The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-16 00:00:00

911EP}Ir.RSON

This was an action of trespass, brought by a widow against
her landlord, for taking away the door of her room in September
last, and leaving her and six children to shelter themselves by
putting up a blanket, from the air. The room was held at a
weekly rent, and the defendant, having refused to wait even a
few minutes till the plaintiff could give it him, proceeded to
the measure which was the ground of action.
The defendant appeared in person, but declined addressing
the-Jury. lie called witnesses to prove that his tenants had
been abusive, but did not show a legal justification of his pro-
- ceedings.
The Jury found a verdict for ih(;plaintiff'Dtunages, 107.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 14.
SHERLOCK V. CLAGGETT.
Mr. Sergeant LEsts stated this case to the Jury., It 'wag. an
action against the underwriters of a policy of insurance to re-
cover 4(101., the amount insured on a Duch ship, the William
Nelson, bound from Holland to Liverpool. The.facts as stated
by the Learned Sergeant were in substance, that in the

month of March last (we believe) the •William Nelson'Sailed ''-
from the Texel on her voyage to Liverpool. In consequence
heavy gales she was unable to clear the road; and thbugh every
effort was made to prevent it, she stranded early in April, in a
shallow part'of the roads called the North Wall. ' There she in
a short time-gor • embedded in the sand. _The Captain used
every exertion by floating casks, Zee., to get her afloat again,
but without effect. s Not succeeding, and thinkihrit likely that •-•
she would become a wreak, he quitted her and advised his Qwtiers
of that fact and of the ship'S situation. The owners imiirediately
gave notice to the underwriters of an abandonment. :aiid de- '
manded as for k total loss The underivriters sent over a Gentle-
man (a Mr. Woodcomb, we think) to see what coliki•bir done.re-
spectingthe ship. This gentleman employed a number of lighters,
and attempted to float her, but a violent gale coming-on „*.he
obliged to abandon his intentions for the present._ Hatribie; bow
ever, to the underwriters, informing them that e had no.doei-,
'the vessel would be got out without much dame e.' Thetunth•r-
writets, in consequence resisted the payment :as for a total loss.
and this action was commenced against thenr in
.11Iay, front. so;
cause or other, which did not appear; the action went orer to 11:.!
present time.: rn the interim Mr. Wiodeoinli did =VI* 'sight
of the attempt to float the vessel, and by means of arEaltrirm- • .
ber of boats, engaged for the purpose, Ile speceeded.m-Septem.-
ber, in getting her out of the sand, and had her Conveyed to a
safe harbour, she having,. as.it.anpeared; sustained sthr'?little
damage by the accident. The undewriters advised of
this, gave notice to the 'miners,. in-October, that theJii i was
safe and in a condition to proceed` on her voyage, kat ' that
therefore the only damage Which they (the owners) Could claim,
was for an average loss for retardation of.yOyage.. The:others,
however, proceeded -with the action; anti the question. aslljch
the 'Jury had now to - determine was, Whether, uncrey jhe
circumstances, they ought 'to, recover as for 11 rotarois"-Cialy
an average loss. The Learned Sergeant .ccy.enijek Aliat
the captain having used all' the Means ih his power, with-
out effect, to get the vBsel out, the owners were right in aban-
doning and going for a total loss ; and :there was lid ettistion,
that if the present action had been in-.the Sittings-aftar I;ri-
nity Term, the plaintiff would have got 'd :verdict fqr. it
would not have:been- disputed,:: that up. to thlit- heitris: the vts-
sel had not been freed, nor was:there:then a•ehance•ofit. If •
the plaintiff had got a verdict then., Rtid the. defendants,subse-
quently recovered the : vessel, it-would have been so Mitch Pie
better for themselveaut he submitted that they ought 2not4.it
present to be put in abetter situation. than they woulAfflye Wen
if the action•had nofgoile over the sittings after Tianity.Term.
He call the Captain 'of the ship, v>slio proved the factsstated.:,--
In his opinion there was no zhance-of'getting the ithiPsdiar 'at
the time he had quitted her. - . .- .- .
For the defendants, Mr,:gerjeant VAUGHAN contended.,that
the question was not !thief tea .been- done respecting the yes. •
see since the present action commenced, but whether.St ought -
ever to have been brought as fora total loss, He would prove
that from the first there was iro man acquainted with such af-
fairs, who could have entertained a doubt that the vessel would '
have been got off with some exertion. •If • the- Captain shad • •
made that exertion as he was bound to do, he would have•sw-
ceeded. As he had not, he submitted his owners could recover
only for a partial loss as for. retardation of the voyage. ."`".
Mr. 'Woodcomb, the gentleman alluded to by Serjeant
was called; and he positively swore that from the first there yeas
no doubt in his mind that the vessel could have been got off: The
men whom he last employed for that purpose, contracted to to•
it for 2,800 guilders (240/.) and in the event of not succeeditg,
they were to receive nothints,•.
Mr. Serjeant LENS replied. •
The Lord Chief Justice DALLAS said, that althoigh :a
question of law might arise upon the subject, yet upon the
facts he was of opinion that the weight of evidence went to .
show that the plaintiff ought only to recover as for a retadatitki
of voyage. .
The Jury coincided with his Lordship's opinion, and found
a verdict accordingly for the plaintiff for an average loss only':
PEARCE 3'OO:v.—NEGLIGENT DRIVING: • •

