The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-10 00:00:00

TIIE ITNOU. TIIE JUSTICES OF NORFOLE.

Mr. Sea YLETT moved for a mandamus to be directed to certain
Justices of the county of Norfolk, directing them to appoint certain
persona named in the affidavit, in support of this application, an
Inspectors of weights, balances, and measures, in the parish of
North Wolohan', trt the beforementioned county. The application
was made upon the It2d (Jeo. 111., within the operation of which
the parish in questiou had placed itself by getting its weights and
measures from the Exchequer; and that Act provided, that if it
is the desire of the majority of the inhabitants of any parish or
township to have an inspector of weights and measures for their
pariah. distinct from the district, it shall be lawful for such inhabi-
tants, at a vestry duly holden for that purpose, to nominate one or
more householder or householders, to fill aJch offices ; and it shall
be lawful for the Magistrates of the district, in Petty Session,
to applove and appoint such person or persons so nominated.
In this instance the Magistrates refused to approve and appoint
the persons nominated, because they were shopkeepers who
had occasion to use weights and measures themselves. The
question was, whether the Magistrates, haring a discre,ion to exer-
cise, had a power to refuse appointing such persons as had been
nominated by the vestry, for the reason alleged ?
The Cou RT was of opinion that the Magistrates had a discretion
to exercise under the Act of Parliament, aid a mandamus would
not lie to control that discretion.—Rule rt fated.

LAUGHER V. POYNTER.
This was an action in the case for an injury to the plaintiff 's
horse, and the 9uestion involved was thought deserving of con-
' sideration by the Twelve Judges. The facts were shortly these:—
The defendant, a gentleman living in the country. had come up to
London with his own carriage, and hired of a livery-stable-keeper
• pair of horses for the day, the livery-stable-keeper sending his
own servant to drive the carriage. In the course of the journey,
performed in the day, the driver injured the plaintiff's horse, by
tanning the defendant's carriage against it. The question was.
whether the defendant was liable for the injury occasioned by tl.e
negligence of the person who drove the carriage.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, at the trial before before him in
Middlesex, about twelve months since, was of opinion that the
action was not maintainable, and therefore directed a nonsuit. A
motion having been made fur a new trial, the Court desired the
ease to be argued before the Twelve Judges, and it was argued
accordingly.
The Judges of this Court now delivered their opinion set-tatting,
and being equally divided, no final judgment was given.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE anti 51r. Justice LITTLEDALE
were of opinion, that the person who drove the defendant's carriage
could not be considered as the defendant's hired servant, and con-
sequently nr was not liable for his negligence. They put the case
upon the analogy of a hackney-coachniao, a post chaise-boy, or a
waterman, over whom respectively the person hiring their con-
veyances for a temporary occasion had no control.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY and Mr. Justice 110LUOYD thought the
action maintainable, inasmuch as the driver of the carriage was for
the occasion as much bound to obey the orders of the hirer of the
carriage, as If he were his regularly hired servant.
This important matter now remains undecided.
COURT OF C0M515-Irrr—rEAS, FRIDAY, JUNE 9.

This day was appointed for the hearing of special arguments.
None of the causes argued contained anything of public interest.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE and .Mr. Sergeant Lewes, who were se-
verally engaged in two causes, successively applied to the Court to
postpone the hearing of them. because, having only received ingrue-
nous from the solicitors the night previous, they had not had time
to prepare their arguments.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUET, who was opposed to Mr. Sergeant
it's Lisa, said, that, as a personal accommodation to his Learned
Brother, he had no objection to the postponement of the cause.
The COURT observed, that this was not a question of personal
accommodation to the Gentlemen of the Bar. By this neglect or
Solicitors, great injustice was done to the public, who not only thus
had their causes delayed, but incurred additional and unnecessary
expense. The Solicitors ought to be made to pay the costs.
'rhe LORD CHIEF JUiTICE—I should like to hear of an action
being brought against Solicitors for such neglect.
Mr. Justice BURROL/GH said, lie observed the whole of the
record was inserted in the demurrer book, instead of those points
only whieli were in issue. This practice put parties to a great ex-
pense, which was not necessary.
The COURT agreed with Mr. Justice Burrough, and desired
Solicitors to attend to his Lord.hip's suggestion.
In another cause which was to have been tried at the last Summer
Assizes for Gloucestershire, but in which the plaintiff had with-
drawn the record on the day of trial, one of the parties had paid
the fees to the Special Jurors. The question now was, whether the
feels ought to be allowed as costs, the case not having been tried ?
The Collin' said, though the practice had been to pay the Special
Jurors, they could not claim it unless the cause were tried.