The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-July 2.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Mr.
Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)

HAYMSN V. SMURTUWAITE AND OTHERS.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover the
value of a barge which he alleged had been lost
through the negligence of the defendants' servants.
Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. Brett, and Mr. Wathin
Williams were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Temple
and Mr. Lushington conducted the defence.
The plaintiff was the owner of a barge called the
Waterwitcl), and the defendants were the proprie-
tors of a steam vessel, the Thames, which traded
between Newcastle and the port of London. On the
Ist November, 1860, between six and seven in the
evening, the Waterwitch was near Chapman's ,
Light, at Sea Reach, in the Thames, on her way to
' Harwich, with a cargo of manure, when she was
run into by the defendants' vesseJ, which was com-
ing up the river, and sunk. The master of the
barge was saved, but a boy on board of it was
drowned, and some time elapsed before his body
could be recovered. The plaintiff endeavoured
afterwards to raise the barge, but failed, and it be-
came a complete wreck. He now sought to recover
its value, which he estimated at £650.
The defence was that the accident arose entirely
from the negligence of the men who had the charge
of the barge.
A considerable amount of evidence was adauced
on both sides, and, as is usual in these cases, was
very conflicting.
The jury ultimately found a verdict for the pl ain-
tiff—Damages, £5OO.

JEFFERY-V. MANTON-BUTCHERS AND THEIR
CHARGES.

This was an action to recover £521 155., the
amount of a butcher's bill.

Mr. Hawkins and Mr. J. Jones were counsel for
he plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr.

H. fames appeared for the defendant.
Mr. T. Jones, in opening the case, in the absence
of Mr. Hawkins, said the plaintiff was a but cher
carrying on business in the neighbourhood of Re-
gent-street, and the defendant an eating-h ouse
keeper in the same locality. Defendant had dealt
with plaintiff for 10 or 11 rears, and his bill for
meat amounted to about £3O a week. The nresent
claim was for meat supplied between July 18,
and November, 1860, and the defendant refused to
pay it, on the ground of fraud by the plaintiff.
Unfortunately the plaintiff was suffering from dis-
ease of the heart and could not be called, but he had
been examined before the master; and the two
young ladies who had acted as cashiers in the plain-
tiff's shop at the time the goods were supplied were
now in Australia.
Mr. Baron Martin said it appeared that there was
a set-off, on the part of the defendant, to the amount
of between £5,000 and £6,000.
Mr. Jones said that the dispute evidently arose
from what was called "trimming" the meat--a cus-
tom which he was ready to admit was a bad one.
Mr. Richard Fenham, who had been for many
years in the plaintiff's employ, proved the delivery
of the meat and the practice with regard to weigh-
ing and entering it in the day-book
Cross•examined—Trimmings were pieces of bone
cut from legs and shoulders of mutton, and parts
which were fly-blown or stale. They were some-
times put into the scale, and weighed with the joint,
but not always sent to the customer. He recollected,
in October last, the defendant coming to the shop
and having his meat weighed. It had been entered
as weighing 100lb.' but it turned out to be 10Ib.
short of that. Could not say how the mistake oc-
curred, as the meat was weighed, not by him, but
by Hathaway, the foreman. The defendant com-
plained of the overcharge, but did not cease to be a
customer until six weeks afterwards. _ _

