, hops, coal, timber, and empty casks to Barton, and in conveyance of aTe. in caslys from Barton to station in connexion with the railway system of that company.

The stition to station rales wero the ssmo for both parties, bat the applicants premises were not connected with any of the branch lines, and their roods, could be transported to the main goods station by cartage only. Those station to station rates included cartage to all parts of the town of Burton to wlueh was access by. the branch, lines. without any additional charge for Thus, it was alleged, was an undue preference given to the great brewers over the applicants, Jwho had to pay cartage rates, at an average of "Is. per in addition to the stntion to ttation rates, while for this the company performed that service without any charge.

Where, as it often was. haulage was performed was performed br the firm with their orm engines, a rebate oi lid. per ton was allowed off thejumpou andiayne, manuiaetunng enymist, 11 station rates, and a further reduction of 9d. per ton waa allowed whenever the labour of loading and unloading waa also saved to the company. These rebates, it 'was submitted, were excessive, and constituted an undue and injurious preference and.it was' also stated' that, the com puuy was bound by agreement to allow an aggregate rebate of Is.

1W. to the firm aJnti meil till the ar 1SS0. fn consequence of a decision of this Court in the case Bell r. the London and North Western Railway Company," tho applicants did not complain of the. rebate of 4d.

per. ton tor haulage, but rather of the rebate of 3d. for loading end unloading, which, they maintained, wunld be more adequately represented by one of 2J. They, there fore prayed tbe "Court to restrain the resnondent from continuing the preference' they were now snowing to the other brewers ot Burton, to the applicants disadvantage. London 'and North Western Company, in reply, admitted all the material allegation in the apj Iitation, but denied that there was any.

ease of undue or injurious were excessive. torgiu and uttenag certain scipaittunuJ and receipt tor the sums ot ai 1VI ls. aud iZZ with intent, to defraud. Mr.MoTAi.i WiLLUJts, the prisoner" counseL ati dressing the Court, sail the casawas a very iseUnchoiy cne. 1 he.

prisoner was the sea of a stvcktiroker, amton the father reurtnj from business the nb, who was then only IS rears of age, succeeded hira in it but twng uhder age, he had to carry on the business in another Act toij a a stockbroker on his juta account, be was ltd fc speculate largely on th Stock Kxchang. He. wis at length charged with certain defalcations 111 this court, to which he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment On his leaving the risoa at Hollowly his father and mother were waiting to receive him but, to their great astoaiahment and distress. Le wis arrsto I on a frrsn charge. Up to the time ef his defai'catioas he bad borne an irreproachabla character.

mm mu iui riiiiHiinii. 1 1 1 counsel asked the Court, under ihe Act of. 1'arllament'ap plicable to tbe case, to order the costs of the prosecutioii to be paid by the prisoner, he said, that on lua attaining the age of 21 and on the death ef his lather tH would be entitled to the sum of In ttUso circumstaness, the Court had power to award 10u to the prosecutor by way of compensation. Mr. MosTAGi) WiLLlAMi, in reply to that sugsetio, said the prisoner at present had no mcner.

and he was not aware that compensation could be awarded at th time of TheCoitMov Serjeant intimated that would con aidr the point before passing tha Later in the day, oa the prisoner being brought up for judgment, tbe Common Serjeant sentence 1 kirn to 13 calendar mnnths' imprisonment with hard labour, and to "pay the costs'of th prosecution, ttiling htm at the same time that he had narrowly esped penal Henry Pagani, 17, described as a pleaded "Oailty" to forging and uttering an order for the payment 0' ISO, with intent to deframl. There ware four other Indict roents against the prisoner namely, of fcrgmgrtspectirely orders for the payment ef 10, 1 12, and li3 Lts wi'ft intent to defraud. Mr. BesLEY, en behalf of the jri ocer, stated circumstance, tendinz to mitigate, if not to excuse, the offences to which he had plesded guilty, one ef which wss that his father, after serving for 20 'years in one house, died at th age of 82, and that, there baring been a divorce between his father and mother, no parents! control' had been exercised over the boy since he was 11 or 12 years ef age. ThoCoJtMOX Serjeant, taking into account the difficulties the lad had hail to contend with from an 'early age.

sentenced him to 12 month' imprisonment, with hard labour. George Brown, 2D, described aa a labourer, wa convicted 'of stealing an aluminium pencil case from the shop oOlr. Ralph Thoburn, a tradesman in the City. iir. Piatt conducted the prosecution.

