The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-03 00:00:00

'ile Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 201.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 2.
PARKINS ✓. CORBETT.
.This was an action brought by Joseph Wilfred Parkins
against William Cobbett, to recover the value of a horse which
it was alleged had been sold to the latLer.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated the case for the plaintiff.
The names of both the parties in this case were perhaps very
well know to the Jury. The action brought by the plaintiff;
who regretted that he must litigate any question with Mr.
Cobbett, was brought to recover the value of a horse which
he had sold to the latter. The horse in question was sold
to the defendant for forty guineas, but as no person had
been present at the bargain, the latter perhaps imagined
that the plaintiff could not .prove his case, and from that
supposition,_ which would however be disappointed, the
defendant had thought fit to appear in Court and set up
a defence to the action. There would be produced before
them a man who accompanied the plaintiff in a call which he
made upon the defendant, who was particularly struck with the
appearance of the plaintiff's horse, and asked the latter if he
would part with it. He consented to let the defendant have him,
and ultimately 40 guineas was agreed upon as the price. The
Jury would doubtless consider that 40 guineas was not too much
to charge for a horse which was destined to carry a man of such
high reputation and great knowledge as the defendant, who in
fact, purchased to carry him on that " rural ride" which he had
taken so much for the public benefit, and it was to be hoped,
for the sake of the nation, so much for the advantage of his
own health. Perhaps the horse was deemed by the defendant
to be peculiarly valuable for another reason—he was going round
the country, and he had probably chosen this horse on the prin-
ciple of a constitutional objection to turnpike bars. As the
result of his journey was to be communicated to him, it would
be doubtless very disagreeable to him, when some sublime
thought suggested itself to him, to be interrupted by a fellow
coming out and demanding vulgar toll.—(Laughter).—Nothing
could be less sentimental or more annoying than a demand for
money on such occasions ; and it became proper to have a horse
that would leap hedge and ditch, and all those reprehensible re-
straints on freedom ; and, by a fondness for that species of riding
called a steeple chase, enable its conscientious rider to avoid such
vulgar obstructions. Such was the horse furnished by the plain.
tiff. The defence to be set up was, that this horse had not been
sold, but merely lent on trial; that it was true the horse had been
ridden a very great distance ; that it had been reduced to a mere
skeleton ; that both its knees had been broken, but that as it had
been lent on trial, the defendant was at liberty at the end of
more than six months to return it and set it loose in the stable-
yard from which it had been originally taken. There might
have been some difficulty in proving the plaintiff's case ; but
independently of the extravagance of the defence, it would be
proved that the horse had been fairly bought, and that after
it was returned it was so disabled and ruined that the stable-
keeper on selling it for the payment of its keep could only ob-
tain 101. for it.

The first witness called was John Thorne, formerly a groom
to the plaintiff.—On the 11th of September, 1822, one of the
young
Cobbetts came for the horse, and witness took it to the
Red. Hart Livery Stables in Fetter-lane. Three months after
saw it in 111 r. Cobbett's livery stables, Kensington, in a very bad
condition, with both knees broken, and the near knee in a very
had condition. The defendant's eldest son about three months
after that came with the horse, and said he had brought it back.
Witness said he could not receive it without the consent of his
master. Young Cobbett then ordered the man who came with
him and rode the horse, to take the saddle and bridle ofF, which
was done accordingly, and turned loose in the yard. The ostler
at the stables then took it in. It was sold about two months
after. Witness thought the horse worth 40 or 50 guineas at
the time. It had been a little strained by leaping on a flint
stone, but was very safe, and never stumbled.
William Clark, the ostler of the Red Hart, in Fetter-lane,
received the horse from the last witness on account of the de-
fendant. Both he and his son came and rode it up and down
the yard. Old Cobbett said it was a very good horse. Wit-
ness asked him to whom it was to be booked, on which Cobbett
said to him, and mentioned that he had just purchased it. He
asked witness what he thought it was worth ? Witness said
401. or 501. Cobbett said he had given 40 guineas for it, or 40/.
He bad the horse out aliout 2 hours, and rode him away the next
morning. When the horse was in its prime it was worth about
150/. Cobbett the elder and witness were alone when the former
said he had purchased the horse for 40/.
Another witness proved the quality of the horse, and that
notice had been given to the defendant of its being left at the
stables.

Mr. Serjeant PELL, in behalf of the defendant, said that the
only question was, whether the latter had bought the horse, or
whether it had been merely lent to him; and it would have
been as well for private justice as for public opinion if the
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff had confined himself to that
issue. This it was his (Mr. Serjeant Pell's) intention to do;
but he must state, that he could scarcely have supposed it pos-
sible that in such a case as this the desire which Mr. Cobbett
had shown to reform the abuses of Turnpike Trusts would have
been made a source of ridicule. It was neither necessary nor
fair to make such allusions, nor to state that Mr. Cobbett was
desirous of so obtaining a horse, with which he might travel
from one end of the country to the other without paying toll,
and avoid it by leaping hedges and ditches.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, he must recommend his bro.
ther Pell to adhere to his expressed intention of confining him-
self strictly to the question at issue.
Mr. Serjeant PELL said, that as the topic had been intro-
duced by his brother Vaughan, he could not sit by while things
were uttered which must be so painful to the feelings of his
client.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said he had heard nothinguttered that
was calculated to give pain to the feelings of Mr. Cobbett. His
brother Vaughan had, it was true, indulged in a little good
humoured pleasantry that was not at all to the point, and in
which the Court should perhaps have stopped him ; but cer-
tainly nothing had been said at which the defendant ought to
be offended.
Mr. Serjeant PELL expressed his satisfaction at hearing such
an opinion from his Lordship, and trusted that every other per-
son would view them in the same light. He had not been in.

