The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-23 00:00:00

COMPANY.

Mr. MARTIN showed cause against the rule which had
been obtained for a new trial. The question at issue
wag, whether the contract on the part of the def, ndants
to convey a number of horses in safety, from York to
Watford, was a speCial contract, and supported the pleas.
The plaintiff had nine horses to be conveyed by rail-
way in three boxes, payiEg 25/. 4s. as the charge. At
the bottom of the receipt the defendants stipulated for
exemption from the consequences of any injury which
might be sustained by the animals whilst travelling. One
of the horses was killed from a protecting partition hav-
ing given way, owing to the fastenings being insufficient,
which caused him to fall out. An action was brought
at the York assizes to recover compensation, and the
verdict given for the plaintiff. A rule to show cause on
behalf of the defendants had been obtained.

Mr. MARTIN, in arguing against the rule, contended
that the acting was one of those which involved such a
degree of carelessness on the part of the carriers as ren-
dered them liable for the damage. It was not one of
those accidents which would happen notwithstanding the
greatest care. As to the effect of the exemption claimed
by the defendants, he asked if a similar notice placed at
the bottom of a passenger's ticket would exempt them
from the consequences of an accident proved to arise
from the employment of an obviously insecure carriage?
All the cases showed that the carrier could claim no
exemption but for unexpected misfortunes; and that he
was bound to use care and diligence in the performance
of his duty. The giving of a notice of non-liability was
itself an anomaly. The carrier's liability was established
at common law.

Mr. DEARSLEY followed. The defence set up for the
defendants involved a contradiction in terms. It
amounted to this, that the defendants undertook to carry,
but not to carry safely and securely.
Mr. KNOWLES, in supporting the rule, contended that
the defendants were not common carriers, and that the
law applicab!e to common carriers did not apply to them.
The defendants were not bound to carry horses at all,
and if they agreed to do so they were entitled to specify
the conditions, and it remained with the other party to
agree to the conditions or to refuse them.

The arguments were not concluded when the Court rose,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 22.
TINTER V. BULLA.M.
The CHIEF BARON, on taking his seat on the bench,
intimated that the Court thought it unnecessary to hear
counsel further in this case, being of opinion that the
plaintiff was clearly entitled to the verdict of the jury.
The rule obtained in the case was therefore discharged.
The Court was occupied during the remainder of the
day with the demurrer papers.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 22.
POWELL V. BRADBURY AND EVANS.

The arguments in this case, as to whether or not there
should be a new trial, were resumed this morning.
Mr. Hugh Hill was heard on the part of the plaintiff,
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Huddlestone having
been heard on Saturday.
It will be recollected that the plaintiff was formerly sub-
editor of the Daily News, and that the present action was
brought to recover damages for an alleged improper
dismissal from that situation. The action was tried be-
fore the Lord Chief Justice, at Guildhall, when a verdict
for 5001. was found for the plaintiff, the jury express-
ing an opinion that the report was not garbled. The
rule had been obtained by the defendants on the ground
that the verdict was against evidence, and that the da-
mages were excessive. The Attorney •General and Mr.
Wells were then heard in favonr of the rule.

Mr. Justice MAULE said, the Court were agreed in
.
opinion upon one question raised the case, viz., that
the second plea put in issue nothing else except the
fact of dismissal. They considered that wrongfully, and
without sufficient cause, dismissing the plaintiff was
not material in this action, which was one for breach of
contract. But in respect to the other question, viz., the
verdict being against evidence, they were not quite
agreed. There was some doubt in the minds of the
Court; but as the Learned Chief Justice, who tried the
ease, felt dissatisfied with the verdict, they thought it
proper that the case should go down, upon the usual
terms of payment of costs, for a new trial.
The rule for a new trial was, therefore, made absolute.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 22.
(Before the Chief Commissioner.)
REPEATED APPEARANCES.—IN RE JOHN YEATES LUCY.
This insolvent, who had made repeated appearances in
the same character, again applied.
CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Why, you can't live out of
this court? Insolvent—No, sir; I can't,
You were a bankrupt in 1825?—Yes, sir.
Your first appearance in this court was in 1815?
Yes, sir.
Then in 18271—Yes, sir.
Then you came in 1833?—Yes, sir.
CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Again in 1839, and now you
come again. In the name of wonderment what brings
you here so often?—The insolvent said he was a hay
salesman. Re had, on the present occasion, neatly as
much owing him as he owed.
CHIEF COMMISSIONER —When do you mean to come
again. Next year or the year following? Insolvent—
Never again, sir.
The Court discharged the insolvent for the " fifth"
time.