The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-08 00:00:00

WILLIAMS V. FORD.

This was an action of replevin tried before Mr. Baron
Maule at the last Wiltshire Assizes. There was an
avowry of rent in arrear to the amount of 45/., and a plea
of payment. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. ERLE now moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had,
on the ground of its being against evidence. On the
part of the plaintiff it was proved that after the rent be-
came due there was a sale of a portion of his property,
which amounted to 41/ The defendant was present,
and said he had his own rent to pay, and requested plain-
tiff to let him havo the 451. The son of the plaintiff
went and.borrowed 51, and the father having added that
to the produce of-the sale, handed it to the defendant.
A servant of the plaintiff heard the defendant say he
was in a hurry to go and pay his rent, and that he
supposed the receipt would do at another time. Not-
withstanding that evidence, which was not contradicted,
the Jury found for the defendant. There was no question
about the 451. having been paid to the defendant, but
there was a large sum due by plaintiff to defend-
ant for a considerable period, and the only question was
whether the payer, in handing over the' money appro-
priated it to the rent, or gave it to the creditor to be ap-
plied to the liquidation of a portion of the old debt.
He did not think under these circumstances that any
other conclusion could be come to than that the plaintiff
was entitled to a verdict, and there being no fact to dis-
credit the witnesses for the plaintiff, he was entitled to
say that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and
that the case should have a reconsideration.
Lord DENMAN said the Court would consult Mr.
Baron Maule as to his view of the case.

AUSTELL V. HUGHES.

This was an action upon the case, brought by the
plaintiff to recover compensation for damage sustained in
consequence of the alleged negligence of the defendant.
The case was tried before Lord Denman at the last West-
minster Sittings, and a verdict had for the plaintiff, da-
mages 10/. The facts were shortly these. The de-
fendant carried on business at Barnet, as a corn mer-
chant, and on the evening of the 14th of December last,
about half-past six o'clock, employed a man named Bald-
win, who occasionally acted as porter, to carry out a
sack of corn to a customer about fifty yards off. The
sacks for such short distances were usually carried
upon the porter's shoulder, and in the present instance
Baldwin, who it turned out was extremely tipsy, carried
out the sack, but afterwards returned, and, without
the knowledge of the defendant, took a truck, upon which
he placed the sack, and proceeded to push it along the
road. The plaintiff and his wife were coming along
the road at the time in a chaise, and came in contact with
the truck, in consequence of which plaintiff's wife was
thrown out and her arm broken, and the horse was
thrown down and injured. The defendant, after the ac-
cident, was heard to say that Baldwin was very tipsy,
and that he was extremely sorry he had employed him.
Mr. PETERSDORFF now moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside on the ground of
the verdict being against evidence. The Learned Coun-
sel contended that the man had been employed by the
defendant in the ordinary course of his business, and
that the deviation that had taken place was the act of
Baldwin himself, without the knowledge or sanction of
the defendant, and for which he could not be held le-
gally responsible,
The COURT was of opinion that the case bad been
properly left to the Jury, they having been asked whe-
ther the employment of Baldwin, under such circum-
stances, amounted to negligence. There was clearly evi-
-1 dente of negligence on the part of the defendant, and
they did not think there was any ground for disturbing
the verdict.