The Sun.
London, England, 1812-07-03 00:00:00

SMITHFIELD MARKET, JULY S.

this day's Market bad a'scanty supply cat
rent kinds of Cattle : Beef, Mutton, Veal, Pork,
and Lamb, were cheaper, and the trade in gene-.
ral 11,as somewhat flat. —The slies in the }-1.,y
Mhrket were inconsiderable : Ihy, Btraw, and
Clover, fetched last prices.—The undermentioncd
prices and numbers are an Accurate statement:—

• To sink the ormi, per Stone of 81b.
Beef;s§. Od: to es. 2d, Mutt.n, ss. Cd. to es. 4d. Veal)
Od: to is. ed. Lamb, 7s. Od. to 3:: Od. Pork, 53.0 d, p.)6F. Ed.

Beasts, 560. Sheep and Lambs, 7,100. CtiVes, 260. Pigs,
300.

SM/TEIFIELD
Hay, 41. 10s. to M. los. Straw, 21. ss. to O. Cl6ver, Li
15s. to 61. 15s,

CORN-EXCHANGE, . JULY 3,—The Market tc-
day lia4 but' an inconsjderable supply of Wheat, '
and the. trade continues to maintain laSt prices,
quoted ; Barley and Malt 'at little fluctuation.;
Fine Ware about 105 s, and 106 s. per qt rte; i
White, Pease again heavy sale ; Grey and Bet
Of each sort keep their price ; the supplies of ,
Oats are also hilt inconsideralsle, and the ln ad-
vance fully supported ; in Flour no variation.
Wheat .. - leps. 140 s. 158 s: Tie. Beans , - - 753. SCIg.
rine.ditto - - - .;10)s. 165.5; Oats - . - -.- 555.5,. Pls.
Rye - 652,. fz:',l
Barley - - - - 645. 71s. Potatoe ditto - 6-is. —P,
Malt i -.-, . -945.-100 s. Nape `reel - - - 721. 7
White Pease (boil.) 78s. 84s. Fine Flour - - ilEs,. I': 0
Grey ditto - - -7,1 q. POE. Seconds - - -13 A. 125 -.
Beau's- -, - - 769, 225.

LAW R 'AMU.

COURT OF KP G'S TIENCII,.JULY !.

CHAMBERLAIN V. GAYTAN

This was ail action,hrought, to recover' com-
rsat;on in damages toyi-an injurN''susli.'ned by
the plaintiff, by reason of the negligence of the
der- slant.

The plaintiff was a respectable Master Builder
reiding at Edmonton, and the-defendant the Pro-
rietor and dtiver of one of theEdmanton coaches.
It appeared on the part of the plaintiff, that on
the 28th of April last, he mounted the defendant's,
viach as an outside passenger, in Skinner-street,
to go to Edmonton. They had proeeeded as far
as , the Angel Inn, at that placc,-when -the de-
fendant got off the box to let a lady, who was an
inside passenger, out, leaving the homes without,
any person to take care of them. The horses
to, k fright, "galloped 'off, and the plaintiff, who
was till then sitting on the roof, got upon the
coach-box;' and leaned forward to• recover the
rei;‘s, which he at last succeeded in doing, and in
some degree checked the speed of the horses, but
at the sameinstant was thrown under their feet ;
and, as it appeared upon the evidence of.a Sur-
gym, receiverta very severe lacerated cut over the
right eye, three inches long, and- very deep. In
consequence of-which, the Surgeon attended him
for three weeks ;
.for• .one week of which period
he-Was totally unable to go about his ordinary
baAiness.

The defence was, that the defendant bad not
left his horses unnecessarily, or for a longer time
than .the, occasion required, he having merely
alighted to let the lady out, and assist in taking
out her parcels.
Lord ELLENBOROUGIT however,held,that persons
engaging to carry others by stage coaches, were
bound to take every necessary precaution to insure
the safety of their passengers, and take care that
they went away uninjured through any negligence,.
of theirs. If it was. impossible for a driver to
carry on this trade without quitting the box, it
was his duty 'to have some person with him, to
whom, during his temporary absence, he could
entrust the care or-his horses. The present came
of action arose from the want of that precaution,
and the plaintiff was entitled to such damages as
the Jury should think a fair and proper compen3a-
tion for the injury he had sustained. -
.The Jury immediately found- a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 201: and4os. Costs.

JOCIS BACON, WI. V. RENS' AND ANDRZW.

