The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-03 00:00:00

EVENING SUN

Plaintiff had done upon the original line, and which
would be necessary to undo, the plaintiff was to be
The plaintiff now sought to recover a verdict upon
the Count for work and labour done--namely, for doing
and undoing certain work upon thepart that had been ren-
dered useless. It was clear that the plaintiff's claim for
that work could not be included in the special contract,
because the line was opened on the Ist of May, and at
that time all the work under the contract had been exe-
uted ; but the portion of the work to which he now re-
ferred, was not completed till the 27th of May.
The COURT thought it would be desirable to see the
°liginal contact before giving its decision.

EQUER.—(T ills DAY).
HAZLEWOOD v. BACK.
lI.4OWLES showed cause, on the part of the plain-
, ,against a rule calling upon the Master to review bis
bayr.•
f7anon of costs in the case. The action was , brought
orceever damages for the removal of the defendant's son
w. , the educational establishment of the plaintiff,
t:tuout previously giving one term's notice, according
notthe prospectus. The defendent had pleaded three
atiffirsit, agree!nent; secondl that the plaintiffhad
theadd proper instruction; and thirdly, that during
pliedP"iod OW boy was with the plaintiff, he was not sup-
for with proper food. At the trial the first issue was found
i,ntiff the defendant ; the other two were found for the
; and the Master had allowed
lie (Mr. K.) now
pri tePtled that • the taxation was founded upon a just
;Tie, and eited several cases in support of his position.
''4:4l%etrtsT would not contend that the plaintiff
entitled to some costs upon the pleas which were
title for him, but he would submit that he was not en-
li;l the costs of the brief or the fee to counsel.
plaintiff PARKE—The matter is quite clear. The
those Lis entitled to the whole of the costs caused by
tauslPQ" he chose to put upon the record. There
Pleat "ieh B°ll3e check upon defendants, or by ridiculous
expet3 s;eY might put the plaintiff to great trouble and
k 11,
the c "RITEWMIST had relied upon a case in which
the ,t'llimen Pleas hsd restricted the costs to those of
th
el.„1 Ka• In the case then before the Court, al-
-321.,:ne defendant had succeeded, his costs amounted to
only .1;114 those of the plaintiff, who lost the cause, were
Mr. •
pa
first bl GURNEY—He brought it all upon himself,
Port; a:riti'eading pleas which he knew he could not tip-
°ten of secondly, by refusing to make any admissions
"amiwtiting.—Rule discharged.
This EATTERSBY v. LAWRANCE.
and su, action was brought by the plaintiff, a physician
ilesio„.c",agninst the executors of a gentleman named
tease4"%tc mover 46/. for his attendance upon the de-
Asca , it was tried before Mr. Justice Maule at the late
plaintiff hold at Exeter, when a verdict was found for the
up`„,for, the full amount claimed.
(I,:nnesit":ltor°wotit now moved for a rule nisi to enter a
failing in that, for a new trial. The evi-
in th,, that the deceased was suffering from a disease
deo„i "cart, but it showed itself in swelled legs and
it Ira cat appearances. A surgeon named Tanner said
teng,a case in which it was necessary to have the at•
lairitof both a physician and a surgeon. As th e
'' was the only one who conjoined both professions
eiva3
tc) ;called in, on the understanding that he was
thst che-ve guinea for three visits. It appeared
'a he had attended—had done surgeon's work
two oc-i'ting to bandage the deceased's legs, and upon
c"'lte -easi('''s he punctured them, but he (Mr. Crowder)
setio ruled that the plaintiff had no right to maintain the
Ltter2iccause he had contracted as a physician. He had
sad t eas a Physician, had prescribed; as a physician,
The--,?4ore could not maintain his action for fees as such.
Found Were clearly of opinion that there was no
plaintiff a nonsuit. The evidence showed that the
atlfi 'lad acted as a surgeon as well as a physician,
11,..rlhat he had a clear right to recover.
g,tou'ir,UttownEß would then move for a new trial onti the
the that there was no evidence given to the ury
the verd'.tcts of the plaintiff as a surgeon, to justify
two 0 'et. All the evidence showed was that upon
one,
occasions lie punctured the legs of the deceased, and
The assisted to bandage them.
hied th.'c't'aT would consult the Learned Judge who
cause before making up their minds upon the case.
la lac JOHNSON V. 111`DONALD.
brcaghttl,,ease the plaintiff, a soap-boiler in Liverpool,
Mereha ^gs action to recover 3501. from the defendants,
bitrfit 14,8 in London, for the non-delivery of a cargo of
sizes of in
It was tried at the late Liverpool As-
feting et
for Ore lir. Justice Wightman, when a verdict was
4r the plaintiff:
for S'FAJART.:WORTLEY now moved for a rule nisi,
''Penentering -a,niansuit. The question turned entirely
deliver the Wording of the contract. The sale, the non-
litY, and the rise in price of the article were all
t‘trivat'd• In the sale note occurred the words "to
I,iop -,ez Daniel Grant," and according to the cons!ruc-
„s:he dvu,t upon those words must the case be decided.
bitty
had the ship named on the west coast of
out, lAnierica, seeking a cargo of the nitrate of soda,
tno,'Lt being a precarious trade, she did not succeed,
coilpilently the defendant could not perform the
'lletia,et• 'lle question was, whether thet
only a con
ck,''at sale ? Ile contended it was, and cited various
tih:lin support of his argument.—Rule nisi granted
'44: AND OTHERS v. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY
h. COMP.ANY.
of this action Iva&stried before Mr. Justice Wightman,
tor , late Liverpool Assizes, when a verdict was found

