The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-03 00:00:00

EPSOM RACES

(THIS DAY.)

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
BEDDINGTON STAKES.

Lady Bird ,
Village Lass
Roebuck

Grub

Little David

Thirteen ran.
£5O PLATE.

Sixteen ran.
AUTUMN HANDICAP.

1

Nine ran.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

QUEEN'S BENCH.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Mr. Phipson applied on behalf of the justices of the
Borough of Grantham for a rule calling upon a Mr.
Robert Fletcher, of the same town, to show cause why
a criminal information should not be filed against him
for libel. In August, 1852, two persons, named Bur-
ridge and Smith, applied to the justices for spirit licences,
which were granted, and in the present year the same
licenses were renewed. Burridge was the son of one of
the justices, while Smith was son-in-law to a town
councillor, who was Mayor of Grantham; and Mr.
Fletcher, who was a spirit-merchant at Grantham,
having been unsuccessful this year in his application for
a license, he published a handbill reflecting upon the
character of the justices, and imputing to them corrup-
tion, by declaring that it was impossible for any one to
obtain a spirit licence who was not in some way .eon.
nected with the bench of magistrates, or related to the
mayor or a town-councillor. This placard was headed,

Grantham Justice," and it was in respect of its con-
vents that the present application was made.

Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
'EMERY V. WEBSTER.

This was an action brought by Mr. Emery, the
comedian, to recover from Mr. Webster, the lessee of
the Adelphi Theatre, compensation for an improper dis-
missal from service. It appeared that in September,
1850, Mr. Emery entered into an engagement with Mr.
Webster to play at the 'Haymarket and Adelphi Thea-
tres for a period of three years, the remuneration being
61. a week for the first year, 71. a week for the second,
and 81. a week for the third. But when Mr. Webster gave
up the Haymarket, in March last, he dispensed with
Mr. Emery's services without giving him any compensa-
tion, and the result was the present action. Soon after the
declaration was filed, the defendant paid 321. into Court,
which was the plaintiff's claim for a month's salary, and the
plaintiff's attorney, thinking he could bring separate
actions to recover the prospective salaries as they be -
came due, he agreed to accept the 321. and stop the pro-
ceedings. Accordingly, an order was made at Chambers
for the purpose, and the defendant paid the costs, besides
the 32/. ; but it now turned out that as this order re-
lated to an action for an improper dismissal from service,
it barred all future claims, and the plaintiff's attorney at
once took steps to have i 6 set aside, as the defendant
had already offered to pay 1001. in satisfaction of the
plaintiff's demand. Mr. Bramwell, with whom was Mr.
Wordsworth, appeared this morning to resist the order
to reinstate the plaintiff in his former position ; but the
Court having heard Mr. Hawkens for the plaintiff, de-
cided that the 321. had been accepted in mistake. The
rule for staying all proceedings in the action was th ere-
fore ordered to be discharged.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before R. Gurney, Esq.)
CATCHPOLE V. COLLIS.-LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO

HIRED CARRIAGE.

This was an action to recover compensation for da.
mage done to a vehicle under the following circum.
stances :

It appeared from the evidence on the part of the
plaintiff that the defendant hired the vehicle (a dog cart)
to go down to the Camp at Chobham, but, on his re-
turning it at night, it was found to be considerably
damaged.
Mr. W. B. Davis, for the defendant, contended that
he was not liable, as the damage was the result of pure
accident, as far as the defendant was concerned. The
fact was that the defendant was on his return, when he
came in collision with another vehicle, which was on
the wrong side of the road, and the gentleman in the
other carriage drovo off.
Honour said that when a party hired a vehicle he
was bound to return it in the same state as he had got it.
Defendant ought at least to have got the name of the
person who did the damage.
His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff.
WILSON V. JOHNSON.—LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS.

The plaintiff in this case is a coach-builder ; defendant
is a warehouseman in the city. This was an action to
recover the sum of 121. 10s. on a guarantee.
it appeared, by the evidence, that the guarantee was
given for the payment of the hire of a horse and gig by
defendant's traveller at the rate of 501. per annum. De-
fendant paid for one quarter, and refused the second on
the ground that he had been robbed by the traveller.
His Honour said the guarantee was only given to pay
up to the time of the return of the traveller, and he had
done so before the expiration of the first quarter.
Plaintiff said the hiring was for the year, if wanted so

long.
His Honour, however, held that there had not been
any renewal of the guarantee, and plaintiff must be
nonsuited ; but he should not allow the defendant any
costs.