The prisoner had been previously convicted of robbery more tnsn once, and wa now out on ticks of leave. As sentence was about to be pronounced he Led bard to be allowed another chance. Th Cojoi ox Seiuea.xt sentenced him to eight years penal servitude. Joseph Colloman, Alexander Bobrownieki, Francois Lories, and George Charannes, surrendered to recog nizancM to answer a charge ef misdemeanour, at th in stance of Mr. Arthur William Edit, in having unlawfully and maliciously solicited and incited on Arthur Edward Tallett, then being the servant of jtr.

Ellix, to steal or to obtain a book, and also with inciting him and others to steal certain samples of Prussian blue, belonging to tbe same Mr. Montagu Williams, with whom wss sir. Avery, conducted the ease for the prosecution, and Mr. the defence. The evidence in effect went to show that in 1871 the itr fendant Bobrowniski possessed French letters patent for the treatment ot ammoniacal aad other liquor of gas sewage and others with the view to obtain certain eml products therefrom.

Towards the nd of ltTl or the beginning of 1872 Bobrownieki was introduced in Paris to Mr. Thomas Christie, 01 trtet, by the defendant Chvance and negotiation were entered into between the two with respect to the patent It appeared tnat the prosecutor was maasger te jlessrs. against the rule Mr. Pope, Q.C., and Mr. Crompton sup or that; the rebates' alldwed 1 tw li.t VQr firther statedthat the had offered.

to the ipidkant. auc wa tiiei anie terra as ioe lourt naanrevic lt tll 9rt asi a A II Spring Asshes at Manchester, when bis Lordslup directed i in thc C4M aboTe qaoted namely, reduction of 4id. verdict for the plamUff, damages 40a. It an action of off the gt' to jons firm4 wre slander for worils spoken of the wife of the plaintiff, who ailowed a rebate of, and to those terms the were stiU illine to adhere. Alter some conference between the counsel on either side, it was eventually agreed that those term should.

be accepted, that the applicants should he put ott the am footing in the sarrio term as Mr. lieU, and that the respondents should pay the costs of the application. An order to that effect was accordingly made. the plaintiff had a right of action, as the words spoken had a natural tendency to injure ids trade also that general IIICII CprRf orlJcsTiCE. rrobate and Divorce Divi sion loUowinz are tne undeiendel divorce causes set down for hearing before the Court itself i Evans Jr.

Kt. 1.H nif wu Itimrifnt II 1 ciuvuo 1 liogers v. lagers ana (part heard r. it wa quite impossible to specify or trace each customer 3lorr(tr4n(. Dane Miller v.

Miller (i c'rr) nugiuiSJinmioiTOimummtu 1 jiorns v. jjioms and Lrans Jtarsaen v. Jiarsdea, Bray, siiua.ru. The Iird Chief BARoy. In the course of bis judgment.

observed that he hoped to see the day when a (ourt of last halmen reisort would decide the question whether persons were sible for injunes caused by the reietition ot tiander cii rpsnnnsihle wliich thr had utterl. In his opinion the ouzht to be so liable on every principle' of justice. As the law stood however, it was otherwise, and oy that law they were bound. Rule with costs. SLCO.VD DlYISfOXAL COCRT.

