The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-29 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in London.)
The VICE CHANCELLOR upon taking his seat this
morning stated that he should not sit on Thursday, having
to attend the Privy Council for Mr. Baron Parke.

DAVIS V. CLOUGH.
The arguments in this part heard case were resume,
and had not concluded when our reporter left.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.

WEST V. POPE AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by a waterman against the
proprietors of the William the Fourth steam boat to recover
for damage done by that vessel to his boat.
From the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it appeared
that the plaintiff was coming out from the Tower Stairs,
and on passing beyond a tier of vessels to get into the stream,
the William the Fourth was coming up the river, and was so
near that it was almost impossible for them to avoid a collision.
One of the witnesses swore that the conductors of the
steamer took no notice of the boat, but ran right on ;
while another said they hailed the plaintiff, desiring him to
pull a-head, and he was of opinion that had he done so he
might have escaped. However, the boat was struck a

little astern of midship, and the bill for repairs amounted
to 3/. 145., for which sum, and the loss of time while the
repairs were going on, the action was brought.
Mr. THESSIGER addressed the Jury for the defendants.
He assured them the defendants would not have defended
the action had they not been assured by the passengers who
were on board at the time that the negligence was all on
the side of the plaintiff, and that had he only rowed a very
little harder no collision would have taken place. He com-
mented on the evidence, and contended that his clients
were entitled to a verdict as the case stood.

The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up,-and the Jury im-
mediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 51.

CARRINGTON V. KENRICK.

This was an action for assault and false imprisonment.
Mr. HUMPHREY said the plaintiff was a respectable cab-
driver, in the service of Mr. Willingham, and the defendant
the large horse-dealer in Oxford-street. On the 29th June
last, the defendant got into a cab, with a bag containing
101. in silver. By some means he got out of the cab and
left the money, and the cab drove off. As he had been
driven by a grey horse, he made inquiries, and was told
that Mr. Willingham, of Tothill-street, sent out one in a
cab. On the 30th June he went to the stables of Mr.
Willingham, and inquired for a grey horse. He was shown
one, and he immediately said, " I will swear that is the
horse I rode with yesterday." On hearing this Mrs. Wil-
lingham and her son came out, and the defendant said,
" And that is the young man who drove me." Mrs. Wil-
lingham said that was impossible, for he never was out in
his life. The defendant said, " I will swear to the horse,
at all events." He asked to be shown the man who drove
the horse, and was taken to the plaintiff's house. Plaintiff
was not at home, but the defendant, who had taken a
policeman with him, ordered him to search the house,
saying to the wife of plaintiff, " where is that bag of money
your husband brought home last night ?" She said he
brought no bag of money home ; but Mr. Kendrick, who
was in a great passion, with the assistance of the policeman,
searched every part of the House. While the search was
going on the plaintiff came home, and was immediately
charged with the robbery, and taken into custody. He
was dragged through the streets from his house, and taken
to the station-house. He was detained till twelve o'clock
next morning, and was then charged with the robbery--
with assaulting Mr. Kendrick and the policeman, and with
tearir°, the coat of the latter. When the whole case was
stated to the Magistrate he dismissed the plaintiff, and told
the defendant and the policeman that it was lucky he had
not broken their heads. So close was the custody of the
plaintiff that when his Master, who respected him,
went to see him, he was refused ; and lie was not
even allowed to give him any clean linen. It was
a strange fact that the defendant had since pro-
secuted to conviction the man who had stolen his
money. Surely then, when he found out what was the
fact, he ought to have made the plaintiff; who, though a
poor man, was a respectable one, some recompense ; but-
from that time to the present he had made no offer of the
kind. But he (Mr. H.) trusted the Jury would give such
exemplary damages, as would teach the defendant that even
a cabman would be protected.
The case, as stated, was proved by Mrs. Willingham and
Mr. Forbes, the Inspector, who took the charge, with the
addition that the plaintiff was drunk at tlu: time he was
taken to the station-house.