The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JuNt 29.
FAGAN AND WIFE V. HUCKLE.
This was an action to recover damages for an assault com-
mitted by the defendant's dog on the wife of the plaintiff. The
parties, it appeared in evidence, live in Angel-court, Wind-
mill-street., and each keeps a faithful Tray, who are on terms
of friendship almost parallel with their masters ; in other
words, they quarrel whenever they meet. On the day in
question, Mrs. "Fagan's dog had been taken out by the ser-
vant for an airing, and was on his return, when he was en-
countered by his opponent, and a desperate battle commenced.
Mrs. Fagan, hearing the din of war, went out to aid her fa-
vourite, or separate the combatants. This she effected; but
Mr. Huckle was determined to carry on the contest to extremes,
and encouraged his dog to persevere. Mrs. Fagan, who was
armed with a whip, then took her dog up, intending to carry
him off the field ; but Mr. Huckle animating his Tiger by his
voice and gestures, Tiger made a spring at his adversary, not-
withstanding the position which he had taken near his mis-
tress's heart, and missing his aim, fixed his teeth in Mrs.
Fagan's arm, which was seriously lacerated. This was the
assault complained of, and proved by plaintiffs' witnesses.
On the part of the defendant several witnesses were called,
who described Mr. Huckle's dog as the most patient, inoffen-
sive animal in the parish ; but spoke of Mrs. Fagan and her
pet as bearing very different characters. They denied that
'Mr. Huckle had any to do with the fray, but described Mrs.
Fagan as coming out armed with a tremendous whip, with
which she attacked poor Tiger, and paid his sides without
mercy ; she at the same time took her own dog up in her arms,
and was retreating in triumph, bestowing on Mr. Huckle every
courteous epithet which the St. Giles's dictionary, improved by
her own fertile imagination, would furnish her with. The wit-
nesses did not deny that her arm was bitten, but one of them
went so far as to declare her opinion, that she received the in-
jury for which she now sought redress and damages at the
hands of the defendant from her own faithful animal. _ _

The Jury, after considering some minutes, found for the
plaintiffs—Damages, One Farthing ; Costs, One Farthing.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 29.

IMPORTANT BECISION TO LIVERY STABLE-KEEPERS.

ASHLEY V. PITT.

Mr. Serjeant LENS stated that this was an action of trover
brought to recover the value of two horses belonging to the plain-
tiff, which were in the possession of the defendant, a livery.
stable keeper at Brighton, and which he conceived he had a
right to detain until he had been paid the sum of 321. 10s. for
their keep. The Learned Serjeant said he should prove that
321. 10s. was an unreasonable charge, and that 291. the sum
justly due, had been tendered and refused. He also contended,
that the defendant being a livery stable-keeper, had no right of
lien upon horses left in his possession, but must resort to an
action of contract against his debtor.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY was about to argue on the right of a
livery stable-keeper to detain horses until payment of the debt
due to him from their owner, in respect of their keep, when
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS observed, that for the purposes
of this cause, he should hold that a livery stable-keeper had
no right of hen on the property of his debtor, but must resort
to his contract. He distinguished this case from that of an
innkeeper, who was obliged by law to receive a traveller, and
who, therefore, had a remedy commensurate with his obliga-
tion. He would, however, reserve the point for the considera-
tion of the Court, and give the 'defendant leave to prove a non-
suit, if the Court should be of opinion that, under all the cir-
cumstances, the livery stable-keeper had the right of lien.
Trinder was then called by the plaintiff, and swore
that he went with the plaintiff to the defendant's house, and
saw 291. tendered, which the defendant refused to accept.
Cross-examined—Saw two ten pound notes and nine sove-
reigns; witness was formerly a porter at Lincoln'S-inn, #nd
was discharged.
Other, witnes,F*.vicre then called to prove that.321..105. was
an 'exorbitant c.—ge.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY, for the defendant, stated, that he
thought he should be able to overturn the testimony of Trinder
as to the tender, and for this purpose he called
Mr. Lane, Steward of Lincoln's inn, who deposed, that from
what he knew of Trinder, he would not believe him on his oath.
A pr.use of some minutes ensued, in consequence of Mr. Ser-
jeant Lens being in consultation with his client, on the testi-
mony just given ; at last, he said he was requested to ask Mr.
Lane's reason for this statement. •

Mr. Lane replied, that Trinder had confessed having planned
a robbery, while he was a porter of Lincoln's-inn, on the cham-
bers of one of the Members.

