The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-09 00:00:00

with me, in the month of August, 1835, and I saw the
defendant attempting to drive his chaise round the Crescent,
in order to avoid paying the toll. I called to him to pay
the toll, but he drove on ; the boy was near him, and I
saw no more till the boy was brought back in the chaise,
with the defendant and a policeman. It was about eight
o'clock in the evening. The plaintiff is about sixteen
years old.
Richard Warne—l saw the defendant driving round the
Crescent, to avoid the toll-gate. The gate-keeper called
to him, and the boy ran towards the horse's head, and some
words passed between him and defendant. Directly I saw
the defendant slap the bridle on the horse's back, the horse
sprung forward, and the boy was knocked down. The
chaise went on pretty briskly, until it was stopped by a
policeman. The boy ran along after the chaise. I have
beard it disputed whether the toll should be paid going to
Mornington-crescent, but it is always paid.
William George Callendar saw the defendant driving
round the Crescent in his gig, and he appeared to be try-
ing to bilk the toll. The boy was holding by the shaft,
and saying, " Toll, Sir ;" the gentleman said, " Eh !
what !" and he then shook the reins, and the horse started
off at full speed. I saw the defendant when he was brought
back, and he said he did not know what the boy wanted.
Witness said that was a lie, and stated what be had heard.
The defendant seemed either drunk or mad. The boy ap-
peared very badly hurt.
Robert Roots—l know the defendant, who lives in New-
gate-street, and keeps a wine-vaults. I saw him driving
round the Crescent. the boy followed him, and asked
for the toll, the gentleman said, " What ! how much ?"
The boy said " Threepence ;" and the gentleman said,
" I'll give you a run for it," and started off his horse at
full speed. The boy was knocked down by the shaft, and
the wheel went over him. I saw the defendant after he
was brought back, and he appeared to be tipsy.
Mary Willing, sister to the plaintiff—My brother was
brought home on the 7th August very ill, and said he had
been run over. His side and shoulder were very much
bruised. When I last saw him, three months ago, he was
not recovered. He went the day after the accident to
work again, but returned in two hours, saying he was very
ill. He went for about an hour the following day. I did
not hear of his having been beaten by a gentleman the
day before the accident. He was often struck by gentlemen.
Mr. HUMPHREYS addressed the Jury for the defendant,
who was, he could assure them, a very respectable trades-
man. He contended that the accident was caused entirely
by the circumstance of the boy running after the gig, and
attempting to stop it, and that the plaintiff had done all in
his power to stop his horse. It had been asserted that the
plaintiff was attempting to evade the toll, but there was no
proof of that, as it was in evidence that the toll through
Mornington Crescent where the plaintiff was driving, had
been on all occasions a matter of dispute.
There were no witnesses examined on the part of the
defendant, and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages, .51.
Lord DENMAN, addressing the Jury, observed that this
was the last case on the list. It was not his' or their fault
if all the causes had not been tried. He was now happy to
set them at liberty, and thanked them for their attendance.
The Court rose at a quarter past 11, and will sit to-
morrow in London.