The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-08 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The further arguments in Spaekman and Turnbull oceu-
ied his liosolmt the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

DOBSON V. LYALL.

Mr. PEMBERTON this morning concluded his arguments
on behalf of the defendants, the Messrs. Lyall, and sub-
mitted that if the Court was of opinion the Bottomry bond
ought to stand, that then it would dismiss so much of the
bill as sought to render the bond invalid ; but that if his
Lordship should think any of the sums received on account
of the ship ought to have been applied towards the dis-
charge of the Bottomry bond, those sums would be spe-
cified in the decree ; and in that case the Learned Counsel
contended the decree ought to contain a declaration that
Messrs. Lyall and Co. were entitled to stand as creditors
against the freight and proceeds of the ship for all monies
advanced by ;them for repairs, supplies, seamen's wages, and
other necessaries for the use of the ship during her voyage
from Calcutta to London, with interest upon those sums at
the usual mercantile rate.
Mr. KINDERSLEY had not finished his reply when we
went to press.

KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

In the case of Hill v. the Dean and Chapter of York,
which was an action for work and labour done, after the
Jury were sworn a verdict was taken by consent for the
plaintiff for 7,0001., and the matter referred to arbitration.
TURNER V. REEVES.
Mr. BODKIN stated the case. It was an action brought
by a poor widow named Margaret Turner, against the land-
lord of the house, 5, King-street, Brick-lane, Spitalfields,
to recover compensation for injury sustained by the falling
of a casement from the third floor, by which she was
knocked down senseless, and was three weeks in the hospi-
tal. Previous to the bringing of the action an application
was made to the defendant for compensation, but no answer
was ever returned to that letter. The plaintiff being very
poor, was compelled to sue in farina pauperis.
Caroline Bicknell—l know the plaintiff Mrs. Turner,
who is a tailoress. She is about 65 years old, and a widow.
I was-in company with the plaintiff on the 26th May last,
in King-street, Brick-lane, Spitalfields, about 11 o'clock in
the morning. A window fell upon her from the third floor
of a house, which laid her head open, and knocked her
down. Mr. Morgan and a policeman came up, and she was
taken to Dr. VVhittaker's, who dressed her head, and ad-
vised her to be taken in a cab to the hospital, as she was in
a very dangerous state. I saw her dressed and put to bed
in the hospital, and saw her next day. She was in a very
low state, and could scarcely speak. She remained there
three weeks, and she then became an out-patient, and I
don't think she will ever be able to attend to her work as
she did before.
Samuel Morgan—l am a tailor. The plaintiff was in
my employment, but I have not now work for her. I saw
her lying- on the ground after the window fell upon her.
I don't -know who the house belongs to, from which the
casement fell. I examined the wood-work of the window
the same evening, and it was so rotten that it crumbled
between my fingers. There is a parapet outside the window.
Henry Blackburne—l am a journeyman shoemaker, and
occupied the third floor of No. 5, King-street, Brick-lane,
in May last. Mr. Reeve, the defendant, is my landlord,
and the rent was collected by Mr. Cook for him. I paid
ls. 3d. a week, rent. I observed the wood-work and hinges
of the window being unsafe a month previous to the
accident. I mentioned it several times to Mr. Cook, but
he was " obstropolous," and would not look at it. Reeve
told me that Cook was his son-in-law, and when I showed
him the window a fortnight after the accident, he *aid
lie should do nothing to it. The back window fell in
afterwards. The frame of the casement was iron, and
the persons who came up stairs to examine the window
took it to the station-houee. I had the window open at
the time of the accident, to let out the smoke. There
was nothing supporting it but the hinges, and a gust of
wind came just before the casement fell. I left the rooms
without paying the rent I owed my landlord. The window
was never repaired during the six months I lived there.
Zachariah Baker, a policeman, deposed that the frame-
work of the easement was in a rotten state. There was
a parapet outside the window ; the casement was a couple
of feet higher than the parapet.
William Wright also examined the windows. His evi-
dence was to the same effect.
Henry Roland, surgeon, and Shaw, clerk to the plaintiff's
attorney, were afterwards examined. The latter proved
that a letter had been sent to the defendant's attorney, to
which no answer had been returned.
Mr. CRESWELL addressed the jury for the defendant.
The circumstance of the plaintiff in the present case being
a pauper, could not be taken into account in estimating
the liability of the defendant, or the amount of damages
he should pay. On the contrary, as the defendant could
not by any means recover any portion of his costs from of
person sueing as a pauper, it must be taken as a proof o
the justice of the defendant's case, when he came into
Court to resist an extravagant demand, such as had in the
present instance been made. Although under some cir-
cumstances the landlord might be liable for such acccidents,
yet it too frequently happened that it was the fault of the
occupier, who neglected to do his duty in making the win-
dows fast. The Learned Gentleman after commenting
upon the evidence of the occupying tenant, whose only
anxiety appeared to be to fix the liability of his own ne-
glect upon his landlord, observed that he should be able to
satisfy the jury that the casement had been fully repaired
in the preceding January, and that. the accident resulted
entirely from the negligence of the tenant.
James Cook, collector of rents for the defendant.—The
windows of Blackburn's room were repaired in January
last, by a person named Jones. No complaints were ever
made of the state of the windows after they had been re-
paired. I was not present when the repairs were done. I
am son-in-law to the defendant.
Samuel Jones, a glazier, proved that the casement had
been repaired in January last. It is very unsafe to leave a
casement of that sort open on a windy day without some
fastening.
Mr. Bonixne replied, and
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, observed that he was
clearly of opinion that in point of law it was the duty of
the defendant to keep the windows, and other parts of the
house, in proper repair. If' the accident occurred from a
violent hurricane, such as they bad lately witnessed, then
the liability could not be fixed upon the defendant or any
other person ; but no evidence was offered of such having
been the case. If they were of opinion that the accident
occurred from the negligence of the defendant, then they
would give the plaintiff such damages as appeared to them
reasonable.
The Jury found a verdict for plaintiff—damages, 201.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY

