The National Register.
London, England, 1823-01-26 00:00:00

TURNIAILL V. KITCHENER.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, a iceman, to recover
damages for an assault isosumitteJ by the defendant, his epplain.
The plrintiff, it appeared. was employed as • sailor on.bitara
■ collier, name the Not. hi Jame , b,longia% to Sunderland.—ln
October, 1821. the ves.sel was on her way to the Port of Lou-
don, and the plaintiff was ordered to brave the lead for sound-
ings. Whilst in the discharge of that duty the defendant
celled him upon the deck, and on pretence that be did net per-
form the operation of throwing the lead in • seaniati-like style,
beat him with • rope. until his back was discoloured by
bruises. The weak was aggravated by the state of dranken-
•ess in whirl the defendant thought fit to exercise his violence.
The defence was, that the plaintiff bad grossly neglected bis
duty, to the great danger of the vessel.
The Jury, umber all Ow circumstances, found a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages 101.

WEDNESDAY. JAN.
MILLER W. CALDWELL.

Mr. Rotoh dated, that this was an action brought by a poet
sailor against the owner of the ship New Liverpoe!. Having
performed two voyages, on the third the vessel was taken by a
French privateer, in consequence of which be was ridded his
wages, as defendant agreed for, at Si. per month. It nnfor-
tunntely happened the defends** was in America when the
plaintiff was in England. This occasioned a lapse of some
year. in bringing this action. At length meeting Me Caldwell
in England, the defendant agreed to pay him half his wages.
Mr. Larder, the male, went with the plaintiff to the defendant's
lodgings, in Buryistreet, St. James's, to identify Miller as one
of the seamen of the New Livery/ad The plaintiff delivered
his account, giving the defendant credit fur money received,
which reduced the amount to 471. The plaintiff was under
the oeeessity of arresiiil defendant, who as a British mer-
chant, and a man of fortune, had pleaded the statute of limi-
tation. The question would now be, whether the defendant
bad edmitted-the debt within six years. His settling with
Larder, the snide. who had sued him, the Learned Coonsel
contended, world amount to an admission of wages doe to the
plaintiff fur the services arising out of the sane voyages.
Mr. Larder, the mate, proved the case as stated by the
Counsel.
The Lord Chief Justice in his charge to the Jury, observe*
that it was a bard role for mariners ; bat the law bad recog-
nised it—that if the slip was lost, the mariner oould nut recover
for that ♦oyage. This clod, however, was for antecedent
voyages actually performed. If the Jury believed Larder,
here we s acknowledgment that the wages due to the plaintiff
remained susaiiiiied.
The Jury found fur the
QIAAAM V. 11110C[.
This action was brought to recover the amount of a taylises
bill for clothes, made and delivered according to the order of
the defendant.
Mr. Scarlett stated the circumstances of the case. The de-
fendant and several others basing set up an opposition coach,
which they named the Mrtarchrsirr littlepeitifeet. it was consi-
dered necessary to start with becoming Ida, and aderdingly
the plaintiff received an order from the defendant to Rieke
scarlet liveries, with buff belts, &o. The clothes were stop-
plied, and worn by the coachman, guard, and others, and
nothing remained hat payment of the pleintirs bill. Mr. Sear-
lett said he should prove the order was given by the defendant,
end he entitled to a verdict.
Witnesses were called to prove the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Marryatt, for the defendant, said this was an attempt to
make big client pay debts incurred by ethers. The clothes
were not furnished on credit given to the defendant, hut to the
men belonging to the eoach. Independent of that fact, which
he should prove, it would appear that the defendant had
nothing to do with the coach, having quitted the concern alto.
gefuer.
The Learned Counsel called the servants belonging to the
coach, who stated that they gave orders for the clothes. It
also appeared that the defendant was not a partner in the coo.
cern.
Mr. Bowled, in reply, contended that the defendant, who
bad given the order, was liable to pay the plaintiff's demand,
whether he remained one of the conch concern or not.
The Jury, after receiving she Juage's charge, retired fruit
the boa, and hating been out • short time, returned a verdict
for the defendant.

401. 13$. 104.

THURSDAY, JAN. 3.
This being the first day of Term, the Judges took their seats
with their usual formality.
The report of the conduct and state of the prisoners is the
Penitentiary, Mil'bank, was presented and read by the eauet
of the Court.

- _
BRANSCOMB V. BRIDGES.
The Solicitor General moved to set aside the verdict in this
case, and eater a Donsuit.
It was en action to recover damages for en excessive distress
levied on lady Braneconeb's goods.—Tbe Jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff.
The witnesses for the plaintiff made a tender of the vent doe
from Lady Branscombeand the Solicitor General contended that
the form of action was wrong. After the tender the Sheriff's
officer lied no right to distrain, and the action ought to have
been for a trespass.
The Court were of opinion that the verdict could not be
disturbed.

vie D. GORTON R. LORD amity.
Mr. Scarlett moved to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff,
and to enter a nunsoit. This was an action on the warranty of
• horse, warranted to go safe is harness. The plaintiff had
seen the horse in the Park, rode by Sir Simeon Steward, and
bring siruck with the animal, made some 'inquiry, with a view
to purchase it to run in harness. Sir S. Steward wrote to Lord
Newry, to whom the horse belonged, and informed the plaintiff
that the horse would run well in harness ; the noble plaintiff
then purchased the horse of the defendant's groom, and some
lime after returned him, on the ground that be would not run
in harness, according to the terms of the warranty. The Jury
found a verdict fur the plaintiff. Mr. Scarlett now contended,
in support of his motion, that the communication from Sir
Simeon Steward did not amount to a warranty on the part of
Lord Newry, but a mere representation that the horse, whilst in
his possession, had been used in harness. The Court granted
• rule to show cause.

WAYTE P. CARE.
This was an action to recover damages for negligent driving
on the part of Lady Carr'a eciaolunan, by which the plaintiff and
his wife were overturned in their chaise.
Mr. Gurney moved to set aside the verdict given for the
defendant, Oil the ground that the weight of evidence proved
negligence, for which Lady Can was answerable. The mis-
chief fur which the plaintiff sought a compensation happened in
the Regent's Circus, Piccadilly. Mr. Way te, a tradesman in
that street, was driving up Regent-street, and crossing the
Circus. There was a hackney coach at the same time driving
Ciotti the stand, and he drove his chaise before it. Lady Carr's
carriage came on him by surprise on the near side of the
hackney coach, and overturned him. Mr. Gurney ►tated on
this occasion that a special rule in driving was this :—Due
carriage crossing another ought to Isms on the off side, and by
omission on the part of the defendant's coachman to ob
that rule, the accident happened.
Mr. Justice Bayley—lt may happen that a man is obliged to
stop no the near side.
Mr. Gar bey—that was not the case here. The coachman bad
not to stop, and might have gone on the of side. All the
indifferent spectators of the accident gave evidence that it was
the fault of the coachman.

The Court, after hearing all the arguments of Mr. C in
support of his emotion, were of opinion that the question had
been properly left to the Jury, awl that they ought nut to dis-
turb the verdict.

l _J

.

i

~--_