The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-05 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sitting at Nisi Prins, before Lord DENMAN and a
(Common Jury.)
GEDDES V. POOLE.
The plaintiff in this case was a clerk in the Bank of
England, and the defendant master of the St. Peter's
(Pimlico) Grammar School, and the action was brought
to recover a sum of 151. money had and received, being
the price of a share in the above school alleged to have
been sold by the defendant to a Mr. Harman, who was
desirous of purchasing a share to enable him to nominate
his son to the school. For the defendant it was al-
leged that the share had been purchased from a Mr.
Spratt for 51. by the plaintiff, and then resold by him
for 151., and that the defendant was liable to Mr. Spratt
for the value of the share.
Mr. Hoggins appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Ogle for the defendant.
Lord DENMAN left it to the Jury to say whether
they belielved the share sold to be the property of the
plaintiff. His conduct was not, perhaps, very hand-
some, but there was not such fraud as would vitiate
the bargain.
Verdict for the plaintiff 151.
HICKEY V. EDGINGTON.
Mr. ERLE stated the case. It was an action brought
by the plaintiff, a travelling linen draper, against the
defendant, who was he proprietor of the Sturges Castle
Inn, near Oxford, to recover the amount of certain pro-
perty confided to his care by the plaintiff as a tra-
veller. It appeared that the plaintiff was in the habit
of frequenting the inn in question, and on the 13th of
December, 1837, the horse and cart which he brought
with him was put into a barn and locked up by the de-
fendant. Plaintiff slept in the inn that night, and the
following morning when he went to the barn he found
the brother and nephew of the defendant at work in it.
His cart had been drawn out, and on going to it he
found every particle of his goods had been carried off.
Search was made, and a portion of the goods Was found
in the neighbourhood, in the house of the brother and
nephew of the defendant. A large quantity of the goods
were found, and they were prosecuted and convicted of
the robbery. The present action was brought to re-
cover the value of the property lost, while it was
in the defendant's charge as an innkeeper.
The defence was, that the plaintiff was not in the de-
fendant's house as a traveller ; and, secondly, that he
had been given the barn to place his goods in, and had
taken upon himself the care and responsibility of their
safe custody. That defence, he contended would be at
once overturned by the evidence which would be sub
mitted to the Jury, and he would show that the loss
sustained by the plaintiff amounted to upwards of 1001.
After witnesses had been examined to prove the
plaintlf's case,

Mr. CRESWELL, for the defendant, submitted that
there was not that confiding of the goods to the defen-
dant which would make him responsible. The barn was
no part of the inn, nor was it within several yards of
the house, and in order to make the defendant liable,
it must have been shown that the goods were confided.
to him in his inn by the plaintiff in the character of a
guest or traveller.
Lord DENMAN thought that might be 1;lt to the Jury.
Mr. CRESWELL contended that it was merely a ques-
tion of law, and trusted his Loraship would allow him
to move to enter a verdict for the defendant on that
point, before the full Court.
Lord DENMAN said he might move to enter a verdict
for the defendant if it was shown that there was no
ground for going to the Jury.
Mr. CRESWELL then addressed the Jury for the
defendant, and contended that the plaintiff had no
ground for the present action. If he had unloaded his
cart and brought his goods into the inn, then the land-
lord would be responsible in point of law ; but when, at
the request of the traveller, and to save him trouble and
expense, he permitted him to put the goods in the barn,
the landlord's liability was completely taken away. It
might as well be said that if a party asked the landlord
to leave a pianoforte in his yard for the night, and that
in consequence of rain coming in the instrument was
spoiled,
the landlord would be responsible, which in
point of lava he would not.
Witnesses were then examined on behalf of the
defendant.

Mr. ERLE replied.
Lord-DENmaN left it to the Jury in the first instance,
to say whether thn
the custodey were of Opinion that the goods were
placed regularly i
innkeeper, or whether the plaintiff, for his own accom-
modation, took upon himself the risk of placing them in
the barn under his own control and custody.
The Jury, after deliberating for about ten minutes,
found a verdict for the plaintiff.
The LEARNED JUDGE then addressed them upon the
question of damages, and the Jury returned a verdict,
damages, 104

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY

HARMER V. SOMERTON.
This Was an action against the defendant for a libel

DESTRUCTIVE FlRE.—Last iaight, about eight
o'clock, a fire broke out on the pretriises of Mr. Ashton,
No. 16, Walcott-place, Westmirister. The fire ori-
ginated in a bed-room on the second floor , in which a
fire had been kindled, and a quantity of linen which
had been placed before it for the purpose of airing,
became ignited, and the room was presently in a general
blaze, and rapidly communicated to other parts of the
building ; but by the prompt arrival of the West of
England other fire-engines, it was speedily got under.
Mr. Ashton is insured, but he has sustained a loss of
2201. in money,which he had placed behind the wainscot
before he went out, for security, but which, unfortu-
nately for him, on his return, the room and cash bad
both been destroyed by thefire.