The National Register.
London, England, 1815-12-24 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

The Court was occupied in hearing this case from ten o'clock
in the morning till half past four. There were not less than
500 nersons in the Court and Hall; among whom were up-
mards of 50 fa- hionably-dressed females.

COURT OF KING S BitNCII, Dec. 20.
Sittings before Lord Ellenboroug4 and a Special Jury, at Guildhall,

g/: w• .11i;chaelmas Term.

JONES V. WITH.
This was a special action upon the case, to recover from the
defendant, who is a coach owner, damages for an injury sus •
twined by the plaintiff, hay in been thrown from, the defendant's
coach, through the negligence of his servant.
Oe the part orthe plaintiff it was proved, that on the gist of
August, the plaintiff, who is the, captain of a West India Ship,
took a place on the outside of the Royal Alexander stage coach
for 'Liverpool, the coach being to go by the 'way of Leicester.
At ten o'clock in the evening the coach arrived at Leicester,
where the inside passengers stopped, and those on, the outside
were transferred to,A lighter coach,called the New Northampton.
The guard „proceeded to place the luggage upon the new
coach, but, in doing so, complained to a person named Gins-
by, who appeared to act as one of the owners, that the luggage
could not all be placed upon the coach with safety ;
hut the proprietor insisted upon its being put up, and
h s of der was accordingly obeyed. The coach wit, then
about to proceed without •lamps, when the outside passen
gers remonstrated upon' the impropriety of pursuing the
journey without lights, the night being very dark ; one of
them, a Mr. Huhne, descended from the top, and remon-
strated with the owner, and told him that his wife and chil-
dren depended upon him for his support, and he could nut
think of risking his life by proceeding without lamps. The
proprietor said—" What have I to do with your wife and,
children?" After some altercation between Mr. Gunsbv and,
the coachman, the lamps of the first coach were fixed to
the second. and lighted. The coachman then mounted the
box, apparently in ill humour, and drove off with fury.
Mr. Hulme turned to the guard, and said—" if the coach-
man drives at this rate, he will overturn us." TWo
minutes had scarcely elapsed Lefore the prophesy was fulfil-
led; the coach was overturned—the plaintiff was thrown off
with his head against the step of a door, and one of his
arms was broken. After lingering a. considerable time, in
consequence of the contusions and injuries he had received,
he was obliged to proceed to sea. The present action was
brought to recover damages for the negli,renet of the coach.'
man, and for the amount of expense he had incurred for
medical advice.

The case being proved on the part of the plaintiff.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, on the part of the defendants,
said, his clients were willing to make the plaintiff every
reasonable recompense, and therefore consented that a
verdict should be taken against them for 2001 with costs.
A verdict for this sumwas cacordingly entered,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—DEc. 23.
SIR THOMAS PLUMER V. TAYLER AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by the Vice Chancellor against the
assignees of Mr. Benjamin Walsh. a bankrupt, to recover various
sums, amounting in all to 40001. had and received by them on
account of thrPlaintiff.
The Bankrupt, it will recollected, was the broker employed
by Sir Thomas Phimer, on the sth of December, to purchase for
;,0001. for which purpose
ling and Co. This sum the
his own use fraudulently.
I'lumcr hat, got back. and
leter a luminous argument
‘ver, ether sums which had
cud which were in fart a
ztained by the Bankrupt
Sit Thomas Plumer now
stim of'4oo Lflent to Mr.
Crete paid back to the
'misted Of debts paid by
the alsivitoras

DEC. e.

Mr. Marryatt submitted far the Defendants, that there was a
material difference between the soma now sought to be recovered
by the Plaintiff, and that already obtained by him. In this case the.
sums had been paid to bona fide creditors, with the exception of
the 4001. lent to Mr. Clarke, and could not have been recovered in
law by Sir Thomas Plumer. The assignees had only' recovered
under the operation of the Bankrupt Laws.
Evidence was submitted in support of the Plaintiff's case.
Mr. Thomas Clarke proved that he had' received a 10001. note
from the Bankrupt ; he gave him 6001. back, but retained 4001. as
a loan. This was on the sth of December, 1811. He paid the
-100 1. to the Defendants.
Henry Ateride, clerk to Mr, B. Walsh, proved that he had got
change of a 10001. note for I►is employer, 632 1. of which was lent.
to Mr. Fry of Plymouth Dock. The assignees admitted the. reco-
covery of this nun.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, brother to the Bankrupt proved, that on the.
sth of December he had received three India bonds for 500 1. each,
a 1000 1. Bank of England note, and a check for 1991. 11 s. d.
from his brother on the sth of December. These sums had since
been recovered from him by the assignees by action".
Mr. Benjamin Walsh proved that the foregoing s►tms were the
produce of the money which he had received from Sir Thomas.
Plu►t►er.
Lord Ellenborongh declared his opinion to be, that Sir Thomas
Plunier could not recover back from the Assignees money which
they had received under the operation of the bankrupt laws under
a j►►dgment. The property became so blendid as to destroy all
identity. Not so with respect to the 4001. lent to Mr. Clarke,
which Sir Thomas was certainly entitled to receive, it being speci-
fically part of the 10001. note given by Walsh to Clarke.
Verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 4001.—Costs 1001.

him Exchequer Bills to the amount of 22,0
he gave him.bis check on Messrs. Gosling
Eankrup, received. and appropriated to hi,
A greattart of it, however, Sir Thomas Pt
'his right so to do had been established aft
In lbs Court above.—There were, however
s:iid!.;com to the hands of the assilomes,
part rti Afint. frandulenily (let;
7
froni . • Comas Miner. Those stuns Si
sough .t*toveo: ' They e.iln-Sistid of one
Clarke, thelidWiStr. Wiitch M.
assignees its devitirtaft :The Oh** stoat cog
Air. W. alb!' with Sir Thomas's moral, rvhielt
by actions under the Bankrirvt Laws.