The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-04 00:00:00

STEWART V. KEIART.

This was an action by the plaintiff, a spirit-broker, to recover
commission and brockerage on a quantity of spirits pitt up by
him to sale, at the request of the defendant. '
It appeared that the spirits intrusted to Mr. Stewart for sale
were not ultimately sold, but bought in by the defendant. He
claimed ss. a puncheon on them for incidental expenses, and
also for his trouble. .It was admitted that he had a right to re-
cover the expenses' the amount of which was accordingly paid
into Court, but that lie had no claim for his trouble unless the
spirits were actually •sold.
Witnesses were called on both sides to show the custom of
the trade, several of whom sustained the allowance as custo-
mary, and others denied that it was usual within their know-
ledge.
The LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE left the Jury to decide on the
reasonableness of the claim, which they established by finding a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages. 51. 2s. 6d.

AUSTIN V. FRY.
This was an action to recover damages of the defendant, for
so unskilfully driving a mare which he had hired of the plain-
tiff, that she was thrown down and became useless:

• Mr. SCARLET T stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff,
who, he said, was a livery-stable keeper, having stables in :Wind-
mill-street and Bermondsey-street. The defendant was a cur-
rier and tanner, in' which capacities he might be excellent,
but he would make a very indifferent member of the Whip
club; In March last he hired the mare for a short excur-
sion, which he took in a whiskey, accompanied by his friend,
Mr. Gerrard.- As they 'were proceeding, the - defendant could
not resist the temptation to use his whip so freely that the animal,
though exceedingly quiet when well used, became restive and
ran violently along the road. Upon this the charioteer and his
friend, determined to save themselves, got out at the back of
the whiskey, and left the mare to her fate. She continued to
run, and after striking against a cart, fell down, • and sustained
an injury which made her useless for life. indeed, the plaintiff
would have put her to death, as the most humane course, had
he not been apprehensive that he should incur the penalties
under ,the new Act of Parliament, for punishing cruelty to
dumb animals.

The witnesses for the plaintiff proved the value of the mare,
and the injury that she had suffered, and stated that she was
docile, and. not liable to become restive.

On 'the part of the defendant, it was contended that the acci-
dent arose entirely from the original vice of the animal, and
not from the misconduct of the defendant, who,was a skilful
driver.

To prove this case Mr. Gerrard was called, who. stated that
the mare began to kick and plunge in the most alarming manui,
without being struck by the whip, or afFected by any other' vi-
sible cause. Mr. Fry and himself were thrown out by a/bock
occasioned by the mare coming in contact with a heap of iubbish
at the side of the road.

Mr. George Smith, who saw the accident, corroborated the
statement as to the mare kicking and plunging, but could not
speak to her previous usage.
Three witnesses gave Mr. Fry the character of a careful
driver.

111 r. SCARLETT replied.
- The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE directed the .Tury, if they
thought the accident arose from the manner in which the mare
was driven, to find a verdict for the plaintiff fbr her value, and
some small additional sum ;' but if they attributed it to her own
tendency to restiveness, they would find for the defendant.
The Jury, after some deliberation, found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 28/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 2.
SELLS V. HOARE, GODWIN AND OTHERS.

This was an action brOught by the plaintiff, a publican,
against the defendants, who are eminent brewers,. under the
following circumstances :—The plaintiff took a house (the
Coach and Horses, St. John's-street-road) in the, defendant's
trade, under the customary agreement to deal only with them
for his beet. Ile: repaired, added fixtures, and so far im-
proved the house, whilst in his possession, that a person offered
him 4201. if he could be let into possession. A disagreement
took place soon . afterwards between the plaintiff and the de-
fendants, and the plaintiff was obliged to assign the house into
the hands of their clerk. It then became a question what the
plaintiff should be paid for the fixtures he had put up, and the
repairs he had made in the house. They were valued at 250/.
by the defendants' broker, but the plaintiff refused to be bound
by that valuation' and the defendants refused to pay any more
than their broker had valued them- at. The plaintiff therefore
now sought-to recover 170/., the balance between the sum 4201.
offered to him by a witness, and the valuation of the de-
fendants' broker.

The plaintiff's brother-in-law, who is a carpenter, proved
the valuation, which he had made as well as he could for the
person who had offered to purchase the fixtures, &c. The per-
son who offered to give 4201. proved that fact.
Seven brokers and others concerned in buying and selling
public houses, swore that 2501. was the full value of the fix-
tures, repairs, &c.
The Jury retired for two hours, and returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages 2501.