The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-30 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord Campbell and Com.
mon Juries.)
BROWN V. SINGLETON.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Lush appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Garth for the
defendant.
This was an action on a horse warranty. The defendant
admitted both the warranty and the breach, but disputed
the amount of damages, and under the 15th and 16th
Viet., cap. 76 (the first Common Law Procedure Act),
paid 101. into court, as being all that the plaintiff was
untitled to recover. The plaintiff was a hormedealer in
Oxford-street ; the defendant was a gentleman residing at
I'ocklington, in Yorkshire. In July last the plaintiff was,
in the usual course of his business, travelling in the north,
among the great horse fairs held there, and while upon
his journey he saw and admired a mare the property of the
defendant. He entered into a negotiation for the per-
chase of the mare, and finally agreed to give 1001. for
the animal, receiving at the same time a warranty of
soundness, except for a trifling defect on one of the
hocks. The mare was sent up to London, and after her
arrival here the plaintiff wrote to the defendant to say
that she was lame in the forelegs, but he had no doubt
that that was a mere accidental matter. A few days
afterwards the defendant came to tho plaintiff's stables
and saw the mare, and said he was sure that she
was sound, but offered, if the plaintiff doubted it, to
return the 1001. and to receive back the mare. The
plaintiff said that ho did not doubt the soundness of
the mare, and therefore declined the offer. A few
days afterwards he sold the mare to a gentleman for 1301.
and sent her away, but in twas days after leaving his
stables she was returned as unsound in both fore legs.
Some
-communications then took place between the
plaintiff and the attorney for the defendant, and ulti-
mately the mare was sold at Aldridge's for 401. The
defence was, that after the plaintiff had discovered the
only matter which was even now alleged to be an un-
soundness he had been offered his money, but had re-
fused to take it, alleging that the mare was not unsound,
and so had thought fit to keep her, and run all the
ehaeces of unsoundness. He had afterwards obtained a
sale for her, which gave him a very handsome profit, and
es he must be supposed to have known when the de-

!nea,at:ol offer was made that the mare was net unsoun

he could net now recover on an unsoundness afterwards
found out by him.
Lord Campbell left it to the jury to say whether the
plaintiff had offered to return the mare as soon as he was
clearly satisfied that she was unsound. If so, he was
entitled to the verdict.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
601. beyond the sum paid into court.
Lord Campbell observed that the form of the question
loft to the jury in this particular case must not be taken
to imply that a person who purchased a horse upon
warranty was bound to return it after it proved to be
unsound.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Nisi Prius Sittings at Westminster before Mr. Justice
Crowder.)
DYKE V. FARMER.
This was an action by the assessor of taxes for the
parish of Putney against the defendant, a chemist and
druggist in that parish, for an assault and false impri-
sonment. The damages were laid at 1,0001.
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. J. A. Russell were coun-
sel for the plaintiff; and Mr. J. J. Powell for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff's evidence was that on the 30th of August
last he called at the defendant's shop, and said to the
defendant, " Will Mr. Farmer tell me what rooms he
occupies in the adjoii.ing house, and what rates he pays
for them ?" and the defendant replied, "If you are the
muddle-headed man that made the muddled assessment
for this parish, as I believe you are, I won't give you any
information." Plaintiff replied by protesting against
such language being employed to him when he was only
discharging his duty, and asked defendant how he would
like to be accused •f muddling his medicines I De-
fendant then used abusiie language, and told plain-
tiff that if he did not leave his shop he would kick
him out ; and, as plaintiff did not go, defendant came
round the counter, struck him on the mouth, and a
struggle ensued, in the course of which both fell to the
ground, and the clothes of both were torn and other-
wise damaged. Plaintiff then left the shop, and went to
an inn next door, and soon afterwards the defendant came
with a constable and gave him into custody on a Charge
of assault. The policeman took him to the station-house,
where he was bailed out, and on the following morning
the magistrate, on hearing the case and the plaintiff's
explanation for being in defendant's shop, dismissed the
charge, and said he should leave the defendant to bring
his action, or prefer an indictment.
On cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that pre-
viously to his appointment as assessor he carried on the
business of an engineer and surveyor, his office being a
room in Millbank-street, Westminster, which he occu-
pied jointly with "the Conservative II hip of the House
of Commons." He denied that he was intoxicated when
he called upon the defendant, or that he had conducted
himself in an impertinent manner towards him. He
said that out of all his assessments only 45 had been
appealed against, but that the union still acted on the
old assessment, and not upon his. He had never seen
the defendant but twice before, and that was 12 months
previously.
Two witnesses proved that the plaintiff was sober, and
that his lip was bruised, and that he appeared to have
been engaged in a severe struggle.
On the other hand the defendant was called, and de-
posed that the plaintiff came to his shop, and in a very
offensive manner demanded to know what rooms he oc-

