The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-09 00:00:00

FENWIEL v. RIDLAR.

This was an action on a contract for the sale of a horse, tried at
Warwick, before Mr. Justice Park ; the contract was to sell
this horse for two others and 41. One of the horses given in ex-
change was found not to answer the warranty, and the present action
was brought to recover damages. There w.ts a verdict for the
t
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS now moved the Court to set aside this verdic
and enter a nonsuit, on the ground that the sale and delivery took
place on a Sunday. He cited Drury v. Hull. Staunton, 136, and
Bloxam v. Wiggins, 3 Barn. and Ald. 332 where a contract was
held bad because made on a Sunday. lie also moved, on the
ground of the statute of Charles, which enacts that no tenon shall
do or exercise any worldly labour, or pursue their ordinary calling"
on a Sunday. The plaintiff in this action was a horse-dealer, and
a sale of a horse was an act in which he was exercising his ordinary
ctlline. lle contended that no calling could come more immetli.
ately within the terms and good sense of the statute than horse-
dealing, for what could be more offensive to the decorum and
observances of the Sunday than the usual mode of trying the paces
of a horse before his sale? On these grounds, and for the purpose
of settling the question of the validity of a contract made under
such circumstances, he hoped their Lordships *cold grant him a
rule, when the point would be brought before the Court, and fully
argued.
rho Loom Curer JUST ICE-IVhere was this contract made?
Mr. Sergeant Ana/its-4n the inn-yard of the defendant.
.31r. Justice Batx.s r—How were the horses tried ?

- -
M r. Sergeant A DA ws—ln the usual way, by running them up and
down.

The Court granted a rule nisi.

THE aisa P. THE BAILIFFS OF IPSWICH.

Mr. ALDERSON moved the Court for a yao warrant° agsinst
two bailiffs of Ipswich. fur usurpation. The principal ground on
which he moved was, that they themselves were the returning of-
ficers of their own election. Mr. Alderson said. that this gave
them power to reject or accept whatever votes they pleased, and
consequently gave them an opportunity of turning the election in
their own favour. Thus, in the present instance, they rejected two
votes for a certain reason. and yet they accepted two others be-
cause they toted with them, though liable to the very same
bjection.
Ale. Justice BAILEY—WouId these votes have changed the
election s_

ALDLIISOK—No: there was, I understand, a majority of
twenty.
Mr. Justice Ilar LEY—I du not know that this point has ever
been decided in corporation law. It has in election law ; a Sheriff
cannot return himself.
The rule was granteiL

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTMINSTER, Nov.B
/n Buncu.

CROFTS V. W•TERIIOI;9E.

This was an actioWOitiesPasi:lootightbilhe plaintiff', who, in
the early part of the present year was travelling as a passenger by
the Regulator stage-coach, in the West of England, against the
defendant. who was the proprietor thereof, to recover daningez for
the injury he hod sustained in consequence of the overturning of
the math, at one o'clock in the morning. just before it remelted
Salisbury. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Littiedale, at
the last Dorsetshire and the Jury, miller his Lordship's
directions, found a verdict for the plaintifi; with one kundred pounds
damages.
Mr. Sergeant WYLDE now moved on behalf of the defendant for
a rule, callinfr oa the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside, and a new trial granted. The Learned Sergeant
said. that the verdict was given in consequence of the Learned
Judge's direction, who thought that although no criminal oegii-
gene* could be imputed to the coachman, yet the circumstances mat
were proved amounted to a legal negligence, and that the plaintif
was therefore entitled to recover. The questibn then would be,
whether the Learned Judge's opinion as to whit was negligence
---' The facts appeared to be Mete : The coach.
the
*-•

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, TUZIMAT, Nov. 8. The acts appeared to b their br gh hl Br had married
was corrnt or not, le acts appear e.—The coach. nu t. r. own since
man in question travelled in the night, and the coach under his instead of being called as a witness, he
CRIMINAL INFORMATION. ears warn down into the west one night, and returned on the follow. principal in the transaction.
Mr. PRolltin Alf vowed far a flak to show esume • hz: Criminal ing ; and always passed at the spot near Salisbury where the seri- Mr. Sergeant VA1;(111•N called two wi
Winn
',formation should not against two persons, of camas of dent happcned in the night time. At the part where the unfortu. cesr as above Kesel
* - % •
• .......4111111011.• -