The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-18 00:00:00

WE3'TERN CIRCUIT.

DORCHESTER, SiTettlit, Jonah
[Before Mr. Justice GARIEI.EE.I
. enorra wasmenutiett.
This was an action brought la recover compensation for WWq.
occasioned by the overthrow of the Regulator stage-coach, troni
isindon to teeter. The case was triid at the Summer Assign,
1825, but, upon application to the Court of King's Bench, the Ver-
dict was set asile, upon the ground of misdirection 6n Use pdtt of
the beamed Judge' (Littledale), who then presided. The partta
total's are already berme the public, but, an the case is one of gene:
tel interests it may not be uninteresting to read attends* to the
leading points.
On the present occasion Mr. Jeutmv opened the Pleadings,
and, in the nbsecce of Mr; C. F. It'illiams. Mr. TANC• ED stated
the plairriff's cane. lie said his client resided in London, but oc-
casionally travelled to the, West of England upon bushiest ; and
that the defendant (Mr. Waterhouse) was the proPrietew of the
Svan-with-two-Neckn. Lad-lane, and also an extensi3e coach pro-
prie'or. The plaintiff toilt lei seat in defendant's coach (the Re-
gulator) no the sth March, as an outside passenger, Ind nothing
occurred until the coach had left Salisbury, which was Aga two
o'clock, where, :after crossing the Aron, there in a steep hill, in
driving down which, at the turn of the road,. the /ouch was upset'',
and all the paasengers thrown off'. The plamtilTreceiSed so mach'
injury that he was wildly ineripsble of attending to his b e
or es eti of being retooled to his family, from the period wirllie
accident occurred until the 17th April. For this injury Ite flow
came before the Jury for damages. it would be proved that the
night was light, and that the itecident wag attributable to nothing
else but the culpable negligence of the defendant's coachman. The'
defence, he understood, was, that some cottages tehkh were On lbe.
toad had bean removed, and that the coachman was in the habit of
fixing his eye on the gable-end of one of these cottages, the absence
of which deceived him on the occasion of the accident. He con-
tended, however, that such a defence was no justification whatso-
ever. A coachman. who had the lives of se many individual*
undas.h.s care, should not admit a eaprfeinee object, like a tree or
a house, self clathe owner might at any time pull down, fcr hisguide.
But, in the present instance, the defence Wes altogether unfounded.
Ttie cottage had been taken down the preceding day, and must hare
been seen by the coachman, who paned the raid every day.
In support of the plaintiff's case, Francis James Kelsey was
examined. He stated that he was s'eward to lord Radnor. He
hired at :lie flea of Harnani-hill, where the accidelt occurred, He
is well acquainted wits the road. 'There is a turn to the right afiet
crossing balinbury-hridge ; there is another turn to the left at no'
great distance. There were two small cottages adjoining the road
in M-r,:h, 1825. The angle of the last cottage formes the sharp
tuning of the road. The cottages belonged to Lord Radnor;
sonic improvemenic were being made in the road, and his Lordship
dire.ted the cottages to be taken down. The accident to the Regu-
lator occurred- on a Saturday. On the preceding Wednesday the
doors mid windows of the cottages were removed, and part of the
roof taken down. On Thor-day all the timher-work was clown,
and, by Friday, one of the cottages was completely down, and only
the back wall and a stack of chimneys were standing belonging to
the second. The turn was very dangerous, but the danger would
be obviated by taking the sweep of the road. Wittman drives a
one-horse gig, and always takes the sweep. He heard of the acci-
dent a few hours after it occurred, and visited the spot. The a hsel-
mark was distinctly discernible. The wheel had passed over part
of the foundation of the cottage which was taken down, end then
turned sharply on the road.
. .

Several Workmen employed is taking down the cottages couch°.
ratei the tcatintony of Mr. Kelsey, with respect to the prdgress of
the wo-k.

John Conway examined—Was a passenger in the conch on the
day of the accident. They left Salisbury at one o'clock ; it was
fine star-light night, and the morn near its full. They wete upset
at 11:Imam-hill. When wimess got out, he observed the track of
the wheel, and that the coach had pasted over an embankment
raised above the road. The road was clear. twenty.four feet wide,
and lid no rubbish on it. Nothing conld be plainer than that the
accident occurred through the negligence of the coachman. The
passengers objected to hit driving afterward', and the guard drove.
The pl.-drain' was mangled sadly ; he was alien to Longberry Hut,
and placed in a curt, by six persors.
Cr* ss-examined—Witness never said the coachman was not to
blame, but said the proprietors were to be pitied. The coach-track
was two feet out of the road. Believes the coach passed over the
foundation of one of the cottages.
Several other passengers were exsmined, and deposed to the
same etl'ect as the witness Conway.
It sag also given in evidence, that the pkintiff's actual ex-
penses. whilst lie rema'ned ill at Longberry Hu., amounted to 951.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE faith whom war Air. Luse twt: and Mr.
CARTER) made a powerfal address to the Jury on behalf of the
d f n :ant, coatendi ig that the coachman %it! not to blame.
Vta.: he was ignorant of the alters ions which had taken place in
tie road. a• d had in no degree rentsred himself liable to a charge
of unskilfulness or neg',ge..ce.
In support of the defsn lant's case, the coachman and muted were
examined. The l mire that he was not aware that the cot.
tage was •akrn down ' • he kept hit eye on the wall that was stand-
ing, a ut perceived ro hirg until he found the coach was obstructed.
when, after rem tining on a balance for a few seconds, it went over.
It was a'se mated b some of the defendant's witnesses, that a
dense fo t hail come on about an hour before the ,tecide .t.
Several stage-co tchmen, in the habit of driv:rg of this TOE 1. were
called t„, prove that it was their general tract ce. whep there was
nothia4 in the way, to turn short round the gable.e:.d of the cot-
tage. and not to take the sweep.
Mr. C. F. NVILLIADIS reviled, and
Mr. Justice GASELEE, after summing up, left it to the Jury to
say, whether they believed, from the evidence, that the defendant's
coachman had evinced a culpable degree of negligence.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 1551.
The case occupied the Court for seven hours, and did not con-
clude till half-past ten at night.
COLE V. WELCIL—SAME t. SANE.

These were actions brought by a landlord. against his late
tenant, for alleged bad husbandry on an ex ensive farm, held fur
several years by the defendant, under the plaintiff. In consequence
of that asserted bad husbandry, the plaintiff claimed damages and
rents, by way of forfeiture, to a co-Isiderable amount. The crusts
involved questions of some importance, relative to the general p-ac-
tine of husbandry. It was, however, at length agreed by Mr.
Sergeant Wilde and Mr. Williams, for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Culu ridge and Mr. Barton, for the defendant, w tin the approbation
of the Learned Judge, that a verdict should be taken for the
plaintiff, will 20.0001. damages in one action, and 10,000/. in the
other, subject to the arbitration of Mr. Gambier, who was :o have
full power on all the questions in difference between the parties, la
their character of landlord and tenant.