The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-06 00:00:00

BOLTON V. SHIPLEY.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered and
work and labour done. The plaintiff was a tailor, for-
merly foreman to Mr. Nugee, carrying on business in
Pall-Mall, and the action was brought to recover the
amount of clothes supplied to the two sons of the de-
fendant. _ _ _

The defendant, Charlotte Shipley, pleaded that
at the time of the clothes being furnished to her she
was a married woman.
The plaintiff's clerk proved that the defendant came
to the plaintiff's shop in August, 1835, with another lady.
She was in mourning, and said she recollected Mr.
Bolton when he was at Nugee's, and that she would
give him an order for clothes for her sons if he would
make them as reasonably as any other respectable
house. She said she was a widow, and gave her ad-
dress Spring-terrace, %V andsworth-road. He called at the
defendant's residence in September, and she said she
was surprised he should call so soon for the money—that
it would be accommodation to her if he could wait till
Christmas.

Another witness proved the delivery of the goods.
Mr. Anderson, a tailor, in New Bond-street, recol-
lected the defendant, Mrs. Shipley, coming to his esta-
blishment in January. She said she was a widow from
Devizes, left with six children, and ordered a cloak for
herself and about 251. worth of clothes for her sons. He
had made inquiries—
Lord DEN MAN—That is enough.
Mr. THESIGER addressed the Jury for the defen-
dant. He said it was well known at the time the goods
were purchased that the defendant was married to Mr.

Shipley, who was still living. He thought it would be
merely necessary for him to prove that fact.
The register of the marriage of Thomas Shipley
and Charlotte Langford, at St. Andrew's, Holborn, in
1833, was then put in and read, and the witnesses who
were present at the marriage were called.
Charles Male saw the defendant's husband in June
or July last, at Spring Terrace, Wandsworth-road.
Lord DENMAN was very unwilling to give effect to
such a defence, but it was a defence in law, and they
must find accordingly.
Verdict for the defendant.
WARD V. SAUNDERSON.
Mr. ERLE stated the case. It was an action to re-
cover the sum of 30/., paid for a horse which had turned
out to be unsound. The defendant was a horse dealer
carrying on business at Grosvenor-square, and in May
last the plaintiff, a gentleman residing at Uxbridge, came
and agreed to give a bay gelding and 18/. for a chesnut
horse ; he was to have a fortnight's trial, and if disap-
proved of, the sum of 30/. was to be returned. The
horse was warranted sound. It would be proved by the
witnesses for the plaintiff that the horse was actually un-
able to keep upon his legs—that on one occasion he fell
and rubbed the hair off his knees, and he was of con&
returned. The defendant, however, refused to tal,
him back on the ground of his knees being injured. A
month or two afterwards the horse died at the defend-
ant's stables.

Witnesses having been examined on the part of the
plaintiff,

Mr. CROWDER addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and called the following witnesses :
William Collins—l am a horse-dealer in the West-
minster-road. In the middle of May I sold the chest-
nut horse in question to Mr. Saunderson. I had bought
him at a fair in the March previously. I bought and
sold him with a warranty, and believe he was perfectly
sound. He was worth about 401. I should say broken
knees would deteriorate the value of the horse about 201.
Cross-examined—He was five years old, and a fresh
horse. I have sold about a dozen horses to the defen-
dant in the course of the year.
Benjamin Wade—l am Sheriff for the county of
Buckingham. I know the plaintiff, and the defendant,
who is a livery stable-keeper. I saw the horse in
question before the plaintiff bought him. The horse
appeared to me be sound and useful. I rode and drove
him. I called on plaintiff at S ►underson's request, after
the horse was returned. I told him I was anthorized
to compromise the matter, but Mr. Ward would enter
into no agreement.

