The Sun.
London, England, 1806-02-13 00:00:00

TOIMLINSON V. ROSS.

The Plaintiff is a tradesman at Manchester, ,the
Defendant is a "cotton manufadurer, and Captain
Commandant of a Corps of Volunteers, in the same
town. A quantity of arms, to the amount of up-
wards of 3001. had been snpplied by the Plaintiff for,
the use of the Corps, and the singlequestion'in the
cause was, whether these articles were furnished on
the credit of the Defendant ? At the trial aVerdia
'Was found for the Plaintiff in I 101. fo'r -the balance
of account, contrary -to the diredion of the Learned
Judge, to, whom it appeared that the evidenee was
wholly on the other side., •
Mr.. TOPPING opposed—the new trial sought, on
the ground that it was•a question of faa, exclusively
the province of the .lury, and in such cases the, Court
would not disturb the verdict. The arms were sent
to the faftOry of the Defendant, by his express order,
and although • returned to the Plaintiff, that they
night be delivered to the individuals of the Corps,
each piece was tieketed with the 'name of the person
for whom it was designed, so that the Plaintiff had
no controul over the disposal, that he might deliver
them to those persons in whom he could confide for
the payment.

Mr: YATES Was not required to reply.
Lord ELLEN BOROUG H.—" I do riot think any
thing has been said or done, with regard to former
cases, by the Court, which should prevent it froth
granting a new trial when the verdict" is ilire&ly
-contrary to the .evidence: It may hesitate where,
there is a question merely of preponderance, bUt
here the evidence appears to me to ,be wholly in
one scale. The Plaintiff was an original subscriber
to this Corps; he knew that the individuals were to
,provide their arms and clothing at their own ex-
pence ; and he ought to have known, that the Com-
mander accepted his offers under the terms of their
confederation, and not to render himself perSonally
responsible for the weapons or accoutrements of the
Corps. It i$ said, thnt the Defendant gave the order
for the goods. If
,he is to be charged fora special
undertaking, contrary to the terra S in Which they
associated, this special undertaking must be shewn
br.ffore he can be so charged. The Plaintiff first ap-
plier,.l to a Lieutenant, Mr. Owen, and finding this
exped;nt hid-I-canal, he turned round and address-
ed himself to the Defendant. The verdict, then, is
the evidence, and a new trial ought to be

~t.ar;ted

L Jr-..i

WrOll;.T,

Silee, LAWRENCE -" The verdi& is grossly
It is reasonable that the Colnmander of a

Corps should have the dire-aim in such eases; for
the sake of uniformity in the weapons provided."-=—
New Trial granted.

PAYNG V. WAY.

A trial had been had upon the question of the
soundner.s, of a horse, and the aainn -was btoaght
upon ,rooney had and received.. -The Defendant's.
Counsel had contended that a nonsuit' should be,
entered, as ,the • proceedings ought, to have been
grounded on the warranting, and not on the 'count
for money had and received this objection had been-
over-ruled by the Learned Judge, and a verdia hav—
ing been found- for the Plaintitf,:it came to be again.;
argued before their Lordships. • -
"Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—" The Defendant used
these terms : If the horse is unsolind -I will take
it back, and return the money:- It occurred to me,
that those words raiSed.a new .corwa.a ; but I think ,
the aaion should have been upon the warranting. 4 •
Those expressions are rather to be considered as a '
declaration to take back the horse and return the
money, and ve do not, after consideration, think -
that, they;lay the basis of another contraa.. On this
ground a nonsuit should have been•ebtered."

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 1 .

TICE 'SUNG V. T. AND WIL-

LI .l:S.

It will be remembered that. Sir V. Gies, a few
clays ago, obtained .a Rule to shew cause why a cri-
minal information should not be,olstained against the
at;oveAymed Defendants, for ret.ns'aig to grant a li •
cense to mson of the name of Watkins, to en-
able him to open a. public-house in
_Portsmouth
Dock. -

Mr. ADAM, in -sheaving cause against the Rule,
said, that the reason of the Magistrates refushrg to
grant the licenio was purposely concealed' iu the-affi-
davits for the presecut;on. The real ground was,
on account of the groSs misbehaviour of Watkins
while he.was perinitted to retain his former lieense.
During the time that a number of j-lis Majesty's'
Troops werequartered at Portsmouth, the Defendant
entered into a contra& with Government to supply'
the horses with stable-room ; but instead. of taking
proper care of them while the animals were under
his charge, he employed them to carry out his beer;
and, upon expostulation by ont of the:Corporals,
Watkins raised a large slick, and lined* the man
aowb. . .

Sir VICARY GIBBS interrupted Mr. ADAM, and ex-
pressed his hope that the afrair might be postponed
till next Term, as he had. no opportunity of examin-
ipg the affidavits produced by the Defendants.
Mr. ADAM ,replied, that_ he did-not wish to press
the case, but the. Defendants felt their 'charaelers
concerned, and desired the. matter to be investigated
as soon as possible.. •
The Court, however, recommending that the ques-
tion should be postponed, the case was agreed to be
brought forward. next Term. .