31.—The litigation arising from the inundation in Marshland commenced on this date with the hearing, in the Vice-Chancellor’s Court, of an application for a mandamus to compel the Middle Level Commissioners to restore the paling path over the breach made by the inundations. At the suggestion of the Court, it was agreed that the only question in dispute, that of legal liability, should be raised as a special case. At the Norfolk Assizes, on April 1st, before Lord Chief Justice Erle, two actions, Mason _v._ Wise and Coe _v._ Wise (clerk to the Middle Level Commissioners), were down for trial by special jury. It was understood that these cases, which were brought for the recovery of damages consequent upon the inundation, were selected out of a total of 107 causes in which writs had been issued. In the action Coe _v._ Wise, the declaration alleged that by a certain Act of Parliament the Middle Level Commissioners were bound to make and maintain a certain cut, bank, and sluices; it was complained that, in consequence of their negligence, the tidal waters burst through them and flooded the lands of the plaintiff. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and alleged that the plaintiff was not possessed of the lands. The hearing of the case occupied four days. The Judge, in summing up, directed the jury to decide whether the damage was caused to the plaintiff by the absence of due care and skill on the part of the defendants, (1) in respect of the making of the sluice; (2) in respect of maintaining the sluice; (3) in respect of providing remedies against mishap after the sluice was destroyed; and (4) was damage caused to the plaintiff by reason that no puddled wall was made along both banks of the cut? The jury found for the defendant on the first point, and for the plaintiff on the other three points. In the Court of Queen’s Bench, on April 18th, Mr. Fitzroy Kelly moved for a rule calling upon plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and entered for the defendant, on the ground of misdirection, and that the verdict was against the evidence. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said the Court would grant a rule upon the question of law involved, but not as regarded the evidence, because their lordships found that Lord Chief Justice Erle was satisfied with the verdict. The case was again before the Court of Queen’s Bench on November 19th, and, alter two days’ argument, was ordered to stand over until the next term. (_See_ January 21st, 1864.) FEBRUARY.