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

LAW INTELLIGENCE..JuIy 2.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
, before Mr.
(Sittings at Ni Prins, at Guildhall
Baron wrtin and a Special Jury.)
HAYMEN V. sIiURTHWAITE AND OTHERS.
laainbtairffgebwrohuiNcl ht this action to recover the
,
he alleged had been lost
valueT he
o plaintiff
through the negligence of the defendants' servants.
Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. Brett, and Mr. Watkin
Williams were for the plaiz2tiff; and Mr. Temple
and Mr. Lushington conducted the defence.
The plaintiff was the owner of a barge called the
Waterwitch, 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' vessel, which was com-
ing up the river, ant 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 Z 650-
The defence was that the accideht arose entirely
from the negligence of the men who Lad the charge
of the barge.
A considerable amount of evidence was adduced
on both sides, and, as is usual in these cases, was
very conflicting.
The jury ultimately found a verdict for the plain-
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. S. Jones were counsel for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr.
H. James appeared for the defendant.
Mr. T. Jones, in opening the case, in the absence
of Mr. Hawkins, said the plaintiff was a butcher
carrying on business in the neighbourhood of Re-
gent-street, and the defendant an eating-house
keeper in the same locality. Defendant had dealt
with plaintiff for 10 or 11 veers, and his bill for
meat amounted to about £3O a week. The present
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 1001 b., but it turned out to be 101 b.
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 wenthad unexpectedlysome
m e
at
tcoitedthehisplsauinsptiiffci,son,shaond
npweighed which was about to be sent to him. A
ticket had been placed upon it stating that it
weighed 1001bs., 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 we
ight
had wei ht
The
hbee ednet
en goingdan
to on foras somehen
calledyears.
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 p lain
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. He 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 note
know, but he supposed it was a mistake. Two or
1 three days afterwards he saw the plaintiff, who
made several excuses for the error. Witness said
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 havine, 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.
(Bef aro Sir C. Cresswell and a Special Jury.)
POWELL T. 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.

—.._
IVIr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Dr. Spinka appeared in
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 Nicker,
on January 19, 1856. The ceremony
at Christ Church, St. Pancras, and they residedthen
subsequently at Caroline-villas, Kentish- t° wavr'd s at
at Oakley-square, St. Pancras, and afteertwbe
sepa-
Gloucester Lodge, Regent's-park, was pe
ration took place. The petitioner
respondent
of age at the time of the marriage,
cohabited, at
being 34, but they had previously_
• ated by the respon-
which cohabitation, it was intimat
ed children, dead
dent's counsel, there resulted wwtahhseerb ut 22 years
etitioner lived happily
before the marriage.
with his wife for about trlusband did not take her
dissatisfied because Theo-years, when she became
berllaces of amusement, and
more frequently bad terms. In the year
t,heYtlavisedmoantually agreed on, and a
thenceforward
1858 a separation was under which the respondent
deed was drawn a year dining the petitioner's
was to have his death the interest of £5,000. The
deat went to live at Brighton, where the co-
resl,°' 11 then in a large way of business as
dent was
respoo . and an intimacy sprung up
n lsterer
life,
and fur
an Pc'the parties, arising out of some business
betweentransactions, but leading ultimately to the nom-
mission of the adultery specified in the petition.

The co respondent died in February last, but acts
of adultery were also alleged with other parties,
one being a gentleman in a rifle volunteer uniform,
and with a " grey-headed old gentleman," and two
gentlemen who were " foreigners."
The Rev. Tiles. Hayley, curate of Christ Church,
proved the solem nisation of the marriage on the 19th
of January, 1856.
Mary Anne Tomkins, an unholstress, of 12, Bol-
ton-terrace, Camden Town, said she went into the
service of the respondent in 1858-59, and resided
with her at Brighton. The co-respondent frequently
visited the house and remained several hours. She
MICE,' accompanied her mistress to the Opera, where
they ,met a gentleman, and an assignation was made
in the Zlegent's Park. The witness spoke to several
acts of fa.miliarity between the respondent and co-
respondent. The places where the respondent lived
at Brighton Wel a Marine Mansion and Park-street.
Witness was
gt merally sent on some errand when
visitors came, ar.'d the blinds were drawn down.
Witness left the respondent's service because the
respondent wan tea her to go with Mr. Powell that
she might get a divorce.
Eleanor Herr idge, Sarah Cape], and Caroline
Stevens, also ser% 'ants, deposed to visits of and im-
proper familiariti es with Ingledew and other per-
sons during the respective periods they were em-
ployed by the res?ondent.
Mrs. Patmore satid she resided for a short time
with Mrs. Powell a t Brighton. Remembered Ingle-
dew coming to thc) house and staying for several
hours. Witness :remonstrated with Mrs. Powell
against such a perk lon visiting her.
Mr. Huddleston, on behalf of the respondent, said
the case was very peculiar, the person with whom
the adultery was .alleged to be committed being
dead. The evidence brought against respondent
was entirely offered by discarded servants. They
first quarrelled with her and then left her, and
they were immediately pounced upon by Mr'
Powell, who did himself the drudgery work of the
attorney's clerk. Ingleclew,who was a man of infirm
health, suffering from disease of the kidneys and
u,:timately dying of consumption, could not have
been so frequent a visitor to the respondent.
Dr. Gardener deposed that Ingledew suffered
from' disease of the kidneys in December, 1860.
Dr. ,Roe proved he attended to co-respondent for
disease (.4 the stomach, but the dates of these at-
tendances were anterior to the adultery charged in
the petitiokl-
Several se.rvants of the co-respondent were called,
but their evic:ence was not material.
Dr. Spinks hiaid that, assuming that the acqueill•
tance of the respondent and co-respondent arose out
of business tz •ansactions, it was hardly part of an
upholsterer's b.lsiness to sit with a married woman
for several hour 8, to go to her house late at night'
and remain therts till 2 o'clock in the morning, to
have wine and n ,freshments, and to be on terms ei
improper familial ity.
His Lordship EH rid it was hardly necessary to sal
anything to the ji try.
The jury here ,intimated that they had agreed
upon their verdict, and they found that the respon-
dent had committed adultery with the co-respon-
dent on the 26th of April.
Decree nisi granted accordingly.