The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nor. 6 -
THE ATTORNEY-GENEItAL V. WILSON.
The arguments in this case, which were part beard
yesterday, were -resumed, and occupied the Court nearly
the whole day. We have alread) given a short state-
ment of the facts of the case.
His Loacisni# said he would give judgment on Friday.

VICE-CHANCEL, OR'S COURT. Nor 6.
ILLINGWORTH V. THE MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAIL

WAY COMPANY

This case earti6 befota thy,. Court upon motion for an
injunction to restrain the defetaianis, the Company of
Proprietors of the Manchester and Leeds Rai!way Com-
pan), from diverting tin Late of tip. Gilder Naviga:ion
For the purpoSe of makii,g tr rir ratvay. The pl kiwi&
were the owners of a mill on the hank; o the ricer
Calder, which they valued at 10,0001, and the ru:sning
water of the river was e-sentialiy m cessary for
carrying on the business for which the mill was used
The affidavits on behalf of the plaintiffs stated 'hat it
the defendants were permitted to carry on these works in
the manner proposed, it would operate to the ruin ct

the plaintiffs' mills.
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE a,ked for time on b, half of the
defendants to answer the affidavits which the Court
granted, but at the same time compelling them to enter
in.o an undertaking not to proceed with the works in
the meantime.
Petitions of no interest occupied the Court the re-
mainder of the day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 6.

POLACK V. THE PROPRIETORS OF THE TIMES NEWS-

PAPER.

Mr. PLATT said he had been instructed in this case
to move for a rule to show cause why the verdict of
100/. obtained by the plaintiff should not be set aside.
and a new trial had, on the ground of misdirection and
of the verdict being against evidence. It was an action
for libel tried before Lld Denman, at the sittings
after last term The defendant pleaded not guilty,
and a justification and the replication joined issue on
the first plea, and de injuria as to the second. The
facts. of the case were briefly these :—A Committee of
the House of Lords had been appointed to inquire
into the state of the islands of New Zealand, and the
plaintiff, who had resided there several years, was exa-
mined as a witness on oath, touching the islands and
their inhabitants. The libel in question was a con►men•
tary upon the evidence given by the plaintiff before the
Lords' Committee, which,,it was alleged, would induce
the public to believe that he had committed perjury—
another witness havin2, sworn that he would not believe
Polack on his oath. One portion of the plaintiff's evi
deuce was that he did not keep a grog-shop, or sell spi.
rits by retail, but it was proved by two or three wit.
nesses on the trial that he did keep a shop for the re,
tail of spirits, which some of the witnesses called a grog
shop. Notwithstanding all that the jury had though
proper to find a verdict for the plaintiff, which he (Mr.
Platt) was justified in pronouncing a verdict, against
evidence. Under these circumstances, he submitted
that he was entitled to the rule prayed for. With re-
spect to the allegation of perjury, it was distinctly
proved that a witness had sworn before the Lords
Committee that he would not believe the plaintiff or,
his oath under any circumstances.
Lord DENMAN—I don't recollect your putting it
the depositions of the plaintiff before the Committee
in which he denied having kept a grog-shop.
Mr. PLATT—Oh yes, my Lord, it was put in.
Lord DENMAN—I believe the case went to the jury
on the point of whether the shop kept by the plaint:ll
came within the description of a grog-shop. I be-
lieve the best plan will be to read over the evidence.
(Lord Denman then read over the evidence of the
trial.)
Mr. Justice PATTESON—YOU appear to have omitted
in your plea the very thing which of all others was
the most material—" that he did sell spirits by retail,"
about which there could be no mistake, while you
introduced the grog-shop, about which there was a
difference of opinion. You omitted it cautiously, I
suppose, because it was the very best part of your
case.—( A laugh.)
The COURT, after conferring for some time together,
were of opinion that the allegation in the plea, that the
plaintiff had kept " a grog-shop for sailors and refu-
gees"—that was in the bad sense of the word—had not
been substantiated, and therefore there was no ground
for disturbing the verdict.—Rule refused.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 6.
WILSON AND OTHERS V. TAYLOR AND OTHERS.

After the examination of several other witnesses on
the part of the plaintiff, in addition to those called yes-
terday,
Mr. Platt and Mr. C. Jones addressed the Jury at
considerable length on behalf of the defendants, contend-
ing that their conduct had been perfectly justifiable in
the course which they had pursued.
His Lordship then summed up the evidence, after
which the Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

EXCHEQUER .CHAMBER. Nor. 6.
IMPORTANT CASE.-QUARMAN V. BURNETT AND

ANOTHEIt.