strutted by his client to say any thing that might give pain to
any one, nor would his client indeed condescend to give such
instructions. With respect to agriculture, whatever might be
the object of the rural ride, Mr. Cobbett gave more information
than any writer, and his knowledge as to the means of improv-
ing the condition of the peasantry was such as he (Mr. Serjeant
Pell) wished he had the head to put forth in the manner which
his client had done. As to his political opinions, he would saY
nothing of them—perhaps he was no judge of them. The plain-
tiff and defendant were once intimate friends, but that friend-
ship ceased about the time that Mr. Cobbett gave particular
evidence in the well known case of Byrne, and it was about
that time that the present action commenced. With respect to
the horse in question, it would be proved, that so far from be-
ing what was described, it was the veriest wretch that ever
crossed a field, and.would break the neck of any man that cross-.
ed it, except the plaintiff.—(Laughter.)—The Learned Coun-
sel, after stating that the country must deplore the loss of such
a man if ever his neck was broken, and animadverting on the
plaintiff's case at great length, proposed to disprove it by the
evidence of Mr. 'William Cobbett, the defendant's son, whoin
the Jury must consider perjured if they found a verdict for the
plaintiff. Mr. Cobbett, so far from desiring to litigate this sub-
ject, had offered to refer it to any indifferent person.
William Cobbett, the son of the defendant, was then called.
—He detailed with great minuteness the circumstances under
which the horse was purchased. The plaintiff called on his
father respecting the case of Byrne, and his father, as a reason
for not attending a certain meeting, mentioned that he was
going to ride through the country. Believing that the plain-
tiff was a judge of horses, he asked him whether he kneat
where a horse fit for the purpose could be got. The plain-
tiff mentioned that he had just got such a horse, which had
been a hunter, but was lame in the fetlock ; which, how'
ever, made no difference, as lie now was a good roadster.--
He would not mention the price, but wished witness's father
to try him for any length of time. Nothing positive was said
about the delivery. Witness and his father went to look A
it at the stables in Fetter-lane. The plaintiff's witness Clark
brought it out, and they having looked at it told Clark-to put
it in again. 'Witness was present all the time with his father,
and none of that conversation took place that was sworn to
by Clark, neither did witness's father ride it for two hours.--
It was ridden by the witness ; his father declined riding upon
it, as he considered it was not safe. On the 10th of January
witness was riding out with it when it fell with him and cat its
knees ; the horse was then returned. On the sth of February
his father received a letter from the plaintiff, and it was given
to the witness to answer • diligent search had been made for it,
and witness believed it had been destroyed.
By Mr. Serjeant VAITGIIAN—Witness gave it into the hando
of his sister, who usually had all papers in her possession ; his
father said it was not to be found; witness's opinion was that
the letter had been destroyed.
Mr. Serjeant VAuGuAresubmitted that no evidence of the
contents could be given.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE held evidence of the letter to
be inadmissible, as the defendant had not called the best evi-
dence, which was that of the sister, to shew that it had been
. lost or destroyed.
___.... _ _

Mr. William Cobbett said perhaps he had been mistaken in
saying that he gave the letter to his sister. The letter was de-
livered to him by his father, as he had the management of the
horse affair, and he had intended to keep it. For this reason
he was of opinion that he had been mistaken in saying he had
delivered the letter to his sister.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he could not allow the
witness to reason on this matter.
The witness on his cross-examination admitted. that the horse
was ridden by nearly all the family except the father. It was
ridden also by the servant. It was only ridden for its;own good•
It was on a journey when its knees were broken: Witness denied
that the horse when returned was turned loose in the manner
represented by the witness.
Serjeant VAUGHAN, in his reply, said it was evident that
young Cobbett had been guilty of gross perjury. He charac-
terised the attempt to alter his testimony when he found the
effect of his statement respecting the delivery of the letter to his
sister, a subject on which his memory must before have been
sharpened, as such a circumstance as should deprive him of
credit. The Jury had no alternative, and must declare whether
this young man or the plaintiff's witnesses were perjured.
The CHIEF JUSTICE in the course of his charge requested
the Jury to consider whether the conduct of the defendant with
respect to the horse was that of a person who had borrowed it
and whether in suffering it to be ridden by all his family he had
not acted as as owner over it; for though a man might lend
his horse, he did not lend it to be ridden upon by a whole family
The defendant's son had said the horse was only ridden for its
own good ; but that it was not always ridden for its own good
was evident, as it was on' a journey at the time it broke down•
The Jury would say 41.-1 which side the truth lay.
The Jury without nesitation found a verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages 401.