The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-02-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF HMO'S BENCH, bloprzur, Fgs. 23.

!Sittings in Westminster, before the LORD CHIEF JunTicz.anti
Common ✓nriee.l

NEV. A. SIMONS r. SMITH.
The plaintiff', a clergyman. brought this action to mover dia.
for injury done to his horse by the negligence and inattention
:el:
defendant, in attaching the shafts to the carriage in which
the horse was driven.

The plaintiff had hired shafts at 10s. a week from the defend-
ant, a coach-maker in Canterbury. The shafts were fitted to the
carriage in the defendant's yard by the defendant's servants. The
plaintiff's granchon, a little boy, was in the carriage, his son and
his coachman were on the box, the son driving. It was a one horse
carriage. The horse was driven on a good road without any interrup-
tion at the rate of five miles an hour, when one of the shafts dropt
from the carriage, the horse plunged and draeged till he detached
the other shaft and he then ran with the shaftelying up and dashing
down upon his heels. The hoofs, heels, and houghs, were so
severely cut and injured that it was found necessary to deprive the,
poor animal of life. The nut of the screw was afterwards found on
the road. It was contended for the plaintiff that the nut was too
small to be screwed sufficiently upon the bolt, and that therefore
the workman sas liable for the consequences of his unworkman-
like work.

Mr. Richard Simons gave evidence of finding the nut upon the
road.

Mr. SCAILETT motes/dad that the work had appeared quite
sufficient. The very best work sometimes gave way, without
any fault on the part of the workman. No gentleman would
bring an action for such accidents. lie would call witnesses to
prove that the persons who did the work were skilful, careful
workmen.

The LORD CrtlRF JUST /CZ intimated that the want of fitness
in the two pieces of iron was evidently the cause of the accident.
Mr. SCAR/ACTT would acquiesce, it that was his Lordship's opi.
nion. The horse had cast M. but two days before.
Verdict for the plaintiff_ damages SM.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, blowoay, Frs.73.

(Adjourned Sittings at Nisi Prim, after Hilary Tenn, at Guild.
hall, is London, Wore the LORD CHIRP JUSTICE and Conn
nor Jnrics.l
.N2IIIITT I'. PARSONS.

