The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

• COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 4.
STAGE-COACH ACCIDENT.
JANE STODDART V. SANDERSON AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff; who was a ser-
vant, to recover from the defendants, who are the proprietors of
a stage-coach running between Brighton and London, compen-
sation in damages for an injury sustained by her, in conse-
quence of the coach Shaving been overturned during 'a journey
from London to Brighton.
Mr. GURNEY, having stated the case for the plaintiff:, called
Jane Hawker—l lived as servant in Mr: Peyton's family in
September, 1324. The plaintiff was my. fellow-servant ; she
was upper house-maid and lady's-maid. On the 18th of Sept.
1824, the family went to Brighton. The plaintiff anti I fol-
lowed them; we took outside seats on the defendants' coach.
Between Cuckfield and Brighton one of the leaders became
restive, and :made towards the bank on the road side : the
fore-wheel got on the bank, the coach was upset, and the pas-
sengers were thrown off: The plaintiff was very much hurt;
her arm was swelled, and she appeared to suffer great pain.
When she got to Brighton, Mr. Pitt, a surgeon, was called in
to attend her ; he did attend her, from the 18th of September
to the following month of May:. during that time she was in-
capable of cleaning or dressing herself. I saw her last Sunday,
and she was not then able to dress herself. The plaintiff left
Mr. Peyton's service on the 24th of September, 1824.
On her cross-examination, she admitted that during the jour-
ney, up to the time the accident occurred, the passengers did
not apprehend any danger.
Mr. Francis Beaumont, another passenger, swore that after
they changed horses at Cuckfield, he observed that one of the
leaders carried his head on one side, and he asked the coachman
what was the cause of 'the horse's carrying his head so. The
coachman replied, " because he is inclined to the hedge," Oc-
casionally this horse was restive. 'When the coach got within
three miles of Brighton,.the coachman hailed a postillion, who
was driving a chariot towards the coach, to stop, in order to let
the coach pass. The postillion. stopped for that purpose, the
coach wheel almost immediately got on the bank and was up-
set. - There was nothing in the road that made it necessary that
the coach wheel shoulcfgO on the bank. _Witness escaped un-
hurt.

Cross-examined.—The coachman drove very steadily, until
the accident happened. One of the leaders appeared to be in
misery from the moment he was put in harness.
William Brownley, another passenger, who sat in the dickey,
said that after the horses were changed at Cuckfield, he ob-
served that the coach did not go in a straight direction, and he
said to the other paSstngers " either the horses are umna-
nageable, or the coachman is unskilful ;" shortly afterwards the
coach got on the hank and was upset.
• Mr. Pitt, a surgeon at Brighton,• was called in on the 18th of

This was an action of trespass, and undefended ; but from
the evidence for the plaintiff; who was a butcher, carrying► on
business at Limehouse-causeway, it appeared that he lived in a
house of which several persons, among whom was the defend-
ant, claimed to be landlord. In the month of March last, the
defendant, having previously distrained for rent, wanted the
plaintiff to give up possession of the house, and upon the plain-
tiff's refusal to comply with the demand, the defendant hired
some laboums, and having got on the roof, began to take off
the tiles, and gave directions to the labourers to follow his ex-
ample, and to pull down the house. The labourers obeyed his,
orders, and the consequence was, that the plaintiff's stock in
trade to the value of 251., and his household furniture, which
was worth 201., were destroyed by the rubbish falling on them,
and the plaintiff; with his wife and nine children, deprived of
a home.

The Jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 1001.
SHERIFF'S COURT, Nov. 4.

CRIM. CON.-000LD V. TANNER.
This was a writ of inquiry before the Sheriff of Middlesex, to
tax and assess damages in action of Crim. Con., in which the
defendant had allowed judgment to go by default. Damages
laid at 5,0001.—Mr. COLERIDGE opened the-pleadings.
Mr. BROUGHAM stated the case' to the Jttry in an able
speech, in which he insisted that the allowing-of the judgment
to go by default was a sufficient admission by the defendant of
his guilt ; in addition to which he would produce- oral and
written testimony.—The 'Learned Gentleman then called the
following witnesses
_ _ _

