The National Register.
London, England, 1816-12-23 00:00:00

KIIMILETON AND BAILEY V. PETO.

inst.

Mr. C.
7
seconds.
Mr
from
with

The defendant is the contractor with the Commissioners of
the Customs for the erection of the new Custom-honse ; the
plaintiffs were employed by him to make out an estimate of
the expense, in order to govern him in the proposal he was
to nrake pursuant to public advertisement. The whole (linea-
tion in the cause was, to what sum the plaintiffs were enti-
tled ; the demand was 4591. and the defendant had paid into
Court Itol. The facts appeared to be the following:—The
advertisement required that the proposals for contracting
should be delivered in on the 26th of June : on the 24 of that
mouth the defendant wrote to the plaintiff's requiring them to
examine the drawings and specifications exhibited at the
Custom-house, and to make out en estimate of the sum it
would cost to erect the building according to them. The
plaintiff, Bailey, with his apprentice, went immediately,
copied the drawings, and employed themselves until the 20th
,of June, for 15 hours each day, in making the calculations
'Which required the utmost numneness and accuracy ; the;
*ere assisted by two other persons la the plastering and ma-
sonry, and the *defendant and his clerk lent their assistance ;
the former occasionally, and the latter almost constantly. It
was understood between the parties, that if the defendant ob-
tained the connect, by delivering the lowest estiinate, be
was to be paid liberally; but if his offer were refused, he was
to receive only 301.
Mr. C. Barry, the plaintiffs apprentice, proved the theta
above stated. There was an item in the plaintiff's bill for
the board of the defendant and his clerk while the calms's- i
tiona were forming.
Lord Ellenbutough.—The plaintiff has no victnaller'a
li-
license; that charge disgraces the bill. If the plaintiffs and
their assistants were engaged 26 days, the sum demanded for
each day would be nearly 201.
The witness admitted that the plaintiffs had made an esti-
mate fur the defendant in InOtt, for Yunnonth Hospital, to
the extent of 66,0001. for which they Lad charged only 201.;
but that was made in the rough.
Mr. Samuel Pavnter, Mr. Joseph Patience, &c. deposed
that the claim of the plaintiff to 1591. was reasonable.
The Attorney General, for the defendant, contended, that
the demand was most extravagant, whether it were compared
with what the plaintiffs had before received for Yarmouth
Hospital, or with the - they had_.ttgreed take if the de-
fendaut's

neighbouring sportsmen. . Hospital, or with the sum they bad agreed to take if the de. thou', and the driver pulled the other three towards the side si
A wa,:er of five pounds was decided on the 10th fendaut's comma were refused. He called Thomas Good- of the slay, and stopped the coach without more than ordi. • 11/
inst. that a pony, under fourteen bands he, the pro- ssin, the defendant's clerk, who proved that his master had nary concill'siall• The witness "W 11°thilig to be "PPrebend-
perty of Mr. John Cousins, of St. (]Myth,,rses, should detected several errors of importance, to the amount (denote t•il ; but fonr or live passengers jumped doss n front behind,
than 2,0001. whether just before or just atter the coach stopped be pooh' by
trot a mile within three minutes and a half, rode by
,tar. Ward lind Mr. Wright, two surveyors, swore, that not tell. al
Mr. C. Way, whose weight is 10 stone i lb.—The they should have been glad to have undertaken the 'initiation Mr. Wicks, who keeps the White Hart at Brentwood, hod I.
y completed the task in three minutes and three of the estimate for Is*. heard the plaintiff relate the circumstances of the ai•cident, li
seconds Mr. Scarlet', for the plaintiff, replied, urging, that if his He said that a girl who sat by his side caught hold of bung ii,
.
Mr. Alley, the Barrister, is now nearly recovered
G hie. Adolphus. clients, in consiiieration lithe defendant's disappointment in while be was jumping, and tented him round. The !manta
the rejection of has contract, had agreed to accept only 301. bought the injury would not have happened but for that
from the effects of the wound he received in the duel for their immense trouble, they deserved the greater kiwi a- circumstance, cud that he should otherwise have cleared the
lity in remuneration when it was accepted, and the tientlant coach. ill
•.. . .
..

tECENII3EIi 23.

Lord Ellenbormati observed, that this case was very sin
ear in its kind, f..r hitherto he dill not think there had been
any raise-swearing on either side.
Snow, the coachman, lireiag been rele ised by the defend
went throne% all the preliminary circumstances lit
had purposely drawn to the right side (tithe road, and stopped
just before the coach arrived at the post, by means of a pro-
)ecilon front the fautpath ; a ferrate sat upon the box with
"the vs itness, but theme was no shock, add the woman by his
sih. was not at all mmeil by the stoppage ; none of the pas.
IA users got down bet' re the progress of the coach had ceased.
The trim' wet cin a very fair state, and fit to booted. Other
evidence was it en to the same effect.
The Attorney-Gen•iral net l cal, and Lord Ellenbormigh left
several questions of fact to the Jury—whether there was any
defect or misconduct on the part of the defendant, and wile
Cher that defect occasioned nr condor/id to the injury. Un-
less they were satisfied that the plaintiff was placed iu such a
sitiiation of peril as to warrant a reasonable man in endea•
souring to secure his own safety, and also that the injury hail
arisen in consopicace of that attempt, the action was not
maintainable. Ihe mistaken fears of a weak•minded tali-
vidual, whose unnecessary alarm had led to the injury, cord('
not be entitled to compeusation. The breaking of the
coapliii,g rein was a very imaortant circnntstance,••• it con-
tributed to the accident ; and the evidence of Wallace had
lint been broken in upon, when he said that the reins were
very bad, and unfit for the purpose. Rut noless the bad
reins were the constituent cause of the justifiable fears of the
pLrintift tvlsich led to the accident, he was not lire law entitled
to dahliages : if the plaintiff had leen compelled to adopt the
perilous alternative of leaping from the coach by the fault of
the defendants, and a misfortuni bad resulted, they were
liable to make good, as far as possible, the iiiiitry occasion-d.
This was the first ease pre isely of the kind ; and although
it woalil not be fair to ()acid too far the respoasiltiliy or
coach proprietors, they ongbt to pay for injuries restiliing
from their misconduct, in not providing a proper equip-
'lke Jnry consnlted for a short time, and fouad a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages 304