Star. — London, England, 1809-12-07 00:00:00

I non ce of the negligent and careless driving of the defendant's :s&Vant; by which the plaintiff, while cor i n g from Epsom Races, in the month of May l ast , in his one-horse gig, was overtet by the defen laant's barouche, driven by his servant tour-in-hand, runn ing violently against him, carrying off the shaft ( ibi s gig, and precipitating him and a friend, who was in the gig along with him, among the horses' f eet —in consequence of which the plaintiff was much tr , and bruised, and sustained other injuries, and by I l i ; subsequent confinement, his business was greatly tuosvenienced. NIT. GARROW having opened the case for the plain tif, c alled his witnesses. tuba Williams, servant to Sir Wm. Rush, said he . x:s leaning over the garden-wall of his mas t er , at Wimbledon, at the time the affair .in question hap.. peed. Mr. Watts was walking hishorseandgig slowly p:he hill, and a barouche with four horses w fol -Iring, coming along . at the rate of from 12 to 14 .-•;:es an hour. The plaintiff was nearly in the middle c f :he road, and there was plenty of room for the ba rr,:he to pass on the right side, the ro a d b e i ng w id e , rt igh for three carriages. In passing, however, the , r 1 wheel of the barouche caught the gig and over ;:ted it. The driver of the barouche did not call out ilthe leading horses of the barouche had passed by g ig-horse. Both carriages had nearly reached the , pmt the hill at the time. The shafts of the gig were (en, and the plaintiff, who was insensible for a lent, being greatly stunned by the shock, on ris l!seemed to be much hurt ; his head and face were '-iming with blood ; he complained of excessive in his thigh, which he at one time thought had I broken. The person who accompanied the plain ,after some time, assisted him in getting again in !he gig, and they proceeded to town. On his cross-examination by Mr. PARKE, the witness that the bars between the horses in a carriage- :four are wider than the earriage itself. The lead horses and the bars had both passed through be e the gig was overturned, and the carriage of Lord on had also passed by a few minutes before. Theophilus Dennis was in the gig with the Plain e the time. They were coming along at a walk :pace, as nearly as he could judge, in the middle te road. They were near the top of the hill when leaders of the chaise and four passed them ; the. as the leading horses passed the gig, made heads bear more upon them ; in a moment, the wheels of the bt-rouche caught them, and tl-ey dashed down. If the persons in the barouche kept in the coerse they were first in, they could , go: through ; there was room enough to pass on side, of the road. There was no call made to rlaintiT and witness till the moment the leading :es had passed; if the Plaintiff had received timely :e he cc aid have drawn more to the left. His al was very much hurt. The servants of the De :iv :It afterwards assisted in getting up the gig, but offered no assistance to the Plaintiff or the wit . The Defendant himself, standing up in his exclaimed—" Damn you, it• served you : 'eish you had been both killed." faensnottovali asked, had the Plaintiff eed at all from his course ?—Answer, " No ; he et: en as direct as it was possible for him to do." appe.ired from the other evidence, that the Plain ':ad afterwards been confined to his bed for four bef,..re be could be moved. Mr. Robertson, ;ton, attended him ; and by his advice, Mr :aside was called in, and attended during the of this time, and also for other four weeks ..ae which lire was confined to his house. By the He of these medical gentlemen, the Plaintiff were IriOtcr. for the recovery of his health, and conti ': there for tipteards of a fortnight, being kept his business for about nine weeks in all. P,ttins, for the Defendant, expressed the sorrow ~ iient for the injury the Plaintiff had sustained. aefendant had sent his own surgeon to attend I, net from any consciousness of being liable 'le consequences, but from a principle of huma and feeling. The Plaintiff, however, having .Icly such excellent advice, this attention on the the defendant was unnecessary. The defen 's liability, in the case of culpable negligence on of the defendant's servant, the Learned Coun admitted ; but if he could spew that the misfor it had been occasioned either through the fault of , laintiff himself, or had arisen from accident, the edant could not be answerable. He was instruc :eat he should be able