The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-21 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

R: THE EXPLOSION ON BOARD THE VICTORIA.
Cr W. FOLLETT moved tor a rule to show cause why
eocseoroner's inquest, held on the body of Andrew Brown,
tease death. was caused by the explosion on board the
the mer Victoria should not be quashed. It would.be.in
we recollection of his Lordship that considerable prejudice
,ha.,B excited at the time, both in the minds of the coroner
-`1(1 of the jury.
41% Justice LITTLEDALE recollected having granted a
11,ertiorari to bring up an inquisition in one case, and this
as very likely the same. Was there not a deodand of
'OO4 ?
Sir W. FOLLETT said there was such a deodand, and he
'C'W moved to quash it. One of the grounds of his appr
Nion was informality, which was apparent on the face of
the
a instrument, for some of the jury had signed with their
11-`tials instead of signing their names at full length. But
ii,aPprehended there were other serious defects. The ob-
' of the jury was to punish the proprietors of the vessel,
t 41,114 they therefore fixed a deodand of 1000 l ~ assuming
11;a•it they had a right to fix a deodand, not only on the
evaer, but on the steam-engine, which had nothing what-
th" to do with causing the accident. The boilers,. though
Y assisted in working the steam-engine, were distinct and
l''Parate, and the steam-engine could neither accelerate.
,bursting nor cause death. It was laid down in
tat' es Pleas of the Crown, that deodands were of two
q4:!res---such as moved to the death, and such as were
`'sent, and yet occasioned the party's death. Several
rasottajlees were given. If a cart and horse should be in
tuldr, and the cart and horse ran over a man, the cart
the orse might be a deodand, and also the load, because
of the would increase the pressure, and might be one
Iver'a Causes of the wound. But if the horse and cartl
es to standing still, and the person fell from the wheel so
t
,eceasion death, the whole cart was not forfeited_.,_.h
$,..,.ety 41e
ugtLa wheel from which he fell. After Sir William
.t
,had
cited several other cases of a similar nature,
.• Justice LITTLEDALE granted a rule to show cause.
~11/1:111re,E QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF MAIDSTONE.
tIea,`'RANNELL moved, on the part of a person named
f
plaid;',"'iramons, for a mandamus, directing the Mayor o
t'oroul:4le to Place his name on the burgess roll of thatf
he Toy, Mr. Simmons was now one of the members o
aefor:,,,-nouncil, and in November an objection was taken
.44t1 :ue Mayor that he was not entitled to be enrolled,
lakett was struck off. When the same objection was
as uefore the Revising Barristers, they decided that he
?atitled,
A, , The question in this case was similar to
'ark few days ago
granted.
9Str w THE QUEEN V. PARROTT.
1° ?pi -rOLLETT moved for a rule to show cause why a
sting a
hnto should not be issued against Jasper Parrott,
,tkee of
im to show by what authority he exercised the
a burgess of Totnes. The application was made
q,"%i0.--greand that he was not propeOy rated. The Ite-
41it' -"arrister hadaldecided that he was not rated.
tevision s
h two , however, now took place b-fore the Mayor
ad de . assessors ; and the Mayor and one of the assessors
other ekled in
asse__favour of Mr. Jasper Parrott, whilst the
4ted th scar had protested against the decision. it ap-
been r, at for political objects three or four names had
;11.14n. rili,than the rate,and Were then carried out in one
ttisior theere Was no distinct rating of each party, but one
Whole.
LiStice LITTLEDAI.E granted the rule.

C 0 Air
`74
MON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

.1 41.
PILMORE V. WOOD.
:14 17; 1,3 ease the defendant was owner of a public-house,
%'iefe4c•st Et person named Bovor was in treaty, whom
41;44t,sta.ed that the retail returns were tleB.o/. per
•444; tas'ar-13e_o_iv(i.r was unable t,o complete the contract ; and
(1, 4.150.v0r, e'. between the parties. that plaintiff was to stand
}in ri ant b a ' c'• - •
'e d ' Place B vor told him the representation which
ctise . -au made to 11.7 n as to the returns of the public-
NI44S i ' 4nd before plaintiff- wade the agreement defendant
)rt,ll4lled that
NI
,t,„,
a~,
had ;epeated his statementta beto
hfor 111(1,,d
,`,1.1, defendant allowed• the transaction
brought
ay Llama
_gersdeur thatt apprehtebnastiorne.p
.e I
)ee, s s ain e d in entation, alleged to
n
reAsti action was
: tll‘4l` "Iraildulent. In " Comyn's Digest" it was laid do
‘k .44 ~.
ItiN cuo
was sus-
° on the case would lie, where injury
!i4::at'ynba3rUathnocitdeceit." The defendant pleaded that he
this ql.n. 0_ yto Bovor to make the representation in
1 intiff it was urged that
1,14)1ka Was 11',at_ille. Part of the
Itii , ~. (~ou,, ki in form. and substance.p
Qt
.1) . 4"1. did not think the plea was wrong in form ;it
(1/4) eln bstance.
heel 4 behalf
111,,14acti,n of the defendant it was contended that the
f.: aa/„ was wrong in substance, because. it did not state
<lk'ql.(lek,t4:.e.soqthtialet agreement. betweaerenwtot‘boerr eel-Ird
notth (le-
the
de-
the eille,it __ _ e It did not app
tv.. satt,t.
.'-'°‘b to. between the
on
and defendant was.
kl:18 said) ' 44d, if the declaration was. good, the plea (it
4,5 Plea,i was also good • for the plaintiff, by demurring to
_thorit,,, I)2d„andvrnitted 'that the defendant had given no
4,17 Plainjtil,? 15 I t Owl'
atsofurrereart
contended,
theon statement referred to to
i
th.,400d ,„ tended, that a mere naked
qe must-Qs not enough to give a right of action, but that
t I,c be a clear intention to deceive.
N twte
~...elrtruldwere of opinion that there had been such a
Live the plaintiff a right of action ; And