John Hathaway, the foreman, said he had been
ten years in the plaintiff's service. Trimmings were
portions of the bone or anything stale or unsightly,
and were of no use to anyone. When he cut them
off he guessed their weight, and accounted for them,
but not always. They ought to go to the customer.
Cross-examined—The mistake of the 101 b. arose
from the trimmings. Never heard the detendant
say "What a fool Charlie was to give Mr. Manton
the ticket of the weight of the meat," or anything
to that effect. He merely said that he (witness)
should be mere careful in weighing the meat in
future. The mistake was not made intentionally.
Did not know that the defendant was complained
of for sending short weight to the Windham Club
and Howell and James's. Some meat was trimmed
and some was not, and he made an allowance for the
trimmings, which he guessed at.
Mr. Baron Martin expressed a doubt whether in
the present action the set-off could be gone into ;
but he would take the defendant's evidence, and if
necessary, reserve the point.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine then addressed the jury
on the part of the defence. He said that to the
plaintiff, who was one of the largest butchers at the
West-end, the case was one of a very serious nature,
as he was instructed by the defendant to say that
for four or five years he had practised upon him a
regular system of fraud, and that upon almost every
occasion the weight was lighter than the weight
represented on the ticket by which it was accom-
panied. The defendant kept an eating-house for the
humbler description of persons, and his agreement
with the plaintiff was that he should receive every
kind of meat which was not absolutely tainted,
nothing whatever being said about the trimmings
being kept by the plaintiff. Unfortunately the
defendant relied on the plaintiff's honesty, and
never weighed the meat; but after a time he found
that, although his business was large and increas-
ing, and managed with every economy, his pecu-
niary position was not improved, and he supposed
there must be something wrong in some quarter.
In October last a man in the employ of the
plaintiff informed him of matters which ex-
cited his suspicion, and he went unexpectedly
to the plaintiff's shop and had some meat
weighed which was about to be sent to him. A
ticket had been placed upon it stating that it
weighed 100Ibs., but he discovered that the real
weight was only 901 b., or 10 per cent. less. That
induced him to make further inquiries, and he found
that this practice of misrepresenting the weight
had been going on for some years.
The defendant was then called and examined, in
corroboration of the above statement. He said he
had dealt with the plaintiff for 13 years, but had
seldom received a ticket with the meat. He never
weighed the meat as he ought to have done, but
took the weight as it was represented by the plain-
tiff's servants. The discovery of the deficiency of
101 b. in 1001 b. of meat took place on the morning
of the 22d of October. Ee saw the meat in the
scales, and he had it weighed over again. He asked
Hathaway why it was ticketed 1001 b. when the
real weight was only 901 b., and he said he did not
know, but he supposed it was a mistake. Two or
three days afterwards he saw the plaintiff, who
made several excuses for the error. Witness said
1 unless the plaintiff clearly showed him that the
weight of the meat was entered higher than it
really was without his knowledge he could not be-
lieve him, but he made no reply. He made some
further inquiries of the plaintiff's men who brought
the meat, and in consequence of what he heard he
refused to pay the plaintiff's bill.
Some other evidence having been heard for the
defence,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for
£469, deducting 10 per cent. on a portion of the
amount claimed, and adding their opinion that the
plaintiff's mode of conducting his business was
most unsatisfactory and loose, and that the defen-
dant should have discovered the errors sooner.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Befoul Sir C. Cresswell and a Special Jury.)
POWELL V. POWELL AND INGLEDEW.

This was a petition for dissolution brought by
the husband, on the ground of his wife's adultery
with the co-respondent. The petition alleged seve-
ral acts of adultery with divers other persons be-
tween April 26 and Dec. 22, 1860. The co-respon-
dent is since deceased.

Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks appeared ill
support of the petition ; Mr. Huddleston and Dr-
Tristram were counsel for the respondent.
The petitioner is a silk broker, in Broad-street,
City, and married the respondent, Caroline
loi It d
on January 19, 1856. The ceremony
at Christ Church, St. Pancras, and.
wasp erresided
subsequently at Caroline-villas, Kent t
enatt
at Oakley-square, St. Pancras, and.atrile-e°tYhwen pat
Gloucester Lodge, Regent's-park, la
wasebut 22 years
ration took place. The petitioner
:the rasp
then
of age at the time of the marriage, the at
being 34, but they had P. .1.
s filt e r waorn'dds
which cohabitation, it was
result two children, dead
dent's counsel, there
epetitioner lived ha ii
before the marriage• rveitilmated by the respon-
dwi when e Ina
not
th becameteake her
dissatisfied because her with his wife for
places of amusement, and
more frequeral
they lived on bad terms. In the year
separationthenceforwardwas mutually agreed on, and a
hisu.osybaenards'
188- a aw nup under which the respondent
deed was drawn
1:300 a year (luting the petitioner's
was toallafter his death the interest of 55,000. The
life, and live
respondent' went to atßrighton, where the co-
,3dent was then in a large way of business as
respou
holsterer, and an intimacy sprung up
between the parties, arising out of some business
transactions, but leading ultimately to the com-
mission of the adultery specified in the petition,