(Sittingt in Banco, before Baron B11AMWELL, CLEASBY, and Amphlett.) KIRK V. C.REGORY. The plAintiff was the executor of one Gregory, of Nottingham, who died some short time since, and left, among other pcrsonsFproperty certain jewelry. The only persons in the hnuse at the time of Greeory death were the present defendant, who his brother, and tbe wife of the latter. In order to protect tbe jewelry, the defendant DUt it into a POX ana lOCKea It up, ana sue jury dm iu a 7 tound that in l'ushton.

and Kwhaon rajcham Wranffham bhafto v. Sliafto Murray' v. Murray Boning Vi IJorring naimers iw; iinerry r. Do ibierrr and Meyhns uraa uoyd r. Lloyd (iregorv r.

liregorj' Scorey r. Sccrey Crabtree v. Crahtree and Harrison aring v. anng Williams v. Williams and N'icholson Harm Ilann and Tegitmeir Swain v.

Swam" Harrisoa v. Harrison arut Clarke Andrew ir. Andrews Green v. Green and Streit Woiler r. Worley and Chicn Burt r.

Burton; and Bo'ton LeV r. Ie Winch r. Ainch Dodworth. DoiUworth and Falla Lawranee r. Lawrance Wheeler v.

heeler Maeklin r. Macklin had devoted sume years to the atony of maoufacturiag colours and other products, and much of the result of his experience was contained in the book which it was alleged by the pro ecutor the deiendants sought to obtain, oy conspiring together, in order that they might ascertain the secrets recorded witum it Mr. StrAKiht. for the defence, submitted thtt thera was no case, tocau tho object of the defendant lxin4 to obtain knowleiige of the contents of the book, there wa ao larceny. To constitute that offence there must be the abstraction of a chattel, which the contents of a book were not No doubt the defendant had been very foolish, tit they had hot dose teat which wouul bring them within the criminal law.

The CoMMOX SekJ EAST declined to withdraw the eas frcm the jury it to them to say whether they tLouiht th defendants had intended to incite others to steal tha twulr is 1 vr i tnartt tA if 'mt at a tit UtfVsTa (lUU ae uuvw wwo Mv mmm ititute tne onenca 01 larceny. The jury Arfjititied the and their belief tnat they had not acted with felonious intent Towards the close of. the day the Grand Jury came into court, and through their loreman, Mr. Charle FikJi Kemp, reported the vsrieu true bill they had. found in the course of the morning, adding that they had thus posed of the whole bu ict before them.

Upon that th Common fcerjeant exf ressed the obligations the Court was under to thiu for the public services they had rendered in. the administratian of justice. The For. em adlreing the Common Serjeant, said he hail to expres, on the part of hi brother jurymen and. himself, a hope that future Grand Juries would be bettor accommodated than they had lawn on thU occasion, cspe pecUIly on thc first day of the when the arrangement were very inconvenient, ar.d.

aa they ventured to think, unworthy the City of Loadvn. They sub muted that men like themselves, who were tallcLoh from time to time to devote a considerable amount "of ralualle time to the public service, should he properly accem modated. The' C0MM0X SERjr.t.XT.said certainly, and he hadn doubt the inconvenience referred to would be obrute ia future. THE CITY Af cocxty bans. Ye terday the 1'raud Jury came into court and tnti mated that they had found a.

true bill against all the defendants in thL case. Upon that with tbe consent of all pirties, the trial waa postponed until the hext sessions. In the ca of Emily Howard, wfc stand accused of writing snd publishing a scries of dtfamatory libels of end "vST; concernins Mi Marr Alice Thcrnveroft the ureoe of isner v. uaerh coakley V. Coakley Mr.

GibW, intimatel tlii he Was of tfie Moor V. Jloort ITOUcrie 1 rnihj.Ty Imt i i and pnggs Burton r. Burton and Hufton Lyorar, Lyons l'age r. I'age and Dineaye Sottoraayor (otherwise De liarros) v. De Barroa Appleyard r.

Applevard and Smith Quested v. Quetted end Austin Reynolds r. Reynolds andtiibb Candy y. Candy and Heuriel Lewis v. Lewis Nichols r.

