The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YEaTERDAT.

&MIMS AT Nut Puce.—Bcroaz LOAD DLYNAN AND •
CONDON 'VAT.
QrICIL O. LYTE.-A HORSE CASE.

.
Mr. Berrant Wilkins and Mr. Z. James were counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., with whom eras
another beamed gentleman, appeared for the dahadant.
This was en action brought against a Mrs. Lyte, as the
executrix of the will of her husband, the late Mr. Lyte, to
recover the sum of 801., the balance of the price of a bay
horse, which it was allrged that deceased gentleman had, in
the month of May, 1848, purchased of the plaintiff.
The facts of the case were these: In the month of May.
1848, the late Mr. Lyre, who was a gentleman of fortune in
the county of Devonshire, saw the horse, the property of the
plaintiff, in some stablesb eh ind Welbeck-etreet,in which street
Mr Quick had apartments, and, being desirous of purchasing
it, he went, accompanied with a horeedealer of the name of
Beaumont, in whose stables the horse was, and who carried
on his business in Woodstock-mews, to see the plaintiff.
This occurred as the 19th of May, and It was then arranged
that Mr. pp._ was to give 1001. for the horse. That gen-
Beam wished to pay put of the war/ la bilis, hut this the

plaintiff objected to. On the following Monday, the 21st of
May, Mr. Lyte again saw Mr. Quick, when Mr. Beaumcnt
wai present, and 201. was paid down on account of the
horse, tar which a receipt was given. The animal was then
token away by Mr. Lyle, according to the ref-
thus of the witness Beaumont, and ridden, and
that gentleman, as Bumount swore, intended to
to rids It to the Derby, but being ada Bed by him
not to do so, he had placed it in Beaumont's:stable, where it
had remained over since. In the month of July, 1848, Mr.
Lyte died after only 20 hours illness at the age of 25, and his
widow resisted the payment of 801. (which we should state
her husband had also refused to pay) on the ground that the
horse was never purchased by the testator.
In support of the plaintiffs use the first witness milled was
Mr. Beaumont, who, in addition to proving the facts that
we have already narrated, stated in his examination in chief
that Mr. Lyte had presented him with a new hat as an
acknowledgment for his share in the transaction of buying
the horse. Upon eruss-examination this witness denied that
he had stated that he had ever add that the plaintiff's name
was Graham, and it had never been agreed between Mr. Lyte
and the plaintiff that the former should take the horse on
trial for three month, only, for which be won to pay 201.,
and that at the end of that period, if he thought fit, he was
to keep the animal aq.ori the payment of the remaining 801.
The next witness was a Mr. Herman, who had been valet
to Mr. Quick, but he merely proved that Mr. Lyle had
given him hales crown to Omit the horse's health with.
Mr. Humirey far the defence contended that the agree-
' ment between the parties was that 201. should be paid by
Mr. Lyle for three mouths for the use of the hone, and
that if he chose at the end of that time he
might either return him or pay the remaining
801. The late Mr. Lyte had paid the 201. under those terms,
and • conditional bill of exchange had been given for the
remaining 801. The horse had n been used by Mr.
Lyte, and, in fact, had never been in his possession at all.
Tnat deceased gentleman had wished so bring an antics
against the present plaintiff, to re cavc r the 201., but neither
Mr. Berkeley, the former solicitor cf Mr. Quick, nor Mr.
Billing, who subsequently became has profisaional adviser,
would give up his place of residence, he having left Welbeck-
street, nor were they insituved to accept a- rvico of a writ
on his behalf The plaintiff had in March, 1849, been com-
pelled by a judge's order to give his address, and be was then
stated to be the coproprietor of the Turf Hotel, St. Alban's.
Under the circumstances of the use the learned counsel sub-
mitted that his client was entitled to a verdict.
In support of the defendant's case a Mr. Lempriere, a
barrister, was called, who stated that he was acquainted with
the deceased, Mr. Lytr, and gel with the plaintiff, both of
whom were gentlemen of property and position be-
lorging to the county of Devon. Witness went with
Mr. Lyte to see the bores in question on Mon-
day, the 21st of May, 1848. The witness, Beaumont,
then said that the hone belonged to a Mr. Graham. Wit-
fuss, Mr. Lyte and 13-sumont then went to Mr. Quick's
lodgings, No. 10, Welbeek.street, but witness was not al-
, lowed to go into the room where Mr. Quick, Mr. Lyte and
, Beaumont we-e, but Mr. Lyle came out to consult witness,
who was in the passage, and witness gave him the blank
form of a conditional bill of exchange. The condition of that
bill was that 201. should be paid down for the use of the
horse for three months, and that if Mr. Lyte chew to keep
the horse, then the bill, which was for 801., should
tome into force. That bill in that form witness un-
derstood was not given by Mr. Late. Witness believed that
14r. Lyte bad never ridden or had possession of the horse,
because when Mr. Lyte applied to have it given up to him,
Beaumont said that it wanted shoeing, and he would send it
to him at two o'clock, but it never was sent, and when wit-
ness went to Beaumont's stables three &ye afterwards he
found them locked up and no horse there.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkta having replied,
Lord Denman proceeded to sum up and left it to the jury
to say whether they believed the testimony of the witness
Beaumont, or whether they thought that Mr. Lompriere was
correct in the canon which he had given of the affair. If
the jury thought there had been • bargain for the absolute
sale of the horse then they would return • verdict for the
plaintiff, but if they we ra not of that opinion, then they
would find for the defendant.
The jury found • verdict for the plaintiff—damages SOL