(Sittings at Guildhall, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
and a Common Jury.)
MEEK AND OTHERS V. BAKER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs as assignees
of the firm of Baker and Co., wholesale drapers, of Ba-
singhall-street, against the defendant, a tailor in Cheapside,
to recover the sum of 2.5/. 165., being the amount of a bill
accepted by the defendant. The defendant purchased
from Baker and Co., the bankrupts, previous to the bank-
ruptcy, goods to the amount of 801., in payment of which
he gave three bills of exchange. Two of those bills were
taken up when they became due, and the other bill was
outstanding when Baker and Co. became bankrupts, and it
was upon this latter bill that the present action was brought.
The defendant alleged that he had satisfied this bill, by
returning a piece of goods of the value of 17/., and paying
the difference—viz., 8/. 165., in cash.
The case had not concluded at a late hour.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
John Hughes, alias Usherwood, was indicted for steal-
ing five sovereigns, the property of Richard Tennant, in his
dwelling-house.
The prosecutor stated that on the 4th of September
last the prisoner, accompanied by two men named Anderson
and Bonner, called at the Sun-dial public house, Goswcll-
street, which was kept by him, and having called for a
bottle of wine and some brandy and water, went into a
room up stairs to drink it. While there Tennant was re-
quested to join the party, and was asked if he had any ob-
jection that cards should be introduced. He replied, by
saying that there were none in the house ; but the prisoner
or one of his companions produced them, and all proceeded
to play at whist. At first there were no bets, but subse-
quently it was proposed to play for money. The prose-
cutor declared that he was persuaded to take a part in the
gambling, but asserted that he should not hold any wagers,
and would merely take a hand to accommodate the others.
In the course of the transaction the prisoner called up the
waiter, and desired his mistress to send up change for a five
pound note, and this being done, the game continued, at the
end of which Usherwood took up the five sovereig Team
dispute followed,nt
the prosecutor had lost it. Some