The Sun.
London, England, 1806-02-15 00:00:00

, .
Consul had told them that he could not order it if
he would—and that he would not if he. could ; that
they had broken their oath'of allegiance, and they
knew it, by refusing to return to their native coun-
try, sby which their property .was forfeited to the
pubk ; and one of them admitted he had been
wrong, but that a man of the name of Seederholm
had advised him to bring the anion, who said be
would get it in three days, and had persuaded him
to do this, &c.

The Jury, under the dire&ion of Lord ELLENBO.-
ROUGH, found a verdi& for the Defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 6.

WIEDSWORTH V. WILLA.

:gr. Justice Ito o E read his' notes taken on the trial
of this anion, a Report of which, some time agci, ap-
peared in this Paper. It was a case in which the
Plaintiff recovered 301. damages, the value ofa horse
he was riding near th 9 White Lion, on F.inchley
Common, on the 22d of April, 1804, when the
servant of the Defendant, who was coachman of the
old Northampton stage, drove against him, and
broke the horse's leg.
A motion was, now made for a new trial, on the
merits of the matter stated in the affidavits of the
coachman and three of the passengers in the
coach at the time of the accident., These stated,:
that it was in no wise owing to any want of care on
the part of the driver ; but ,that the horse of the
Plaintiff became skittish and restive at the time the
coach was descending the hilt, at the bottoM of
which they cam in-conta& ; and that it was owing
to the bad horsemanship of, the Plaintiff, :in impru-
dently checking his mare, and. thus Causing her to
present herself_ in the track of the coach; that the
accident occurred at all, as there were nine feet of
the road left on the side to which heinclined, for his
free and safe passage. The coachman was perfectly
sober, driving at the rate of about seven miles an
hour, and, in the opinion,of the deponents,
_not at'
all to blame for the accident.

Serjeant COCKELL, for the. Plaintiff, showed
cause against the Rule. He contended, that the
evidence in the case; as already tried, was nhundantly
sufficient to attach negligence, and most
who
obstinacy, to the servant of the Defendant, was
on the wrong side of the road when he drove against
the Plaintiff, and almost precluded, him the means
of escaping from the coach ; whilst, on the other side,
was a sp4ce of 'eight yards of .the road, upon which
there was no obstacle, and where the coach might as
well.have been driven as over the horse of 'the Plain-
tiff. The coachman might have seen the Plaintiff,
whoa was walking his horse, .3nd conversing with a
lady (his wife) walking on the causeway, more than
79 yards before he came up to him ; " but," said
the Learned Serjeant, _ ."these people, instead of
attending to their /duty, and avoiding all annoyance
and danger, care not what force they drive against,
so that the collision is not so violent as to produce
their own overthrow (and here the coachman has
admitted, if it had been a waggon, instead of 'the
Plaintiff's horse, he would have made way for it);
but what injury they do to the body they drive
against, they care not."
Chief Justice MANSFIELD .•—" There is, indeed,
much justice in your 'observation brother COCKELL;
but, under all the circumstances, of the case, as now
before us, I think the Defendant` ought to be allowed
to have another hearing."
Justice-Ro E.—" I thought. it a perverse verdi&,
It is certainly only right that he,should."