Cross-examined—l knew defendant about six years.
My horses always stood at livery there. I have had one
or two dealings with him. The horse went near the
ground, but that was not my particular objection to him.
Charles Franklin—ln May last, was defendant's
hostler. I knew the horse sold to the plaintiff. I
rode and drove him, and never knew him to be unsound.
I was with plaintiff in the gig when he tried him first.
I thought plaintiff was a bad driver. I was present
when the horse was returned. Mr. Ward said he
should not have returned him, but he had broken his
knees. When he came back he had a cough also.
His shoes were worn very thin, as if he had been worked
very hard.

Wm. Gaywood—l saw the horse in question when
Mr. Ward returned him. He said he should not have
returned him if he bad not broken his knees.
Joseph Boston deposed that he had opened the
horse after his death. One of the lungs was in a state
of suppuration, arising from inflammation.
Mr. ERLE was about to address the Jury for the
plaintiff, when the Jury said they were agreed, and re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 301.

EXCHEQUER. COURT-THIS DAY.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
There were only three cases remaining in the paper
The first was settled out of Court ; the second was sent
to a reference ; wad the third was withdrawn in come-
quence of the absence of a material witness.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(THIS DAY.)

MAYHEW V. GREATOREX.

In this case the defendant had detained certain cows,
the property of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had
brought this action to recover 461. 25., the value of the
cows and their milk. The defendant had suffered
judgment to go by default, and this was a writ of in-
quiry to assess damages.
Mr.Taoktas stated the case for the plaintiff. He said
that the cows in question had been placed with a per-
son named Brooks, who rented the grazing ground in
the Regent's Park, for the purpose of agistment. It
appears that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests
have laid down a rule, that cattle must be removed from
the park on certain days, and accordingly these cows had
been removed by Brook, and intrusted to the care of
Greatorex, who is a cow-keeper. Plaintiff had:gone a
day or two after to demand them of defendant, who re-
fused to give them up. He, consequently brought this
actions; defendant confessed himself in the wrong by suf.-
fering judgment to go by default, therefore, all the
Jury had to do was to calculate the value of the cows
and milk. The cows cost 36/. in May last, and the
balance was for the value of the milk. Witnesses having
deposed to these facts,
Mr. BINGHAM, for the defendant, said his client was
unfortunately situated. These cows had been placed
with Mr. Brook, who unfortunately took upon himself
to he a lawyer, and having or fancying he bad some claim
upon the plaintiff for agistment, had taken the cows to the
defendant with orders not to give them up to any per-
son but himself. Now the law was that no one had
a right to detain the goods of his debtor but a land-
lord. Thus the defendant was placed in this unfortu-
nate position, if he gave up the cows Brook would
bring an action against him, and as it was Mayhew
had done so. With regard to the value of the cows, he
should prove that they had considerably lessened in
value since plaintiff had purchased them.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to call his
witnesses.

Mr. THOMAS in reply said the defendant had received
an indemnity from Brook.

The SECONDARY summed up, and the Jury assessed
the damages at 801.

GUILDHALL.-(THIS DAY.)

BURGLARY AT MESSRS. P. WATSON AND CO.'s,
HIGH HOLBORN.—This morning the prisoner Smith,
who was remanded from Tuesday last, was again
brought before Sir PETER LAURIE, for re-examination,
charged with robbing the above firm of silk, &c., to the
amount of upwards of 150/.

John Field, the porter, briefly recapitulated his former
evidence, and
Philip Jay, a shopman to the above firm, stated that
his employers had been robbed of property to a large
amount in a similar manner about six months ago.
Sergeant \V alter, of the City police, stated that
although he had used every exertion in his power to
capture the other prisoner, he had not as yet been. suc-
cessful. The prisoner was one belonging to a gang of
well-dressed thieves, who had succeeded in robbing a
lady of a purse of sovereigns on Lord Mayor's da3- last,
and was brought before the Lord Mayor, but for want
of sufficient evidence he was discharged.
Sir PETER LAURIE asked the prisoner what trade he
was ? To which the prisoner replied—A pig-jobber.
Sir PETER LAURIE said he was afraid that he had at
last " brought his pigs to the wrong market."—The
prisoner was then fully committed.