Mr. PAXIE opened the pleadings.
Ale Sergeant Pest. stated, that the plaintiff is a surgem, resid-
ing in Parsonage-row, Newington ; the defendant is an apothem'',
residing at Welworth, and a person of considerable property. The
action was brought on account of words spoken by the defendant of
an injurious tendency towards the plaintiff On the 7th of Febru-
ary last, a boy of the name of Dexter was rode over by a cart be-
longing to a person of the name of Darwell, by which accident the
boy's leg sustained a severe injury. In consequence of this, Mr.
Nisbet was called in to attend the boy; and sometime subsequently
the defendant attended himself in the plaintiff's absence and exa-
mined the boy's leg, when in the presence of the boy's parents he
said he hesitated not to say, speaking of the boy's leg, that it had
been most injudiciously treated, and he would repent it. The
Learned Sergeant observed, that this was Ter,' improperly said,
both as it was said behind the back of the plaintiff; and in the pre-
sence of the boy's parents, who were naturally thrown into a state
of alarm and agitation by such an expression ; as they had before
no reason to be dissatisfied with the plaintiff's treatment of the leg,
which was eventually healed under his care. Mr. l)arwell might be
called to show that lie authorised the defendant to examine the boy's
leg; he was in many respects a competent witness for the other
side, if the defendant's Counsel chose to call him. The Learned
Sergeant, however. did not know whether the other side would call
a witness or nut. It was probable he would not have another op.
portunity of addressing tne Jury, and he therefore wished to put
them On their guard against the defence which might be set up. It
might be said there was no malice, but this he could not admit, un-
less, what was infinitely worse, the defendant was actuated by in-
terested motives. Ile should prove his case, and called for mode-
rate damages.
Sarah Dexter was then examined by Mr. Sergeant Lewes---I
live in Shaw's.place, opposite Newington church. I lived there
in February last. My son Daniel met with a very serious injury.
He WAS about twelve years of age. He was lIIIIIII3IIg. Mr. Shaw s
man, a Niker, in drawing a barrow of bread. ~in accident hap.
petted. There was a violent cut near the ankle, the flesh projecting
out, and bleeding violently. It appeared a very bad accident, and
the boy was in great agony. I sent for Dr. Mason, who was not
at home. Somebody said, if I sent over to the Medical Board I
should have the best eminence. I sent over, and Mr. Nisbet im.
mediately came. Mr. Nisbet attended a fortnight before Mr.
Parsons came. I did not know a person of that name. He tame,
as I believe, at the desire of Darwell. He saw the boy at that
time. I had never heard of Mr. Parsons. Ile saw the boy the
first time he came. I went wick him. A daughter was with me.
He did not examine the wound that day. The child was in a
dosing state : he said nothing particular then. He came again on
the following Monday—the firet day was Friday. He saw the boy
then. He took thedressing off; and felt the bone. Ile then turned
round and said, " I do not hesitate to say it is most injudiciously
treated." He went down stairs, and repeated it again in the par.
lour. I asked him if he would make known his opinion to Mr.
Darwell, as flr. Darwell sent him? He paid he would: and that
be had told it to the boy. The defendant knew who was attending
the boy. Mr. Nisbet continual to attend the boy, who was cured
by him. Mr. Nisbet attended him constantly, and sometimes twice
a-day. I bad my son on my hands about three months.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant V.recnase.-111y son is here.
The accident was owing to a cart running over him. I had beard of
Mr.liallem, but did not know he waste partnership with Mr. Par.
sons. I went to the Military Medical Establishment. I was not
employed to circulate printed bills for Mr. Nisbet. When Mr.
Darwell and Gillet were speaking against Mr. Nisbet, and said
that he would overcharge, I gave them a bill, which I thought
contained liberal sentiments, and that Mr. Nisbet gave advice at
low prices. The pills came wrapped up in bills. I know of no
partners in the Military Medic-el Establishment but Dr. Nisbet
and flr. Griffiths. After the dissatisfaction expressed by Mr. Par-
sons, we felt very uneasy about our child. Mr. Griffiths some.
time dressed the boy's leg when Nisbet was present. Nisbet fre-
quently dressed the leg; I cannot recollect who dressed It most
frequently. Mane days elapsed when Griffiths never came in the
house at all. The leg was sometimes dressed by Nisbet and some-
times by Griffith,. and sometimes they came together. I don't
know any other Parsons. I understood that Parsons was in the
habit of attending flr. Darwell's family. Darwell asked me as a
favour if I would let Mr. Hallam see the child. Dowell was the
who wto pay the expense, in consequence of the accident
liuil as
happening through his servant. Mr. Darwell caine before Parsons
saw the leg. lie did not offer to pay for the cure. We had not a
great quantity of medicines; it required nature more than dressing.
We had the bill last May ; Mr. Darwell paid it. There was b 4
to conic to vs fur the necessary assistance we gave die child, who
was on our hands three months. Mr. Parsons never told me that
he attended at fle Darwell's desire, because Darwell was uneasy
about the leg, and thought it was not doing well. There was
sonic proud flesh on the leg. It might be the next day, or the next
day but one, that I mentioned to Dr. Nisbet the words spoken by
the defendant. I told him I wanted to have further advice, and lie
asked nie why. I told him that Mr. Darwell wished to have the
bill, and for us to have Mr. Parsons. Ile particularly wanted to
know why. I told him that Mr. Darwell was anxious about the
child, and very uneasy about the charges: I was attending here in
December, alien the Cause was not tried. Dr. Nisbet did not re.
commend an attorney to me. I received M. from Mr. Daniell, as
remuneration for my attendance on the child.
Dr. Thomas Welshman examined by Mr. PARICE.-1 have
known Mr. Nisbet many years. I don't know how long he has
practised as a surgeon.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGIIAN addressed the Jury. Ile thought they
were convinced there was a little proud flesh in this case, and that
a caustic application would be more suitable than a poultice. His
Learned Friend was mistaken on one point. Ile had supposed it
was only necessary to prove that the words were spoken ; but the
question was, whether they were maliciously spoken; and he (Mr.
Sergeant Vaughan) submitted that there was enough in the evi-
dence to rebut the charge of malice. In the case of a master ap-
plied to for the character of a servant, if the muterspoke hastily,
the law would not hold him liable fur injurious words. Who were
the physicians and surgeons of the " Military Medical Establish•
ment ?" Let them give their names so the public, that the public
might see who those persons were who complained of being tra-
duced and defamed. Ile did not complain of the woman going for
the first assistance she could get ; lie did not complain of her go-
ing to this '• Military Medical Establishment," where it was
smitten up in golden letters to gull the ignorant and credulous.
But was it not natural that Dared' should be desirous of taking
the boy's case out of the hand, of persons of whom he knew no-
thing, and place it under the care of him own surgeon ? It was
not proved that the plaintiff was a surgeon. Doctor IValshman
had been called to prose that fact, but he had not done il. The
question was, whether die defendant had not a right to give his
coelniotrke whichnc reirgrpoossent,hehalasnoseiciitouTt Dtexter
hat tahishouasect:—
ion
was brought as a puff'. It Nisbet and Co. could get into the news-
paper'', they would gain their object. They would puff off this
trial as the great case tried at Guildhall, and should they get s far-
thing dam ages, they would probably gild it and nail it on ot.e of the
posts in front of the " Military Medical Establishment," as a
memorial of their triumph. After some further observations, the
Lanni Sergeant trusted the Jury would give their verdict for the
defendant.

TO: LORD CIIIEF Jvsr, IC E, before he proceeded to sum up
the evidence, said it was ncctssary in a case of this nature, to prove
that the plaintiff was what he professed to be, a surgeon, and no
proof of this had been given. Dr. 11'alshnian had been called for 1
that purpose, but lie stated, that though he had known the plain-
tiffmar.y years, he did not ':now w hether he was a surgeon. The
cpiestion the Jury hail to • is, whether the words were ma-
liciously spoken, or whcthci the defeedant only expressed his
honest opinion. It was clear that he did not go to FCC the boy's
leg officiously and intrusively, as he had been sent there for
that purpose. They would first satisfy themselves that the plain-
tiff was a surgeon, and next, whether the words were wantonly
and unnecessarily uttered.
Verdict fur the defendant.

Ace IDENT.—Yeaterday afternoon a young woman,
named Mary Roberts, servant to a gentleman, living at 5, Vella-
lam.buildinga, Gray's Inn, whilst hanging up a ham in the'
kitchen, and standing on a chair, her clothes caught fire, and she
was enveloped in thanes in an instant; in that state she ran into
the street, when a gentleman passing laid hold of her and thrt st her
down, and succeeded in extinguishing the fire, but not before bee
hands, breasts, and face were dreadfully scorched.