to prove that the defer,- servant was not to blame, in which case he must 'the verdict of the Jury. Dove, the defendant's coachman, said, on the question, Lord Sefton's barouche and four cn the toad, following two gigs ; one of them 'way, bat the other, which the plaintiff drove, Seften's, and the defendant's barouche The witness repeatedly called to the el. to pass, and the plaintiff looked back They walked up the hill, and on gain it, the witness again called cut loudly Einar or five times. He then drove on ig and the bank, us near to the bank as leaders passed . , the bars passed, and plaintiff that, he immediately took horse on our wheel horse, struck our d bro;:e it. He thought the plaintiff :0 it 00 plirpose. nod by Mr. CARRrIW, if he really rowit have, acted as he said he arpose ?—He said he thought he must. ,nonr,toir eautione I the witness to think _rsis - Al in that answer. The witness, pers!tted in it. valet to the defendant, told a simi :k teoss.veamination he said, the plain hurt ; the: e was a little blood on at a great deal. He seemed to be drunk. :.e a mere drunken frolic on the part He was very abusive to his master The defendant did not say he ;id been killed, but he said to his ser in them, come away and leave them, drunk." anDther servant of the defen r:.! with his fellows, as to the state• the nversetting of the gig. He also :arnination agreed -in thinking that the as the withess described him, to have se ; that be was drunk, and was not Wd not hear arty expressions such r 3 to by the fornicr witness fall from his if c,y su,:h had d:opped from him, the vvit nes: must have heaki it. Coachee was iin excellent driver. His Master's hores were blood, and would not easily be beat by those of Lord Sefton, or any other of the Four in Hand Club. Mt. Jame* Newbigging was coming itp the hill in a gig behind the Plaintiff's. The defendant had passed the witness. When he came up to the Plaintiff, he thought him stupid ; but this might be from his fall. Mr. G ARROW asked and obtained permission to call back his first two witnesses, Sir Wm. Rush's gardener, and the Plaintiff's friend, who proved the Plaintiff not to be drunk Mr. GARROW said, if the defendant was of that feeling and respectable character which he believed he possessed, he was sorry he could not congratulate him on having servants who partook any thing of his good disposition, or who profited by his example. A more disgraceful attempt by perjury, to skreen their former delinquency, he had never witnessed. He trusted their master might be informed of their con duct, and that, if he felt it necessary for his own cha racter, to dismiss them from his service, he would not fail to acquaint any other master who might enquire for their character with the reason of their being dis missed, so that the lives of no more of his Majesty's subjects, who could not afford to ride in any higher species of conveyance than a one-horse-chaise, might be endangered by the expertness of this coachman and his associates. Lord ELLENBOROUGH summed up the evidence, and rnnarked to the Jury the improbability of the story of the defendant's witnesses, that the plaintiff had turned himself upon his own destruction; and the Jury found their verdict for the plaintiff.— Damages £4OO. EVANS gni tam w. HUNTER. This was an action under the statute of Elizabeth, to recover the penalty attendant upon the defendant's employing as a journeyman carpenter, a lad who had not been regularly apprenticed to the trade. The case was proved, and the plaintiff recovered £2O. ei rtign tor rurree hirl wheel of th v.:led it. The di tillthe leading h t h e gig-horse. B ! lot the hill at br!:en, and the rsinent, being irveemed to be st:;:iming with Daw in his thigh -da broken. Ti• tiff, after some t! to 'he gig, and tl On his cross-et that the b: ,ni..four are wici r. Q horses and tl the gig was tifion had Ascii Theophilus D ;Eat the time. space, as neat if lie road. Th Ileleaders of th as the le. 1, ,i• heads bear isi wheels of t ee dashed dov kept in the le go: througi sidt, of the rlaintiT and : , .es had passes .!..ce he cc old 1 ;Id was very I afttrwar *l•cfrcr,cl no a .6i. The Def ititn;iht!, excl.t : iih yo f.:LLEsi . nu,' at all fr ca as direc appe.i red fr! :ad atterwar ;s :men( :nviside was e (,f this ti which b ice of these T iiiihten for t ...t! there for I his httsines. Yr. PARK s, fo f.