Mr. Sergkant PE L L said, this .was sea action, to tecover egg.
pensatimi in damage's for an injury sustained by the net
gligent driving .of the defendant's servant; by which the
plaintiff had his arm broken, and• was likely to be d•!.:
.prived of the use Of it for the rest of his life. The plain-
tiff is a vellum-binder, the defendant is a whdrfinger.
..It
would appear in evidence, that On 'the 2.'Oth of December last, the
plaintiff; accompanied by a friend, was walking along East-
cheap. The defendant's servant was passing along, driving
waggan. A brewer's drity was' standing by the side of toe
way ; but it would be pi-oved that there was full room for the
defendant's servant to pass with his . waggon, if he had been' •
careful. He, however, drove negligently on, by which „his
waggon struck against a dray-cart, which struck the plaintiff,
knocked him against.a post, and -shattered his m. For.this
the present action was brought. It was true, the defendarkt
was not personally a party to the'tratisaction : No blAie what-
soever was attributable to him, but in law.he was
.answerablb
for the acts of his servants; and it was natural that the Oaths.*
tiff should rather look to bins foi compensation than to the ser. •
vans himself..
Mr. Baldwin, a brewer's Jelerk, who accompanied the drsil•;•
proved the facts as stated by the Learned Serjeant, and added,
that when he remonstrated with the driver of the waggon upon
his negligence, and demanded his name and the number of his
waggon, he said he would he did it' he would give either, and
struck the witness a WOW in
.the faCe. Witness was satisfied
that he (the defendant's servant)' could' have passed the dray .
with case, if he had taken propercare. ' -
The other witnesses corroborated Baldwin's testimony as to
all the facts.
Two medical gentlemen were edll&l',` 'one of whom attended
plaintiff for a.tirae in St.. Thomas's Hospital, and the other -.-
afterwards. They stated the nature of the injury: Plaintiff's -
arm was.now recovered in it'greaf degree, but it was still stiff, .•
and it might be a long time before he recovered the ute of it.
Mr. Sergeant •VAIT G /IA x, for the defendant,, admitted that a
verdict must be given against his client; but he trusted the
jury would be temperate in awarding 'damages. No personal
blame could attach, or was imputed tci the defendant, but it
was his misfortune to be responsible for the act of a negligent
servant.

_Lord Chief Justice IYAitis sumtned up, and the Jury gave
**Verdict for the plaintiff-:4)arnagelool.

ESSEX WINTER: ASSIZES._

The Assizes for this County ended at Chelmsfora, on Satur-
day, about twelve o'clock. The remaining cases- in: the calen-
dar not already reported 'were destitute of general snterest.
The Grand Jury found a bill of. indictment against a man,
not in custody, charged with wilful murder.
No less than .twelve bills of indictment werefound against
Mr..Cawthorn; the late Keeper of the Rouse of Correction, at
Chelmsford, his.wife; and one of the ttiAkeys; for two different
heads of offences—one for frauds upon the county, in not
bringing to account the produces of the labour of convicts in.
the prison, and the other for efilelty and oppresSion towards
the prisoners. With the ccinsentof Counsel on both sides these
cases were postponed until the next _Assizes.
Seven capital convictions took place
:during the Assizes, but
only one unhappy man was left for execution—namely Benja.
min Cooper, who was convicted on Fiiday of breaking and en-
tering the dwelling-house of a widow lady at ThaxtaLl, in this
county, during the time of Divine Service, on Sunday, the 4th
September, and stealing money to the' amount of 1701.