The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-22 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

took (Sittings
their
sEeriantscothis morning shortly
Their Lordships
after ten o'clock.
THOMAS V. FREDERICKS. DAMAGE BY GAME.
In this case the defendant had
obtained a rule in arrest
of judgment, and a rule
calling
upon the defendant to
show cause why the verdict
which he had obtained should
not be set aside, and a new trial granted on the ground
of informality.
Mr.
Peacock and Mr. Chilton,
C appeared in sup-
port of the verdict of the jury,"
and against the applicv
tion of the defendant.
The Con • r.sel simply confinedtheir t arguments to he
arrest of judgment.
It appeared that
the plaintiff had leased a manor-
house and land, in Carmarthen d The two
to the oe.en a
two for
years, the purpose of shooting over it. land
was stocked with game, and
in the a ent drawn up
greem
between the parties, it was arranged that in
the event of the game doing any damage
to the property of the farms, over which the
ount
right of shooting was let to the defendant, the am
should be determined by two " indifferent " persons,
one to be appointed by the plaintiff, and the other by
the defendant. Damage to the amount of 1601. 12s. was
done during the first year of his tenancy, and 183/. 70.
during the second. This amount was awarded by a Mr.
Moody, the plaintiff's arbritator, the defendant not
having appointed one on his behalf within ten days after
having received notice from the plaintiff to do so. The
first objection raised by the defendant was, that the
agreement was not under seal.
Lord I)ENMAN said it was merely a license to sport,
and did not require to be under seal. The Court of
Ectiequer had so decided, and a case was tried before
him at Kingston, in which an objection was taken to the
validity of such an agreement, because it was not under
seal ; but he overruled it at nisi prius.
Mr PE said . iCOCK the second objection raised by the
defendant was, that not having thought proper to ap-
point an arbitrator, the plaintiff had no right to go on
without him; but he (Mr. Peacock) held that the de'
fendant was bound to choose an arbitrator within the
Specified time, and to notify the same to the plaintiff,
and that if he did not do so, that the plaintiff could pro-
ceed to make his estimate of the damage sustained, and
he proceeded accordingly, and obtained a verdict for the
amount claimed.
Mr. CHILTON followed on the same side.
Mr. Burr appeared in support of the arrest of
judgment, acd contended that there was not sufficient
statement in the declaration to Chow that the defendant
had not appointed an arbitrator. The defendant might
have appointed a person to make a valuation on his part,
and if he did, there was no necessity for him to give
notice to the plaintiff; it was quite sufficient for wiped.
son to to produce his arbitrator at the time he was reqr
Mr. GRAY followed (.n the same side.
Lord I E.sitias considered that judgment ought n( t tO
be arrested. It was true there were grounds of de-
murc,r, but they were very special grounds indeed.
When two parties agreed to appoint arbitrators,
iec.
es
Oioug aht it was incumbent upon them to exchange not!ceo
to that effect. Having the arbitrator's name on p.
red at at l
of paper, or in one's mind, subject to be altered
times, was no nomination at all. The Court could not,
iherefore,c judgment.
Rule discharged accordingly.
tile n wioe ostained for a new trial nee
came on for argument.
Mr. CHILTON said the rule bad bean obt3iLed out"

• >
A

MI
Will,
dame
II 1:101,

lic
whol

Ti
Mon'

Fort,

the

li Ti
cen
lar t
atm

It a a
IG e 0
hacl
04Sti

inj
nel
Out
till

lef
Wa
Vva
pr