Williirn Goold examined—l know the plaintiff; he is my
son; he is a Lieutenant in the Navy on half-pay ; I know Mrs.
Goold, his wife; 'they were married ih February, 1821. They
lived together from that time until this affair happened, which
was discovered about three or four months ago. I had several
opportunities of seeing them, as they lived near me at Salis-
bury. I never saw a happier family than they appeared to be.
I know .John Tanner; he lives in Salisbury ; he was Mr.
Goold's first' cousin, and they visited. Mrs. Goold's father
I,was a clergyman, the son of Dr. Wharton. I lived in the same
town with the Whartons several years.
Cross-examined by the COMMON SERGEANT—I believe
that my daughter-in-law is 24 years old ; she is younger than
her husband, who is twenty-eight or t wen ty-nine, perhaps thirty
years old ; the defendant is about twenty-five years of age. The
plaintiff paid his addresses to -her about a year. I thought at
first it would be better that my son should marry a farmer's
daughter, as I thought Migs Wharton too high and too gay for
him ; but he was determined to marry her, and so I gave my
consent. I never heard that Miss Wharton was averse to the
match, and that she had a previous attachment.
Reexamined—l always thought it a, comfortable match, as
they were living so happily together.
Mr. P. Brown, a purser in the navy, had visited plaintiff and
his wife, and thought they lived most happily and affectionately..
Elizabeth Drew was servant to plaintiff and his wife the year
before last; they were then living at Salisbury. She always
thought they lived very happily together; sometimes they visit.
ed the Tanners. Witness saw Mr. Tanner come sometimes
to the house when Mr. Goold was not present ; she had taken
letters from Mrs. Goold to the defendant yery often, and
delivered them into his own hands; she had seen her mistress
and Tanner-together at other places than her master's; she had
heard themkiss each other; they were often together for more
than an hour.

Thomas Shergold proved the several letters produced to be in
the hand-writing of the defendant.
Cross-examined by the Corso SERGEANT—The de-
fendant is about 24 years old. Mr. Tanner's father is a highly
respectable attorney. He lives in Salisbury, and was twice
Mayor of that town.

[Hers letters from the defendant to the plaintiff's wife were
put in, which left no doubt of the intercourse that had taken
place.] •
The COMMON SERJEANT, on the part of the defendant, ad-
dressed the Jury ; and in a most ingenious speech, contended
that the plaintif was entitled to but trifling damages, inasmuch
as the defendant, inste Id of being the seducer, had Jdmself
been seduced by the lady.
The Jury in a few minutes returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages 5001.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Nov. 4.
Mr. T. E. FIELDER was admitted a proctor of this Court,
with the usual forms.

THE EALING GROTE.

This was a cause of subtraction of mariners' wages, promoted
by a seaman named Carman against - Faulkener, master
of the Ealing Grove. The present question was only on the
admission of a defensive allegation given in on behalf of the
master and part owner.
Dr. JENNER, after describing the nature of the cause, stated,
that an action had been entered, in the commencement of these
proceedings, against Mr. Faulkener, in the sum of 150/. This
action was immediately bailed in the usual manner ; and he
now prayed that an allegation, given in by the master, might be
admitted.

Dr. LUSHINGTON, for James Carman, the seaman, 'argued
that the allegation was inadmissible ; Ist, on account of delay,
it not having been given in till 10 days after-the time prescrib-
ed ; and, 2dly, Because,upon the face of the plea the facts did
not amount to such offences as worked a forfeiture of wages.
Some trifling acts of insubordination were alleged before the
ship left the Downs, but the Master might then have dis-
misied the men had they been mutinous. He, however, over-
looked them, and it wis now toolate to revive a transaction so
long by-gone. The voyage began at Portsmouth on the 20th
of last December. On the 11th of February following, the
ship having arrived at Dominica, Carman asked leave to go
ashore about noon. The Master gave him leave till sunset.--
This, the Learned Counsel argued, was an implied condona-
tion of all that preceded. Carman, however, did not return
that night, Next morning the master went ashore, and made
a complaint to the Magistrate, by whom Carman was arrested.
Not more than fourteen hours had elapsed after his permitted
time of absence, whereas the Statut; regulating the Wrest
India Trade (which is very strict in its provisions) fixes
twenty-four hours absence without leave as the time incurring
the penalties of desertion. This is an answer to that part of the
plea. Carman, it is alleged, was insolent to the Magistrate, but
insolenco to a West India Magistrate is not mutiny to be punish-
ed in this Court by forfeiture of wages. Besides, the Magis-
trate punished the offence himself pretty severely, for he com-
mitted Carman to prison, where he lay for 75 days, and was
then sent a-board this ship, in which he worked his way home.
On all these grounds, the Learned Counsel contended that the_
allgation ought to be rejected.
After hearing.a reply by Dr. Jenner, the Learned and Noble
Judge said, the Court was not inclined to exclude the allegfOod
altogether ; but it thought, that possibly there were some cir-
cumstances more minutely pleaded than was-fiecessary.for the
defence; it therefore recommended a revisal of it for a dis-
charge of what might not affect the real merits of the case.—
The general objection as to the time of bring-idg in thcallega-
don, the Court thought was sufficiently answered ; there was
reason to infer that it had been waived by the opposite party; and
if not, it had been substantially accounted for by the Counsel.