The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-01-29 00:00:00

PRIOR C. BIGNOI.D.

Mr. BIONOLD moved fur Y new trial in this case.
Ile war pre►sed in it from a seine of duty, and op°.
gizeil for his chticiency in conducting a legal'argu-
n3ent. The ground of hi• t was, that the
Plaintiff had not buffered sufficient injuly to entitle
to so much damages as he recovered ; fur he
walked over to the Defendant's house in a week
after, and seemed to have forgotten what part of
his leg bill been injured.
The CHIEF JUSTICE read over his notes of the
trial.

Mr. BIGNOLD offered some finements to &sere.
dit the evidence, but was informed, that the Court
could consider nothing relevant which was nut le-
gally before them.
Mr. BIGNOLD them read a long written commentary
of his own upon the evidence of the witnesses,
which the Court listened to with most forbearing
iritielice for upwards of halran hour, which it filled
up in raiding. Ile was proceeding with smuts ad-
ditional remarks, when

1.,,0rd Chief Justice ABBOTT stopped him, •nd
oboerved, that the lime of the Court h'luuged to
the public, our could they suffer it to be wasted

be a y having no better motive fat occupink
.
it iltan.that of • subtle and pertinacious mind.
Mr. Memos.° ritllls.l. h.MeVIPt. 4114 put ill an
routs it the at nu of • surgeon upon
the injury which the Plaintiff hail sutlers.) frints
the chaise rolling over I • .
• Lord Chief Jogire A WIG IT again reminded Mr.
of the wok ible time he nes wasting, and
Ilia important int•ine•• which lie *as itittHr•ptiosig.
ItiG 411.9 aria n taw Wortill mitre, and Ike
Court fu.ed die inolioo.
The I.ORO CHIEF Jusrics then proceeded to
sit at

A istsither of sintleretided camel were gone
Ihrouzh, end the Cmort adjmirnr4l.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
limarmy, J • 29.

MATHEWS C. PRI( E.

Mr. Serjrant "FADDY .cud, that the action in
'hi% caorie we. I gilt nu • der(' by which the
Defendant contracted with the Plaintiff fur the
ronitruction of a lock etitratier lido the Veit
Indio Duck+, the work to he pin formed on the
principles or construction then so.ril. awl after it
should he completed, to be tne.iyured and valued
by eaginrer., wise were to estim.ste the work lie.
cording to the price of wedgy of a similar nature ;
and its rune they should differ. in opinion, it was
agreed that the purists in dilfenoice between them
should lee referred to 4 thirst esigiii.er. The work
was completed, and the matter was accordingly re-
ferred to the derision of two engineers ; they dif-
fered in osliniun. end appoisded an umpire of the
name of William Andrews ; he made a definoti,
and monied a sum of 1,701. to the 'Plaintiff,
which sum was not paid.
The action having been commenced, the De.
felidant pleaded that he was not hound by the deci.
Mtn of Andrews, bevies he did not yurvey the
was k, or make airy valuation, and to that plea the
present demurrer was taken. The plea, the Learned
Serjesnt mid, was bed—tied, because the fact that
a valuation wee made by the umpire was not alleged
by the declaration, and was nut, therefore, !raver.-
able by the plea ; and secondly, heeling... in point
of fact, the umpire was slot Minot to make soy
such valuation. That was a duty to be performed
by the arbitrator,, and riot by the umpire—for it
has been decided that the umpire is out bouud to
take anew all the evidence which has been slimily
taken by the arbitrators ; the umpire may take that
evidence from tile arbitrators themselves, so the
general principle applied, and it bore strongly on
the cave before the Cowl : fur here the umpire was
not to decide generally, but only on thaw particu-
lar points on which • difference of opinion might
have existed between the arbitrators, and therefore
he was 401 called upon to adopt all the evidence
previously takeii by them, and to go anew over the
ground which they hard already examined. Tke
plea says that he did not survey or value the work,
and eviniate it arccordisig to the principles oat which
work. ofa nature are valued, but non con-
slat that the arbitrators did not differ un the point
of valuation.

The Cou Wr —Your declaration says that they dif-
fered on the points refered to them—you hod better
amend the declaration.

Mr. Serjraiit TADDY—:pIy Lord I must take
the declaration as it is; if the declaration is defec.
five, they should have demurred to it; but instead
of doing in they plead, and their plea is bad, be.
cause it traverses what is not alleged by the Plain.
till, and what it was not iirces.ary to allege. The
Lra►red Serjeaut said, he ....Mil acknowledge him.
sell wrung io the construction of the deed, if the
same labour cmt by the deed on the arbitrators
nectesarily belonged in the umpire too; but he
contended that it did not, and that the umpire
might take the evidence from the aibitrators, and
act upon it. The Ii iiiitiff relied on the decision
of the umpire, that decision was not skean to be
wrong, and the Court was bound so' locoman that
every thing was right until the contrary was shown.
How was the award impeached ? nut by chewing
that the arbitrators did any thing that was wrong,
but that the declaration did nut skew that they did
every thing that was eight.
Mr. Segued Lass said, that the declaration
averred that the uminie did surrey the works, and
yet the Plaiotiff objects to traverse his own allega-
tion : the Defendant traverses *hat the declaration
alleged, but the Plaintiff say., the fact is not ma•
tries! ; as to the materiality, it is said. that the ar•'
bitraturs might have agreed on many poiuts...-0/1
the point of valuation fur instance, and have differ.
ed wily on some collateral question. If that were
the case, it should have been *hewn, and would
have constituted a special case, but nu such fact is
allegro. On pleading., it does not appear that any
survey whatever of tile work had been suede; and
though that is the essence of the case, the Plaintiff
say., that without that survey the judgment of the
umpire should be considered as sufficient.
Chief Justice DALLAS—"s As the case stands,
it appears to the Court, that if the Plaieitiff did
not aver that the survey was made according to
the term. of the deed, the declaration is bad, and if
he did allege it. the plea is good."
Cause disallowed.
RUTTERTON V. TURNER.

Mr. Seijeatit Hut Lout movtd that the officer
be directed to tax triple costs in this cause. It was
r case in repleviii, where, muter the statute of the
4341 of Elizabeth, the party is awarded treble dama-
ges, with his costs also. The question was, whether
the surds, with his costs also, meant treble costs,
like the dausages, ur tautly the usual costs,. The
Learned Setjeasit said, that if the word coats had
nut beets meant, in the statute, treble costs should
be awarded ; because it has beets held, that costs
are to be taken in the stature of, and as a party of,
the damages. That doctrine was held its tlie cause
of Law/011 a. Storey, gtl Lord Itapsowd—there au
act ttttt was brought, under the Sid of %Valium and
Mary, and treble costs were awarded.
Lord Chit( Justice DALLAS " How does the
practice stand at present ?"
Air. Serjeasit tiLILLOCIC•••" Indeed, my Lord,
I e. tttttt t exactly say."
A comminutel rule was reared.

His Honour the Kama of the KoLLs will not
sit nil (lonhey next in the Rolls Coortt it being •
hultelsy, but he will sit at six on the evening of
Tuesday to hear reuses.