- Tent for I Defendant in, net from r the. cinseque feelin, .r.tcly such ex< art of the defe 'l's liability, .e ?art of the d I admitted ; b Ine had been e7iLtimiff hin• fcridant could shc •: . :rvant 1‘• r° the l'erdict t iy :n question the roa bit • • ',id • it. 'I . !ii!7hed. !op of i .. icif; .t> the p !lltd I •:• and Lave Otinc f: • : xamin • t the pla ! t on pa : I Li LT !st ho p.. ' •r, C•.( r. r ):,:: ' • . '' •, I . ha f. !t ' rcl 1. t. rit if r.,1 BOLDER° v. JACKSON. This was a case reserved for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench, tried at the Sittings after Tri nity Term, before Lord ELLENBOROCGH and a Special Jury, and this day, on hearing the arguments of Mr. DAMPIER for the plaintiff, the Court was unanimously of opinion, that the verdict should be taken for the lesser sum of £26,991. 2s. 6d. instead of £58,241. 2s. 6d. the sum claimed. DECEMBER 5.-HA RAISON V. KING. The Plaintiff in this case is a respectable Attorney, and the Defendant is a person well known to the public, in consequence of his extensive pecuniary transactions. It was an action to recover damages for various instances of malice towards the Plaintiff, exhibited in the shape of different criminal prosecu tions, libellous aspersion, and false imprisonment.— Fo•ar charges against the Defendant were specified in the record. First, that he had maliciously, and with out any reasonable, or probable cause, apprehended the Plaintiff, and charged him, before the Magistrates of Bow-street, with having forged an acceptance to a Bill of Exchange, for the sum of £l5, purporting to be the acceptance of Messrs. Home and Co., No. 4, Copthall-court, no such persons (as was alledged) being in existence. Secondly, that, on the 11th of December, 1808, he published a libel on the charac ter of the Defendant, in the Sunday Newspaper, call ed The British Guardian, in a statement of facts, pur p"rting to be a report of the proceedings before the 'Magistrates, on the said charge of forgery. Thirdly, that he had maliciously entered judgment in execution against the Plaintiff, on a warrant of attorney, for the sum of £250, whilst, at the time, he was not in-, &bred to him a single farthing ; but, on the contrary, that the defendant owed him (the plaintiff) £45, the balance of an account. Fourthly, and lastly, that the defendant, on the 9th of January, in the present year, went before the Grand Jury of the county of Middlesex, and preferred an indictment against the plaintiff, for obtaining money under false pretences, by means of the said bill of exchange, he, the defen dant, had before charged him with having uttered, knowing it to be false and forged. This bill of indictment was however thrown out by the Grand Jury. The libel complained of was con. tamed in the British Guardian, in the form of a report of the Bow-street proceedings upon the above case. To prove the defendant's connection with this Pa per, Beamont, the late publisher (now confined in Newgate for a libel) was brought into Court. He stated that he was at the time the sole proprietor; but on cross-examination he admitted that King furnished money for the support of the Paper, and that he daily revised the matter which was inserted in the l'aper. When he went to Newgate, he said he parted with the property of the Paper to a Gentleman of the name of Lettis, but upon further examination it turned out that this Gentleman was Mr. King's butler. A Mr. Smith, an attorney, who had been concerned for King, stated that he had been employed in the transaction between him and King, but he had de clined to enter upon the judgment, and take out an execution against Harrison for £6OO and upwards, because in his conception of the accounts nothing was due. This execution was afterwards sued out by Mr.. King, and Harrison taken on a Ca. Sa. In the end , ' however, by the award of Mr. Montague, to whom the accounts between the parties were referred,nothing appeared to be due. I This case being made out by a great deal of docu mentary and oral evidence, Mr. CLIFFORD addressed the Jury for the defendant, and contended that there was sufficient suspicion in the conduct of the plaintiff to repel the presumption that Mr. King acted from malignant motives, though he might have been mistaken in the conduct which he had pursued, and that if he had acted only mis takenly, and not malignantly, the Jury ought not to find 'a verdict against him. He called some witnesses to these points, after which Lord ELLENBOROUGH sum med up the whole evidence with great minuteness, and left it to the Jury to consider what were the da mages adequate to the injury. Verdict for the plain tiff.