Niohols Parker v. Parker and Manning Keadmanv. Beadman and Boston HaTilv" v. Hardv and Jackson Evers v. Evsrs Wilmot v.

Wilraot aad liratley so. doing the defendant had acted tnd de, smith Smith ntt.r Shortly afterw rdsthe ewelry was missed fr3m the men the deienu.M naa piaceo. Kidbv v. Kidbr Haine r. HainM r.r v.

n. 1 tn xj Car Brown ard Masop ity ralue. The jury found a Terdict for the deiendant 0artf Cai, Brow5 v. are Wain r. Wain whereupon tne learneii juugo wuo tira iue v.e in plaintiff leave enUr King r.

King anil llltchck thesterloh QhZZrZ count for trespass. A rule wis. to enter the verdict for J. KLrki atrick: Eve v. Kr Pri Prir imhrirtr Brander Brender Hatchrtf r.

Hatchett Stroag r. extraordinary delusions, an wi beyond ooubt msane, Upon that evidence the jury found the prisoner was not in a capacity to pleajl; and she was ordered tojje dettined, as cusalia such cases, duribg the pleasure cf Her ilajoty. POLICE. At the MA t5io. nocE yesterday, the Ge ebal SrEAX Nayioatios Company, ot 71, Limbard trKet, were um that amount wa obtained by the plaintiff last term.

Mr. AssnE. on behalf of thedfendantnowhowed caue 1 .1 that, iinder the cirmm Pioa maa tancea, the defendant was jutified in taking' the tej necessary to protect the property. Mr. CAYE, Q.C, in support of the rule, inbmitted that it had alway been the accepted rule of law that an action ot trespass wouldlie against a person who had is ported the goods of another with th view of protecting them from thieves or from damage, except where the removal was in order to preserve them irom fire.

Their LoRDt'HlM thought that there was ground for an action for trespass and therefore mad the rule to enter the verdict for the plaintiff for Is. absolute. Rule absolute sccordiagly. PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. Before the Right Hon.

tht PREMDtyf.) Prorate axd Divorce Monoxs. The Dirision resumed its sittings to day aad disposed of a long list of motions. GLADSTONE Y. GLADSTOM; Mr. Inderwick, Q.C, and Mr.

Searle appeared for the petitioner Mr. Bayford for the respondeat In this case the dec re wist obtained by Gladstone for dissolution of the marriage was made absolute on the 6th of August last, and the matter now catae before the Coart on the report of the Rgitrar on her petition for a variation of the aettlement. On her suarriage with Captain Gladstone in" 1SG2, her father corenated to allow her 200 a year until her rerersioaary interest in a turn of 10,000. to which she will be entitled on his death and the death of her toother, fell in. Captain Gladstone' also brought' into settlement a sum producing a like income of 200 a year, and in all the settled property the first life interest waagiren to him.

The Registrar recommendtd that the sum of 200 a year, which her father had corenated to pay, should be paid to Mrs. Glad one. that 100 a year of the money settled by Captain Gladstone should be applied to tha mainttnance of their daughter, the only issue of the raamsgt. 'and that Captaia Oladitost'i interest ia mened before the Lord Mayor and Alderman Sir Robert" meat of the 'JOth clause of the Animals Order, 16, tavbd by the Qoeen in Council trader the Contagious Diseisea (Animals) Act, 3tr. Wontner, solicitor, conducted the prosecution Mr.

Lesley, barrister, appeared for the dtfeace. Hi. Wontner dtsenbedihe Order question aa 00 of ffT it ntlhlie ntilitr inalmn.h it ws. ir.ml is. Barnes RroadbenS v.

Broad Lent Hale r. Hale, Horsatt, cheek the spread and growthiof eontagiou disease among and Humphries Butler v. Butler Brown v. Brown animal throughout the couatry. No doubt the clause" Garrad v.

Garrad and" Judkin Ash worth fothcrwie alleged to have been mfrinjed waa antremely difficult Barron) v. Barron rStrektfield v. Strtatfield Psrr v. Parr to be carried into effect bk the company and other and Jones Wiiturt v. WUson: and Taylor Lerr v.