Lord Chief Justice DALLAS.—The porters are also employed
as the watchmen of the inn ?

Mr. Lane.—Yes, my Lord.
Some Stable-keepers were then called, who stated it as their
opinion, that the charges in the bill were reasonable ch4rges,
for the best forage, which, it was acknowledged, had been given
to the plaintiff's horses.
Mr. Seijeant LENS replied.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS summed up the evidence to the
Jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff, on the two
grounds, that there had been a tender, and that the tender was
to the ull amount of the debt justly due for the keep of the
horses. They gave 751. damages, the horses having been
proved to be worth 36 guineas each.

ARCHES COURT, JUNE 28.
PERRIN V. PERRIN.

This was a suit of-divorce, promoted by Mr. NV. Perrin, of
Leadenhall-street, corn-factor, against Frances Eleanor, his
wife, by reason of adultery.
The libel, containing 14 articles, set forth the marriage on the
7th of April, 1818, after which the parties cohabited together
at divers places, until on or about February, 1820, when in
consequence of some differences, it was agreed they should se-
palate--an allowance of 11. 1 ls. per week being settled by the
usband for the wife's maintenance. That in consequence of
such mutual agreement, the parties accordingly separated,
and Mrs. Perrin went to reside in the Kent-road, and
afterwards at the house of Mr. Staitham, in Frederick's-
place, Vauxhall. By the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Stait-
ham, she took possession of her apartments on or about
the 11th of March, 1821, and in the course of a few days
after, introduced to them a Mr. Hull, who at first was re-
ceived into the apartments of Mr. and Mrs. Staitham, but
afterwards into her own apartments, where he continued
alone with her sometimes for half an hour, and sometimes
for several hours. This was during the first few days ; af-
ter which Mrs. Perrin absented herself from her lodgings for
the space of two or three days ; and on her return informed the
deponents that she had been to Beddington church to be mar-
ried to the said Thomas Hull; and that she made application
to them, that in consequence of her marriage, hc. might be per-
mitted to sleep there; and in order that the marriage might be
kept secret from the family of Mr. Hull (who resided in the
same neighbourhood), the deponents were enjoined secrecy;
and for the purpose of keeping it a secret from the servant girl,
he was to be admitted after she had gone to bed, and let out in
the morning before she got up. He was therefore regularly
admitted by the deponents, and went to the bed-room of Mrs.
Perrin, unknown to the servant or to any other person but
themselves ; he slept with her two nights out of three for the
space of three weeks, when he took leave of her, as he informed
deponents, on his going to France. That he was frequently
seen by the deponents in the bed-room of Mrs. Perrin in his
night-gown ; and that a night shirt. marked T. H. was found
in the bed of Mrs. Perrin by Mrs, Staitham.
The several fact so!' adultery were distinctly denied on the part
of Mrs. Perrin, who, in her responsive allegation, pleaded that
the whole was a malicious fabrication on the part of Mr. and
Mrs. StaithaFn, in consequence of a quarrel between them. '
Drs. JENNER and JESSE ADAMS, in support of the libel,
contended that as an adulterous intercourse had been sufficiently
proved by the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Staitham, they trusted
the Court would pronounce sentence of divorce.
Dr. LusurN 0•1' ON, for Mrs. Perrin, contended that the story
by Mr. and Mrs. S. was unworthy of credit. Mr. Green deposed
to his attending Mrs. Perrin from the 14th or 15th of February,
during which time she was confined to her bed for about a fort-
night dr three weeks. .Her complaint was spasmodic pains in the
bowels. In the opinion of this witness it was most improbable,
if not physically impossible in her then state of health, that she
should have had connection, and he had no reason to believe
that such was the case. She was subject to occasional delirium,
and could scarcely have been in that state cohabiting with any
man. Deponent visited her every day, and she had a sick nurs%
The Court directed the case to stand over for the hearing of
Dr. Dodson, on the same side, and afterwards Dr. Jenner's re-
ply.