oupied, and what taxes he paid. He said that not hav-
ing seen the plaintiff for twelve months, and know-
ing that the plaintiffs assessment had not been acted
upon, he did not recognise him, and thought be
might be an impostor, and told him he should not give
him any information. Plaintiff then called him a
fool, and accused him of charging two prices for his
medicines ; upon which he told plaintiff to leave his
shop, or he would put him out. Plaintiff refused to go,
and continued to be very abusive, upon which defendant
went round the counter to open the door, and to order
him out, when plaintiff struck at him, but defendant
warded off the blow. They then struggled together, and
fell, and the plaintiff bit him in his arm and tore his coat.
Defendant's wife then came into the shop, and sent for a
policeman, when the p'aintiff wished to go, but defen-
dant would not let him, upon which plaintiff threatened
to smash him and the door also. Plaintiff was then
permitted to go ; but when the policeman came he was
sent after plaintiff to the inn he had gone to, and plaintiff
was there given into custody.
Defendant's wife and the policeman who took plaintiff
into custody spoke as to a bruise upon defendant's arm,
which might or might not have been a bite, and the
policeman said he thought plaintiff was not drunk, and
that he was not sober.
Mr. Powell having summed up the evidence for the
defence,
Mr. Sergeant Byles replied upon the whole case.
Mr. Justice Crowder then summed up the evidence
minutely, and told the jury that, upon the pleadings,
they must find for the plaintiff; but left them to say,
upon the whole facts of the case, what damages they
thought him entitled to.
The jury, after some consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff, with 101. damages.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the Chief Baron
ARNOLD V. ALLCROFT.

Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Phipsou were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Whateley and Mr. Ogle appeared for
the defendant.
This was an action against the defendant as the ac-
ceptor of a bill of exchange, dated the Ist of June, at
three months' date, for 3001., the plaintiff being the pro-
prietor of the Lyceum Theatre, and the defendant a
gentleman well known in theatrical circles and to the
public at large as a steadfast friend and supporter of Mr.
Charles Mathews, the comedian and lessee of the Lyceum,
throughout all his late pecuniary difficulties. In answer
to the declaration, the defendant pleaded payment, and
a special plea setting forth that at the time he accepted
the bill of exchange in question it was agreed between
the plaintiff, himself, and Mr. Mathews, that if any
moneys should be realised by the letting of the Lyceum
Theatre during the theatrical recess then next ensuing
such moneys should be paid to the plaintiff, and should
be received by him towards the satisfaction and discharge
of the said acceptance. The plea then alleged that after
the said agreement, and before the said bill became due,
the sum of 3001. was realised by sheenttin was of tpaid he said
theatie during the said recess, whichsum
him in satisfaction
the plaintiff, and was received. by
and discharge of the said bill.
In support of this plea, the defendant and Mr. Ma-
thews were to day called, and from their united testi-
mony it appeared that Mr. Mathews's lease of the
Lyceum Theatre having been put an end to by his bank-
ruptcy in the last summer, when a large sum of money
was due for rent, and it being in contemplation that
another lease should be granted him on his obtaining his
certificate, a negotiation was set on foot for the paymen
of the balance of rent due to the plaintiff, or the giving
of security for the same by Mr. Mathews. In the ex-
tremity of his friend, Mr. Allcroft here stepped forward,
and at a meeting with the plaintiff and his solicitor,
and
on
the Ist of June, he paid 4041. down to the plaintiff,
accepted the bill in question on the express terms set
forth in the plea, which were at once assented to by the
plaintiff. On the 29th of June the season closed at the Ly-
ceum, and Mr. Mathews having obtained his certificate,
renewed the negotiation forhis new lcase, which was even-
tually granted. By that instrument tho sum of 151. ss.
6d, is reserved nightly for rent throughout the year, hud