The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-06 00:00:00

The plaintiff in this case is a farmer at Wraysbury, in
Bucks, and the defendant is a brewer at Walton-on-
Thames, the action was brought to recover damages for
injuries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the
negligence of the defendant's servant.
Mr, Serjeant Byles and Mr. C. B. Russell were for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. O'Malley for the defendant.
The accident happened on the 29th August last, and
the plaintiff's case was, that as he was driving with his
wife at a place called Staines Lammas, a servant of the
defendant drove against them and overturned their cart.
Directly after the accident he drove away, but the plain-
tiff took his horse out of the shafts, and on horseback
pursued the defendant's servant, and caught him after a
long chase. He was quite drunk. The plaintiff's horse
and cart were injured, and his wife in consequence of the
fright suffered a miscarriage, and was ill for two or three
months.

The defendant's servant was called, but he told such a
tale that Mr. O'Malley said he could not further pro-
ceed with the case.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 201.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
JAMES V. COCHRANE.-JUDGMENT.

Mr. Baron Parke delivered the judgment of the court
in this case, in which a rule had been granted to set
aside the executiou which had been issued by the defen-
dant, on the ground that the plaintiff in error, who was
also the plaintiff below, had not perfected bail in error,
and the question was whether the 151st section of the
Common Law Procedure Act had altered the old law in
this respect, it having formerly been usual to exact bail
in error only from defendants when appealing from
judgment recovered by plaintiffs against them. The
court was now of opinion that although the former part
of the section referred to was general, and applied both
to plaintiffs and defendants, the latter part, where the
form of recognisance was given, was strictly confined to
the case of defendants. It was the opinion of the court
that the law had not been in any respect altered by the
recent statute. The judgment of the court would ac-
cordingly be that the rule must be made absolute.

VAN BAGGEN V. BAINES—CHARTER PARTY.
In this case a rule had been obtained for a new trial on
the ground that the learned judge, before whom the cause
was tried at Liverpool, Mr. Justice Erle, had misdirected
the jury.
Mr. Hill and Mr. Quain appeared to-day for the de-
fendant. It appeared that the plaintiff, a shipowner,
had stipulated in a charter party that his vessel should
sail and proceed to Liverpool from Amsterdam, with all
convenient speed, and leave Amsterdam "in all March."
At the trial Mr. Justice Erie was of opinion that this
latter clause was satisfied if the vessel left the dock at
Amsterdam on the 31st March with only a part of her
ballast, and completed it in the canal afterwards.
It was contended for the defendant to-day that the
meaning of the clause was, that the vessel should leave
the canal by the end of March.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling having been heard for
the plaintiff on a former day,
The Court were now unanimously of opinion that the
direction of the learned judge was right, and the rule for
a new trial must therefore be discharged.
Rule discharged.