The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-26 00:00:00

GREGORY V. COOK

Mr. BUSBY and Mr. HITAIFILEY for the plaintiff, stated
that the plaintiff in this case was the inventor and patentee of
a ladder which consisted of a series of ladders fitted above one
another with guys, and which was much used by builders and
painters having to operate upon very high buildings. He had
also invented a safety fire-escape ladder, which was also much
used. The defendant having some extensive work in hand at
the West India Docks, applied to him for the use of two lad-
ders at 21s. each per week. No doubt they were very useful
to him for he had paid the hire. The action was therefore
not for the hire of the ladders, but in the course of the opera-

tions by some mismanagement one of them was allowed to fall,
and got broke, the damage to which amounted to 201., and for
that sum the action was brought.
The hiring of the ladders and the payment of the hire was
proved by a servant named Chin, who had been in the employ
of the plaintiff for twenty-one years.
In his cross-examination, the witness said he was sent along
with the ladders for the purpose of superintending them. He
had been in the habit of going out with them. but on that
occasion he was lent by Mr. Gregory, but was in the service
of the defendants so long as they had the ladders. He had
been twenty-one years in the plaintiff's service, and for that
long service Mr. Gregory, on giving up business in April last,
gave these ladders to witness.
Re-examined—When Cook's men wanted the ladder moved,

it was their duty to have applied to him. He had not seen the
ladder fall, but there was not enough of wind on that morning
to ha-e blown the ladder down.

By the Jury--Had never known one blown down.
Mr. PLATT put it to his Lordship that the witness was at
the time of the accident in the emplo) of Mr. Gregory, who
would not lend his ladder with,:ut at the same time lending his
man. It was a case perfectly analogous to the case of a postmaster
who lent out his horses to be driven by his own servant. Yet
the postilion was always paid by the party in the carriage.
Now if the post-boy was to throw down a horse, or break a
wheel, or do any other damage, who for a moment would sue
the person hiring the post-horses. There was no case to go' to
the Jury.
Mr. BUSUY contended that the original hiring imposed upon
the defendants the duty of taking due and proper care of the
ladders.

His LORDSHIP refused to stop the case, but reserved leave
o Mr. Platt to move the Court to enter a nonsuit.

Mr. PLATT then addressed the Jury fur the defendants, and
put it to them whether the defendant would have employed
the witness they had seen, he knowing nothing of their
business, unless he had been put upon them ; it
was evident that Chin was sent to the docks to have the
care and surveillance of these ladders. But was the
case proved ? Who from the docks had been called to give evi-
dence of the manner in which the accident happened? They
called only Chin—only one witness—one who had an interest
in the matter, and he only conjectured how the mischief arose.
Some persons in the docks must have seen such a machine
fall. Why, then, not produce him? He would prove that the
ladder was rotten, and therefore unsafe, and that the attention
of Chin had been called to its dangerous state, and that would en-
title him to their verdict. The foreman to the defendantproved that
when the contract for the ladders was entered into, the plain-
tiff said he never allowed those particular ladders to go out
without his own man to attend them. Chin came and put
them up and shifted them. lie was paid 30s. a-week. The
men then complained of the state of the ladder, which was rot-
ten and not fit for use. A round of one of the ladders broke a
few days after. The man who was up fell and hurt himself
much.

Some of the men employed gave a similar account of the
affair, and the accident arose when three men were moving it
with the utmost care. It all arose from the want of a lynch
pin, which had been pointed out to Chin several times.
The evidence was closed yesterday, but his Lordship having
to attend at Chambers, the case was adjourned.
This morning Mr. BUSBY replied.
His LORDsHIP having summed up, the Jury, after having re-
tired for some time, returned into Court, with a verdict for the
plaintiff.—Damages, 121.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 25.
SMITH V. DOBSON.

This was an action to recover the value of a barge which was
sunk below London-bridge, by the steam-boat Water-Lily, the
property of the defendant. It was tried at Guildhall in the
sittings after last term, before the Lord Chief Justice, and a
verdict found for the plaintiff, damages 201.
Mr. Sergeant SHER this day moved for a rule to enter a
verdiCt for the defendant, and for a new trial, on the ground
that the special verdict was in his favour, the Jury having
(after being locked up for several hours) found for the plaintiff
►n the amount stated, but added specially, that another vessel
the Remona, was principally the cause of the damage.
The COURT having re!erred to the notes of the Lord Chief
Justice, held that there was no reason to disturb the verdict,
and refused the rule.