This cause was tried at Westminster Hall on
Monday last, before. Lord Ellenborough and a
Special Jury, and the decision is of considerable
consequence to Landholders at the present mo-
ment, especially when the general Incin•lre
Act lately passed, is so much the topic of public
interest,

The real question submitted to the Jury in this
cause, was whether the plaintiff as proprietor of
freehold land, to the amount of upwards of 600
acres, situate in the Manor and Parish of Friern
Barnet, in the county of Middlesex, was enti-
tled to Common of Pasture on Finchley Common
or not.

The Commissioners under the Act for inclosing
that COmmon, bad previously determined, that
the plaintiff's estate in Friern Barnet, did not
confer on him that sort of _right of Common, cn
Finchley Common, which should entitle him to
•an allotment, proportionable to his Estate under
that act.

The Jury, however, after a most full and ef-
fective investigation*, f the evidence'for and against
the plaintiff's claim, decided in .favour thereof,
thus-negativing the previous determination of the
Commissioners.
By this verdict thererore, the owners of Free-
hold Estates, situate within the Manor and Parish
of Frient Barnet, will be entitled to proportionate
allotments of Land under the Finchlty IncloSure
Act.

THOMAS LERMITTE, ESQ. MSAINST REIM AND

ANDREW.

The question in this cause arose in consequence
also of a similar rejection. of claims to allotments,
under the Finchley inelosure Act, made by the
owners of Copyhold'tst les, situate within the
Manor of Friern Barnet.

• As to this question indeed, it appeared that a
vettliet establishitig.the rights of Common 'of the
Capyholders had been obtained, so long since as
the year 1696, and this fact being incontrovertible,
and the oral testimony supporting the continual
usage, the defendants in this cause consented to a
verdict for the plaintiff. By this verdict therefore,
the'rights of all the Copyholders of the of.
Friern Barnet, to allotukents- on. Finchley Coin=
mon, proportionable to their several holdings, are
est Wished. . .

SIR W. CURTIS, BART. V. REW AND ANDREW.

This was ::u action on a. similar question of
Common Right, namely, whether the, Plaintiff,
as Propreter or Freehold Land, situate. 'within
the Marir of Hollick, (being a. Manor within
the Manor of Friern Barnet,) was also entitled to
Right of Common on Finehley Common—of
'course evidence similar to that-adduced on the
precedingtrials'would determine the question, and
accordingly in this action also, after the most
minute Investigation of the testimony .of several
persons'far advanced in years, the previous deter-
mination of the Commissioners under the Finch-
-ley Inclovre Act was negatived. And thus also
the :Freeholders of the Manor of Hoilickare de-
ci.ied to he, entitled to, proportionable allotments
Am the said CQ111111011:

COUR OF Car,: :-)N PLEAS, JUNE 30.

FETHER V. WITHERS.

This was an action brought against the de-
ft.•ndaqt, SherCs Oeir:er, on .an undertaking ea-
-1.1i.0 with the plaintiff', respecting a bill of
cx, nr.ng-e for 741. accepted by a. person named
...13-f some mistake-the bill had been
h), and the dtleadaht agreed to. pay it, if it,
%.,•;:re net recovet•O fewn other parties. The ob.
wqs to bear the plaintjif harmlesS from any.
s.,:sts attached to the hiii, and to pay the amount.:

zri~r~

LONDON! ninted by Ti
At, the Svii 'Obkri

Nts,, There Were tither itemt iti this demand; viz. for
Wine sold and ' delivered, dinners,' and a debt
due from a Mr. Fry, which the defendant pro 7
imised to pays making in the *hole the sum
1281. The transaction respecting the un-
detaking took-place about July 1808, and the
actiou Was brought recently. . The transaction
implied that the hill had been left ,with the de-
fendant, or else there was no proof of -a debt, or
reason. why the defendant should give the under-
taking. Two ktters were produced, Which had
passed between the parties. The defendant in
one of 'then cared on the 'plaintiff to pay half to-
wards a bill' of 1141. coming due, and the plaintiff,
in his answer, dated the 7th of August, 181,0,
said he would send 40/. and the remainder in the
course of the next week. The jolter transaction
was two years after the defendant had promised,
by his undertaking, to pay the plaintiff 741. not-
withstanding which, in his letter- he had said
nothing about that sum. -The question for the
Jury, under these circumstances, "was, whether;'
from fiat whole of the evidence, . and the. length
of time which had elapseft,-the Jury could pre-
stune that this claim ,made by the plaintiff had
not been discharged. The cVnnand for wine•and
dinners was proved by the defendant in his letter.'
The Jury found a verdict for the,plaintiff.----Da-
mages 541. , kr