—Damages 41500. DEC. 6.—owEN v. PARRY AND WARDLE, ESQ. Mr. PARKE stated this to be an action brought by the Plaintiff, an auctioneer in the country, to reco ver from the Defendants, Thomas Parry, Jones Parry, Esq. and Gwillim Lloyd Wardle, Esq. in demnity for a loss he had sustained in consequence of having been employed to sell an estate in the coun ty of Anglesea which belonged to the Defendants, as Devisees of another Gentleman of the name' of Parry, deceased. It would appear that , at the time appointed for the sale, a sealed paper was laid on the' ,table, spetifyTrig a particular sum, to Which, if the) biddings should not amo un t, the es t a t e w as riot to b e I esteemed as sold. The Plaintiff, who was a young I Man, was startled at this proceeding, because, as the Auction Duty fell on the Auctioneer, and he did not know whether duty was or was not payable in such a case as this, in the event of the sum in the sealed packet exceeding the price offered, he was afraid that the duty might be exacted from hlm, without his having any claim upon the defendants to relieve him. Mr. Ellis, who acted at the sale as Agent for both the Defendants, Mr. Parry being also present, assur ed the Plaintiff, that in such a case no duty was pay able, a dumb bidder being perfectly allowable. The Plaintiff, however, not being satisfied with this assu rance, Mr. Ellis undertook for the Defendants that they should keep the Plaintiff harmless. Proceedings were afterwards had against the Plaintiff in Exche quer for the penalties, and his bond had been put in suit. Ii was to recover the indemnity thus promised to the Plaintiff that the present action was brought. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said an engagement to in demaify from penalties was void in itself. Mr. GARTIOW (who held the Attorney General's brief for the defendants) said, they had still another defence. There was here no joint undertaking. Mr. PARKS said, Ellis was the agent of both the defendants. Lord ELLENBOROUGIf'..." This would not watTant an engagement of the kind, it being in itself illegal." Mr. BARNES, who was also Counsel for the plain tiff, stated that there was a count in the declaration in which nothing illegal appeared, but it was charged that the undertaking was to relieve the plaintiff of the duties. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that, surely, was a legAl undertaking, and he should hear what the plaintiff's witnesses could say. Mr. GARROW observed, that the penalties seemed to have been sued for in Hilary Term, 1802, (when his Lordship was Attorney General) though he pre sumed his Lordship had forgot it. Mr. Grindley, Clerk of the Peace for the County of Anglesea, was about to prove an undertaking by Mr. Ellis, as agent for Mr. Wardle, but Mr. Wardle not being present at the time, and Mr. Ellis being dead, so that Mr. Wardle's authority to Ellis to enter into the undertaking could not be proved, the evi dence was deemed inadmissible. The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited. WATSON V. PEARS. This was an action for pirating a patent, and was directed to be brought by the Court of Chancery, who had granted the plaintiff an injunction till it should be decided, restraining the defendant from making and selling a sort of transparent Persian soap, for the exclusive manufacture and sale of which the plaintiff had obtained a patent. It was proved, however, that the soap was first discovered by D'-. Senate, who sold the recipe to one person, of whom it had since been bought by a third ; and that Dr. Senate, thinking that when a workman of this third perscn had left his service, the secret must have been divulged, coznrr.u nicated it to the plainsiff for the sum of 50 guineas, and thereupon the plaintiff obtained a patent for it. —The verdict was of course fer the defendant. RI(I!ARDSON V. WATTS. This was an action brought by a woman of the town against her landlord, in Catherine -street, near the Tower, foe the recovery of clothes of hers in his possession. The defendant had lent the plaintiff' !3 10s. and had redeemed articles of hers from I pledge to the amount of Li 3s. more, making R 6 1.55. This sum the plaintiff told the defendant she could not pay him ; but that she had a friend at sea who would pay the money for her on his a-rival in Eng land ; and that in the mean time the defendant should have her clothes as a security. On the day when these clothes were deposited as such security, the