Sir F. Pommel( and Mr. THOMAS were for the
plaintiff, snd Mr. KELLY for the defendant.
• The plaintiff is a retired medical gentleman, residing
in North-street, Lisson-grove, and the defendants are
two ladies, living at Leamington. The action was
brought to recover compensation in damages for inju
ries which the plaintiff had sustained, in consequence of
the hotses which were in the carriage of the ladies
having ran away, and caused a collision with the plain-
tiff's carriage, from which he was violently thrown, and
sesiously injured. It appeared that the carriage in
question had been in the possession of the ladies for
about three years, and that they engaged horses, when
they went eut from a stable-keeper, named Mortlake,
having always one coachman (Kemp), who had been
employed by Mortlake for about 13 years, at 125.. per
week. For a number of years, previous to having a
carriage of their own, the ladies hired a fly of
Mortlake, at which time Kemp always drove
them, and the ladies usually gave him a gra-
tuity of one shilling. When they got their own car-
riage they informed Kemp that in future they would
give him 2s. a drive, and he received that sum, They
also provided him with a coat and a hat with a silver
hand, in order to make him look more respectable.
These articles were kept in the house of the ladies,
and only put on when Kemp drove them out. On the
day when the occurrence took place, Kemp went into
the house of the ladies in order to put on
.his hat, rind
during his absence the horses run off, ceasing the. car-
ria_e to come in contact with that of the plaintiff,
which was standing by the road-side. The shock was so
great that the plaintiff was thrown out, and had two of
his ribs broken, the spine of his back injured, and sus-
tained several severe contusions, from the effects of
which he was confined to his bed for five months, du-
ring which time he was attended by a surgeon, whose
bill amounted to 1151. The injury done to his car-
riage was estimated at 8/. 9s.
Mr. KELLY submitted that the defendants were not
liable, inasmuch as Kemp was not the servant of the
ladies, but the servant of Mortlake. They were coin
pletely blameless.
His Lordship reserved the point for the considera-
tion of the Court above, and Mr. Kelly then addressed
the Jury on the part of the defendants.
His LORDSHIP then went through the evidence,
telling the Jury that if the defendants were not the
persons who appointed the coachman, but left the ap-
pointment to Mortlake, they were not liable. If, how-
ever, they selected him, or if on the occasion in ques-
tion he was acting under their appointment, they would
be liable.
The Jury retired, and were in deliberation for about
two hours. On their return into Court they ga% e
their verdict for the plaintff —Damages. 1981. 9s.

WESTMINSTER COURT OF RE

QUESTS.

AN ANTI. CARRY-A-PITCHER-OF- WATER-UP-STAIRS
YOU TH.—A half-clean and, consequently, half-dirty
youth, appeared before the Court to support a claim he
had made upon a tradesman of the name of Hemmings
for 2/.
" What is the claim for ?" inquired the COMMIS-
SIONER.

" For two month's salary," answered the young gen-
tleman. " I entered into this good person's employ on
the 15th of August last, at which time we came to an
understanding that I was to assist in the shop and
transact any little matters of business he required to be
attended to out of doors. When I had been in his em-
ploy a month, wanting two days, he wished me to do that
which I did not engage to perform. The consequence
was that some words took place between us. He told
me to leave. I did so. He refused topay me, and I
have summoned him here."
A COMMISSIONER—What do yon say to this, Mr.
Hemmings?
Mr. Hemmings—Simply that I hired this boy to run
of errands for me, to clean the knives and boots and
shoes, and to assist the servants in the kitchen. When
he had been in my service nearly a month, he was asked
—one of the servants being in bad health—to carry a
pitcher of water up stairs. He refused to do so, told
me that he hadn't agreed to lug water all over the house,
and that he shouldn't think of doing the work of a ser-
vant. I then ordered him to make out his bill, and to
quit my service immediately.
The half-dirty Youth—l never agreed to carry water
up stairs. My mother knows that I refuse to carry the
pitcher for her at home.
A fond-looking old woman, who stood at the side of
the youth, ejaculated, with evident satisfaction, " That's
God's truth, gentlemen He never does no sich a thing
at home along with me."
" Are you his mother ?" asked a CommissioNEn.

" Yes, I ham," said the old woman, proudly. " He's
my youngest son, and won't be sixteen till come the day
arter boxing-day."
TI1+• COMMIs

Mv good woman, when hP re-

d Lave