The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-13 00:00:00

FROST V. WILLIAMS.

Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which had been argued
in Trinity Term. The question for the consideration of the Court de.
',ended upon the construction of several Acts of Parliament passed at
different times and for various purposes. The first of these was the
35th Geo. 111., chap. 75, and the 95th section of that Act authorises
the vestrymen of the parish of Marylebone to appoint certain stand-
ings, and to make rules for the regulation of hackney-coaches and
carriages plying for hire in that parish, and it imposed a penalty of
40$. fer a breach of these regulations. The nextstatute to which they
had been referred was the 9th of Anne, chap. 23, the 16th section of
which authorized the Commissioners of Hackney Coach to make
bye-laws for their regulations. A recent Act, Ist, and 2d Wm. IV.,
repealed the 9th of Anne, but not the 35th Geo. 111., and without
giving any opinion upon the construction of that Act, the Court was
of opinion that the power of the Vestrymen of the parish of Maryle-
bone, under the 35th Geo. 111. was not superseded, and that they had
full authority to make regulations, by one of which the use of the
Hackney-stand in question had been prohibited—that the plaintiff
was wrong in using that stand, and that he became liable
to the penalty imposed for so doing ; but then came the
question—whether the defendants were authorised in seizing
the plaintiff's cabriolet. The 35th Geo. 111. certainly enacted
that if any person neglected or refused to remove his vehicle when so
required, the officers appointed for that purpose might seize it. The
defendants were the proper officers, and the only doubt was as to the
words of the Act, which were "coaches or chariots," but not "other
carriages ;" and it had been contended that cabriolets were not in-
cluded. It was admitted that the vestrymen had power to appoint
stands for all vehicles plying for hire within the parish ; and if cabriolets
came within the exception alleged, it followed that the cabriolet was
not protected by the exception in using a stand not authorised by the
vestrymen, and was therefore liable to seizure. On these grounds the
Court was of opinion that the verdict should be entered for the de.
fendants.

BRIGHTMAN V. NEWTON.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK moved in this case for a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not be had. It had been tried before Lord Den-
man at the London sittings after last Term, as an undefended cause.
The action was for a breach of contract, by the non-delivery of 200
tons of speltre to the plaintiff, by which he had sustained considerable
damage, and the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff' for 7001. The
learned gentleman proceeded to show, from the affidavits of the defend-
ant's solicitor and others, that it was his intention to defend the cause—
that he had a good defence on the merits, the damages being excessive—
that the briefs had been prepared, and a consultation appointed; but in
consequence of its having been suddenly called on at the close of the
day, they were unable to prepare the defence in time.
Lord DexstAx thought enough had been stated to entitle the de-
fendant to the indulgence of the Court. If the plaintiff required it
the money should be paid into Court, and if he was willing to refer
the damages, the defendant should also consent to go before an arbi-
trator.—Rule nisi granted.