plaintiff left the defendant's house in consequence of a quarrel with him—she wishing to have porte-, which he did not sell, and he preferring to let her have brandy, which he did. Lord ELLENISOROUGII—" A pledge given to be re deemed by prostitution can give no lien." Verdict for the Plaintiff. OLD BAILEY. The Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, and general Gaol Delivery, commenced yesterday at the Sessions House in the Old Bailey, before the LORD MAYOR, Baron GRAHAM, Mr. Justice GnosE, and the RE CORDER of Los DON. r Richard Wicks was indicted under Lord Ellenbo rough's Act, for wilfully and maliciously firing a gun loaded with powder and shot, at Benjamin Johnson, with intent to kill him. The circumstances of the case were shortly these. The prosecutor is a gamekeeper in the service of Russell Howe, Esq. of Hamworth-House, Middlesex. On the night of Sunday, the 19th of November ,last, he was out in his master's grounds with the in tention of watching the game and keeping off poachers. At a short distance from the house he per ceived the prisoner rising out of a bush near a gate, and suspecting, although he did not know him at the time, that he was a poacher, he called out to him to stop or he would shoot him, and called upon his dog to seize him. The prisoner was running away at first when the prosecutor called out to him, but he immediately turned round and discharged a gun, part of the contents of which the prosecutor heard rustle in the hedge close to where he stood. The prisoner then ran off, but tho prosecutor fired after him. In the mean time the dog pursued the priso ner, and fastened upon his smock-frock, which gave time to the prosecutor to come and soize him-. A fu rious scuffle ensued, in which the prisoner made seve ral attempts to strike the prosecutor, but which he dexterously prevented by holding up his gun. By this time a fellow-servant of the prosecutor's, who was alarmed by the firing of the guns, came to his assistance, when the prisoner was secured, and car ried in custody to Mr. Howe's house, where he was kept in confinement all night, and on Monday morn ing taken before the Magistrate. It further appeared in evidence, that the prisoner had declared, at a drinking party of working-men, on an occasion when he was warned to take care he was sot detected. poaching, by the prosecutor, that he would be d—d if he saw him (the prosecutor) through a hedge, he would blow his brains out."— This declaration, however, was made whilst lie was is a statq of intoxication. - • The prisoner, in Ms defence, said, he had no inten Con of firing at the prosecutor; that he was turning round to ran away from the prosecutor, who had threatened to shoot him, and that in so doing his gun accidentally went off. Baron Guastam observed to the Jury, that the question for their consideration was, whether the pri soner was the man who had actually fired off the gun, and if so, whether he fired with an intent to kill, or to do the prosecutor grievous bodily harm : that was, if the prosecutor had been shot, could he have been convicted of the murder? If the prisoner fired under the urgent pressure of immediate danger, the offence was not cognizable ; but if the prosecutor's statement was believed, the prisoner was in the very act of trzs pass, and should have surrendered instead of firing. The Jury consulted some time, and retnrned a ver dict of—Not guilty.—He was ordered to be detained. The following were convicted of felony, viz. W.Jones, for stealing one £2 and one Li Banknotes, the pro perry of T. Keeling. John Gill, for stealing a quantity of lead, the property of Gam. mom. Etnnlins. Mary Connor, for stealing two quires of parr, the property of B. Arnold. W. Prick, fur stealirtt ten Russia mats, the property of I. G. Wrench. And J. Silvester and J. Crook, for s!ealing a watch, value A'6, the property of C. Life. William Grin and Henry Cornel:•rs were convicted of larceny, in stealing two quarts of rum from on board the Duke of Monmouth West Indiaman, in t h e Thames, on the 19th of November, the property of Christopher Noekells. John Thurston and Susannah Thurston, his wife, and Jeremiah Thurston, their son, were capitally indicted for burglariously entering the dwelling-house of Mr. Sedge w ick, of Highbury Barn, Islington, and stealing thereout a great coat, and several other articles of wearing apparel, his property, and two gowns, the property of Elizabeth he. The father of this unfortunate family, on being. arraigned, pleaded