Lever dein a large import catfle trade, cut at the same" narvey uuvej aava isyior nniwey r. i maier time, the foot and mouth disease was so extrmely Hudson v. Hudson; Melville r. Melville Dnffell v. Duffell I infettioas that it wa almlat a mkttor r.tti.it ana rowtrs iiunt v.

iiunt ana LAite lurrant r. Durrant and Reynold Goodsir v. Goodsir Fry r. Fry Liptrap r. Iiptrap Foster Richardson r.

Richardson Clark Clark Wheway r. Wheway Nicholl r. Nieholls ohna r. Johns snd M'Andrew Wright v. Wright" and Harker Harper r.

Harper Lever v. Lever Gardner r. Gardner and Gibson Hobbt f. Hobbs end Bodey Vowleii v. Vowles and Johnson Gibson V.

Gibson litton r. Fitton Martin r. Martin and Threadgold (Queen's Proctor intervemng) Rickettsr.Ricketts (Queen Proctor interveningr Witherick r. Witherick Atkinson v. Atkinson and Thorlry Bortoa v.

Barton and pworth Parkinson v. Wcrrsil (otherwise Iarkicsor.) Stanley v. Stanley Rees r. Bees Neville r. Neville and Taylor Sydney v.

SydneyMajor r. Major Deconrlaad r. Decoar land Beasley r. Baasley and Walton Davis v. Davia and Collins Girling v.

Girling and Gathetidge Lawday v. Lawday and Porter PinaeU t. Pinnell Morgan r. Morgan and klyre (otherwise Brooghton, otherwise Norman Greeorr Gregory and Braid Dyer r. Dyer and 3Lir halT Hodder v.

Oddy r. Oddr and CoUitM Coombs r. Coombs and Chaster Zoepbcl v. Zoepbel and Sehoeffer Holgate v. Hebraic Nos man r.

Norman Vallacc v. Vallance and Mtrth Odltua v. Odlom Eaves r. Bares Wilaher t. Wisher and Calverley De Santo Deodoro v.

De Santo lJeedoro Moore r. Moor and Smith Booty r. Booty. Chaxcxrt Divtkox. The state of burines in tha Chaaeery Diriaiom of tha High Ceurt of Justice for tha present sittings commencing yesterday show 314 causes i tha list ready for hearing, agsjnat 349 at tha" beginning of the Micbaelau Sittings.

Iho appeals Wort the Court that a herd ef animals eccupying uncleansed lairs would at once take that disease. The Order, therefore, provided that every place in which infected cattle had been should, before the reception of others, be cleaned aad disinfected by by the removal of ail litter, by being thoroughly washed, and by the application of a coating of li ntwash. He should prove the infringement of these salutary proriiien by the company, and then ask the Court to deal with the case under the 103d section of the Act, by" which, when an offence was committed with respect to more than four animals, a penalty not exceeding for each anisoal might "be imposed. In thi instance, he added, no Jets than animals had been received in aa infected plaee. Mr.

Reginald Courtney, a trerelilsg iespectotf attached to the Veterinary Departraexit of tie firry Council, deposed that it wa his duty to go through the conntry to see that the Animal Order, was earned into effect Oa the 19th of November last he wemt to Brown's Wharf, Blaekwall, hi the oceupatioa of the Geseral Steam Navigation Company, baring received prertoasly an iatiaiattea. that diseased sheep were arming there, fie found tbe landing stajs and gangways in an unclean condition, and there tad apparently been no application of lime wash to the floors far a considerable period past He saw the animals unloaded from th Taurus, and they passed ortr the gangways and stage he had described. The place appeared to hare been roughly wept, but there were no signs of washing Replying to Mr. Betley, ha adatitted that he had not eoramunieated wits the secretary of the company oa the subject, hut said he it twned tie taenia eaarga. Me vr Hirittfilr,.