The Sun.
London, England, 1865-08-26 00:00:00

LAW INT.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Tindal Atkinson and a Jury.)
GOODCHILD AND ANOTHER V. WRIGHT.
This was an action to recover £2O damages alleged to
have been sustained by the plaintiffs in consequence of
injuries suffered by their house while in defendant's charge.
Mr. Bosley (instructed by Mr. Beard) appeared for the
plaintiffs, being stable-keepers of Finsbury ; Mr. Hubert
Wood (Wood and Ring), representing the defendant, a
captain in the merchant service.
It appeared that on the 28th July last, defendant went
to the plaintiff and hired a horse (which was to be fast but
quiet) and a waggonnette for a pic-nic party, and defendant
asked the foreman for a nose-bag and some corn, in order
that the animal might be fed when necessary. On the
29th the party started for Hounslow, a friend of defendant's
driving. Upon arriving at their destination this friend
jumped out while the defendant helped the ladies out.
and then defendant handed the nose-bag to his friend,
who took out the horse's bit, but while 'he was doing
so the horse reared, knocked the gentleman into a dyke,
and bolted at a rapid pace with a child of defendant in the
trap. The horse sustained very serious injuries by falling
in the road, but the child most providentially escaped un-
scathed.
Mr. Bosley contended that the defendant had no right to
take out the bit, and bad certainly not used such care as he
ought to have done.
Mr. Wood urged that the whole affair was the result of an
accident, and that it was not at all likely defendant would
have acted negligently while his child, who might have
been killed or seriously injured, was in the vehicle.
His Honour, in summing up, said it was for the jury to
consider whether the defendant had taken as much care of
the horse as he would have done had it been his own, and
Mr. Wood had very properly dealt with this part of the
question.
The jury, after a very brief deliberation, found a verdict
for the defendant, and his honour granted costs.
Verdict for defendant, with costs.
THE SALE OF BAD MEAT BY SALESMEN—A NEW AND IM-
PORTANT VIEW OF THE LAW—JACKSON V. TAYLOR.
This was an action to recover a sum of money paid to
the defendant, a salesman, for a quarter of beef.
Plaintiff deposed as to the purchase, and his Honour
asked Mr. Pearce, of Giltspur-street, who appeared for
defendant, what was his answer.
Mr. Pearce called his honour's attention to a ease in the
Court of Exchequer, and his honour asked defendant if he
were a salesman.
Defendant—Yes.
His Honour—l know that case, and the law is against
you, plaintiff. lam sorry for you, but you have not lost
all remedy, for you can sue the person who sent in the
meat. Did you see the moat before you bought it?
Plaintiff—Yes, sir, and it appeared all right.
His Honour—You see that the salesman is not liable for
any latent defect in the meat, and though it is a hard case
upon you, the law has ruled that you cannot recover from
him in a suit of this kind. lam quite sure that Mr. Pearce
will give you the name of the owner of the meat.
Mr. Pearce—Oh, certainly, sir, ho shall have every in-
formation.
A Witness for plaintiff—But I believe that the bullock
was consigned to defendant alive, and killed by him.
His Honour—That alters the ease.
Defendant—lt was not killed by me. It was consigned
from Hamburg, killed in a metropolitan slaughter house,
and all I had to do was to sell as the salesman on commis-
sion for the owner.
His Honour—The law still stands, plaintiff, and you
must be nonsuited, but can sue the owner, who is clearly
liable to you.
Plaintiff nonsuited.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,—This Day,

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

THE " HOME OF ComrassioN."—Mr. T. Parry, of Burney-
street, Greenwich, assistant secretary and collector of the
" Home of Compassion," waited upon the magistrate, and
said that in the absence of Mr. T. Randle Bennett, of 8,
King's Reach-walk, the treasurer of the Home, he felt it his
duty to make a statement which he trusted would be made
as public as the statement of Dr. Lankester and a Mr.
Allen, the agent of another society. So far from Dr. Lan-
kester knowing nothing of the Home, he gave him autho-
rity to place his name on the list of the committee. Mr.
Allen called upon him (Mr. Parry), and, holding in his
hand a copy of the Morning Post, said he had been desired
by Lord Palmerston's Government to make statistics
as regarded infanticide, asking him at the same
time if he would assist him. He at the same
time wrote Mr. Allen the name and address of Mr,
Bennett, 5, King's Bench-walk, and if Mr. Allen had gone
to that gentleman he would have found that on account
of an outbreak of fever at the Home in Oakley-crescent
Mr. Bennett had sent the inmates to the Home, Iffiey-road
Oxford, where they still were. As far as the list of sub-
scribers was concerned that would not be ready till the
end of the year.

Mr. Parry then handed in a letter from Dr. Lankester,
to the effect that he (Dr. Lankester) had found that the
Home had been removed from Oakley-crescent to lit:ley-road,
Oxford, and that he was afraid Mr. Allen had not made
the necessary inquiries, or he would have found that tho
Home had a real existence.