The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—APRIL 20.
(Sittings in Banco.)
EMERSON V. DIXON.

This case was tried before Mr. Baron Martin at the
last assizes at Durham, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff for 73/.

Mr. H. Hill now moved, pursuant to leave reserved,
to set aside the verdict and enter a nonsuit.

--
The plaintiff is the secretary of a coursing club in
Northumberland. The defeildant entered a dog to run
for the stakes, and his dog was declared the winner,
whereupon the plaintiff, who acted as stakeholder,
handed over the stakes to the_ defendant. It was after-
wards discovered that the defendant had fraudulently
substituted another dog for the one originally entered.
The present action was brought by the plaintiff, to re-
cover back the stakes paid to the defendant.
The counsel for the defendant contended that the
plaintiff had not such a property as enabled him to sue.
The action should have been brought by the real winner
of the race.
The court, however, were of opinion that, as it was
the plaintiff's duty to pay the stakes to the real winner,
which he had been prevented from doing by the defen-
dant's fraud, he was entitled to recover back the money,
for the purpose of giving it to the person entitled to it.
—Rule refused.

--------
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron Alderson and
a Common Jury.)
WATTS V. HAMBLEDON.

This was an action by a coachman to recover the sum
of 171., for wages and the value of a suit of livery, he
having been dismissed without the necessary notice, and
without having been supplied with the number of suits
of livery to which he was entitled.
The defendant pleaded that she was not indebted, and
payment of 1/. 125., a week's wages, into court.
Mr. Fry appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Manisty
for the defendant. _ _ _

The plaintiff had beea' engaged in the service of the
defendant as coachman, . on the terms of having 1/. 12s.
a week wages, to live over the stables, and to have two
suits
of livery in the course of the year. After remain-
ing with Mrs. Hambleton for ten months, he was dis
missed at a week's notice, his mistress refusing to allow
him. anything for the second of the two liveries with
which he had not been provided.
His lordship left it to the jury to say whether in their
opinion defendant was entitled, under the terms of the
agreement entered into with Mrs. Hambledon, to recover
the value of his livery.
After a short consultation, the jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages M., beyond the sum paid into
court.

WEDNESDAY.
(Sittings in Banco.)
MORRISON V. THE GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION
COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the owner of the brig
Valiant, for injuries done to it by the alleged negligence
of the defendants' servants in the navigation of the
steamer Albion. The cause was tried by the Lord Chief
Baron, in the city of London, when a verdict passed for
the defendants.

Mr. Watson now moved for a new trial, on the
ground of misdirection.

It appeared that the Valiant was lying in the river,
near Gravesend, on the night of the accident, without
any light being exhibited on board of her. The Albion,
on her voyage to Boulogne, steamed down the river,
and not seeing the brig, ran into her, and caused
the damage complained of. By the 14th and 15th
of Victoria, chapter 79, section 26, the Admiralty
have general powers to make regulations as to lights
"within such places, and under such circumstances,"
as they shall think fit." Under this authority the Ad-
miralty framed rules directing vessels at , anchor to have
a light at their masthead, except in harbours, where
other regulations as to lights exist. In the port of Lon-
don the corporation have made regulations as to lights
which, it was contended by the plaintiff, do not require
sailing vessels in the position in which the Valiant was
to have any light. Under these circumstances, his
lordship ruled that the Admiralty regulations applied to
the brig, and left it to the jury to say whether the fact
of the Valiant having no light contributed to the acci-
dent. The jury found that it did. The learned counsel
now contended that the Admiralty regalations did not
apply, and that the rules of the corporation alone were
to be regarded. He also contended that the Albion
might have avoided the brig, notwithstanding the ab-
sence of any light.
The Court intimated that as the construction to be
put upon the Admiralty regulations was a matter of
public importance, it would be well to have the point
further discussed, and therefore granted the rule.