The Express.
London, England, 1863-02-19 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.:-Fra.,lB.

Aftor Torun Sittrop at Nisi Prom at Guildhall.—{Before
Lord Chief Justin Cockburn soda Special Jury.)

XLAS V. CI.ARIEBON.

Thl was an action of an unusual &ander. The de-
elaration stated that the plaintiff agreed to let the defendant,
Miss Sophie Clarksoc,• pair of ponies, aid be complained
lot the defendant's having treated them negligently, over-
driven them, sad underfed them, whereby they had been
seriously injured and deteriorated in value. The defendant
denied the allegation contained in the declaration.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. Mennen, were counsel for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Brett, Q.C., and another learned
gent/emu were for the defendant.
The plaintiff is a corn merchant and hone-dealer,
carrying on Weiner in High-street, Borough, and the
defendant, Mies Sophia Clarkson, is a lady of fortune,
residing at the Paragon, Brides-kith and occa-
sioully in Doctor,-conanioes. The plaintiff had for some
years supplied thedefendant with horses, and no complaint
was made on either side till about two years alb when it
was alleged by the plaintiff the defendant &used her
coachman. From that time horses had been eonunually
returned and changed, and complaints made that they had
been injured. On the 16th May, 1862, they 'stared into a
written agreement whereby the plaintiff undertook to pro-
vide, whenever required, two good, gekst, serviceable car-
riage horses, not lees than 13 high, and to change
them when required. The plaintiff was oleo to And stabling,
food, ha., mid the defendant agreed to pay him 1201. per
annum for their we. In August and fiept.,lB62, the plaintiff
took the horses to Eastbourne, and it was whilst there
the alleged over-driving, neglect, and under.feeding took
place. One of the bones came beck in such a wretched
state that it could hardly walk into the yard, and it was
doubtful if it would ever recover. The other was in a
wretched state, though not quite so bad. A correspondence
took place between the parties. The plaintiff complained of
the condition of the horses, and said rt would be useless for
him to let her have others unless proper care were taken of
them, and asking to put an end to the contract. The de-
fendaat was indignant at the charge of cruelty made against
her, and said she should claim compensation for the breach
of contract, and expect to be paid for the fodder she pro-
vided whilst out of town. The defendant, it was contended,
bad not used that doe and reasonable care she was bound to
use whilst the horses were in her possession. The question for
the }my was what amount of damson the plaintiff wee en-
titled to for the injury sustained by the bones.

Thew. the plaintiff's manager:, deposed that he first
supplied the defendant with a brougham horse in 1865. Om
the 16th of September the dsfiedmit's coachman brought
back ons of the harem. Tbe bone was hi a wretched state.
Witham asked his. what was the malts with the bons.

The coachman said it had been worked hard, and witness
replied. " and half starved." The coachman said the hem
bad bad four feeds a dayit pottle at a time, which was
little more than one-half the plaintiff gave his horses daffy.
The horse had seven potties a day when ►t home. The here*
was poor and completely toed up, and could soared, walk.
When the plaintiff first bad it it was in good working con-
dition. The other horse was brought home the same day.
The two home were worth 501., but when they cams home
they were not worth 141.
In

he said the defendant had en one or
two occasions before taken horses with her when she went
to the sea-side. The coachman did not complain of the
home jibbing. He said he could not get it to move—that
it would not draw down bill. (laughter.)
By Mr. Brett--Did he tell you it would net draw up hill?
Witness—No ; and I bad no occasion to uk him.
Mr. Richard Evans, veterinary surgeoe, Great Dover.
street, Borough, said the first horse brought home was in •
shocking state. The coachman said he could not help it.
The horse had been worked herd. The roads were sandy
and heavy, sad the corn allowed in the stable* away from
London was not sufficient. Witness went by the plaintiff's
direction to Brixton, and saw the other hone. She was unfit
for work, and he ordered her home. The otachman said
the horses had been worked hard and he could not get them
along. He said be was obliged to go where his mistress
ordered him, and he sometimes drove between 30 and 40
miles after dinner. Be attended them for • fortnight or
three weeks. Thor were not worth 1110 r• then 154 whoa
they were retsn They had since recovered, sad were
now worth shout 40i
In

witness said the drat hors* would
hardly carry its harness, and he did not wonder at it.
jibbing. (Laughter.)
Other evidence was given in support of the plaintiff's
we.

The defence I! 11J that the hones were properly fed and
used, end the carriage used was the same as had been used
for one horse. The horses were two days going to East-
bourne. The brougham was a very light one. Miss Clark-
son and the housekeeper rode inside, and the only luggage
they bad was a carpet bag and a portmanteau.
The ~limn was cabled, and deposed that the hones
IMO fed twice on the road, as well as morning and night,
and that at Sesforth and Eastbourne they had six feeds a
day. The borne were lot overdriven. and they were pro-
perly treated. After they got to Eastbourne they were not
driven more than 12 mils eider. The hones wen in poor
condition when the defendant bad them. One of them
jibbed, and he informed the plaintiff of it. When the de-
fendant came home the jibber was taken to the plaintiff
and &eked to be changed, bathe declined to gin him any
other than a lame hone. The veterinary napes mid the
horses only wanted nursing and a der or twe's rest. The
horses were returned in better condition than when he re-
calved them. He denied the convemations deposed to by
the plaintiff's witnesses.
in cress-examination be mid be bad been rather more than
two years in the defendant's maim paring that time he
bad bad seven horses, incladin; the pair in question. They
were in good working condition when they returned to
London.

Bvidence was called to prove the qtuintity of corn, ha.,
paid for by Mr Clarkson, and that it was given to the
horses. Every attention was paid to them by the defendant's
coachman. They were very poor horses. and witnesses laid
they were the worst that had ever been seen in Seaforth and
Eastbourne. OM wits= mid he would not have given 201.
for them.

The evidence wee of the usually conflicting character in
these cases, and ultimately the jury returned a verdict for
the defendant.

SECOND COURT.
(Before Mr. Jardine Blackburn and Common Juries.)
.1 YYTILEY V. ITSVINSON.

This was an action on a promissory note for 1001. The
defendant resides at CatiwW and pleaded that the note
was given by the defendant's wife before her marriage in
June, 1861, to ons Allen, a relative, who bad consented to
become security for that amount as part of the purchase
money for • spirit business. The security, however, wee not
required, and Allen told them the note bad been lost or
destroyed. Allen afterwards became insolvent, and bad
absconded. It was contended that the note had bees im.
property retained by Allen, and that there had been no con-
sideration given by the plaintiff.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Mr. H. James, were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Manisty, Q.C., for the defendant.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.