guilty to the indictment, and de clared that his wretched wife and son were wholly innocent of the crime imputed to their charge. Un. der these circumstances he was removed from the Dock, and the other two prisoners put on their trial. The circumstances of the robbery were these : —On the night of the 6th of February last, Mr. Sedgewick ald his family, having locked and bolted all their windows and doors, went to bed, and in the morning early when the servant got up, she discovered that one of the back casements had been broken open ; and on examining further, she missed her own two gowns, and her master's great coat, and the other ar ticles specified in the indictment. The perpetrators of this offence remained in security and undiscovered until a few weeks since, when'information was received with respect to the prisoner's family, which led to a suspicion they were the offenders. Accordingly a warrant was obtained for their apprehension, and on searching their house the property above mentioned was found in their possession. The Learned Judge, in his charge to the Jun . , gave it as his opinion, that the two prisoners at the bar were not so positively identified with the crime imputed to them, as the law required for their con viction, and consequently, if they were of the same opinion, they must find a verdict of acquittal. The prisoners were pronounced—Not James Hall and Caroline Grazier were indicted for a burglary in the warehouse of J. Smith, in Gutter lane, and stealing upwards of 4500 worth of silk ribbons. By the evidence of the prosecutor it appear ed, that his w ;re:iotise w•as broken open on the night of Sunday the Ist of October, and the goods in ques tion taken away, but he knew none of the circum stances of the robbery. The Police Officers after wards proved that they searched the house of one Brickett, in the neighbourhood of Clerkenwell, with whom the female prisoner cohabited as his wife. On searching the house, they found a quantity of ribbons, which they prpduced, and which the prosecutor stated that he believed to be the same which had been stolen from him. With regard to the other prisoner, it was proved that he was a ribbon-weaver, in Angel-alley. Bishopsgate-street, and that he gave a part of the ribbons in question to be dressed, to a witness of the name of Archer. This was fourteen days after the robbery ; and when questioned about them, he said that he had bought them of a man from Coventry, but whose name he did not know. He made the same defence when called upon. The woman put in a written paper, in which she stated that the had un fortunately cohabited with Brickett, who brought these articles home. That she did not know of his dishonourable practices, and always believed he was a Coal-merchant, as, he distributed cards among his friends to that effect. The Jury, after somecielibera tion, found both the prisoners —Not Guil7y. MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. Yesterday Robert Bias;, a publican, was found guilty of assaulting a man in his tap-room ; and the case being attended with circumstances of great ag gravation, he was fined £2O. Two Irishmen, of the names of Cabv,-,:y and Dwyer, were tried upon an indictment, charging them with a very violent and desperate riot and assault. in Buck ridge -street, St. Giles's, wherein several persons were dangerously hurt. The details of evi,:mce were really shocking. It happened, however, that no lives were lost. Mr. BARRY, on behalf of the defendant Dwyer, addressed the Jury, and called some witnesses ; but their testimony found no credit with the Jury, as it did not amount to the least exculpat:on of either of the defendants. They were both found guilty ; and Mr. NARES, the presiding Magistrate, in pronouncing judgment, admonished them to beware of similar conduct in future, as, should they appear again under a like charge, the punishment would be exemplary. They were sentenced to three months imprisonment. A person of the name of Bedford was tried for as saulting his wife. This case was attended with some circumstances not altogether favourable to either party, but the Jury having found the defendant guilty, the Court deemed it right to compel him to keep the peace, to save himself, as well as his %v ire, from future and greater affliction, and therefore ordered him to find bail, himself in £lOO, and two sureties in £5O each, to keep the peace for two years, and to be confined until that security should be given. I i \ doimiiiiiillllMll