tXcH

e Plaintiff with 6621. damages.
WhOr'Wona ry now moved for a rule to show cause
114 tuat verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
tiffs (1 the ground of misdirection. He said the plain-
hed were eminent machine makers at Manchester, and
qt,'aentered into a contract with the Directors of the
tti • t West Railway Company to make for them ten
zlat_ ern
ive,,t 3, with their tenders,' of the best materials and
113' diiat'ship, at the respective prices of 1,850/. and 450/.
the e ontract, the plaintiffs were to be held liable for
lieeelti.'les during a month's trial, and while they ran
'ecortPties• The engines were all delivered, were tested
!jell jng to the contract, and settled for with the ex?ep-
-44i,; theabove balance. Subsequent to the engines
the °,_een accepted, the. fire-box of the engine, called
Pare-tuner, burst. According to the specification, that
this the engine was to be 7-l6ths of an inch thick, but
not i„'„le was found to be no more than 3-16ths. He did
t
4t
fraud or carelessness to the plaintiffs, bu
,4)toep.,,k'rePared to show at the trial that they had got
IT'lttrr:DEer,)vhich was so
.impregnated
.with some foreign
,the at some chemical process, it had worn away_
iltae.tt,„°l,Ygen of the water. He contended at the
e"Ilt tli.-1e was at liberty to enter into these particulars,
all ,k,ounsel for 'the plaintiff objected that by the
liiit°l the contract the makers were released from
thehi4l,l,ootoVntittim,oanin(d.‘ntt_eengines were tested by run-
h expiration of a month ; and
ttLe
.ila°ertfitsehri.P, upon being pressed, acceded to his view of
a„rt.was lie
the
that the meaning of the cow-
-I,' !tie, that the engines should be tested as to their
.14l and „strength, and the defendant could
khet, e concluded b • their acceptance of them,
"44_4' de in this 3case, they found there had
tileitieEttie-Partu're from th terms :of the contract and
t
,„(1 hoiin"n• When the engine burst it was. found t
;INT. had iron fastenings, or rivets, in place of
Virlt that Ris Lordship would have allowed him to
-,Ne°,,::at, but he (Mr. W.) refused to enter upon any
to °l' his case. lie submitted that he was eau-
-1,4 rule.
tilriektki ektl theas of op.nion that, according to the true
t -4
contract,after the engines had been on
ttlsheY had performed 1,000 miles, if
tray re "len Perfectan an contre,tdaccepted by the Company,
W ed from adll challenge afterwards. The
tl%e{(,)F opiti'isi,i,4lfilled and the plaintiffs released. They
e-e'°re rein-s-e,that the Learned Judge was right, and
" the rule.
11'10111[
11/1"11 PLEAS.—(THIS PAY.)
wit he Co (Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
ith Urt
1,1, heir. ,was occupied, for little more than an hour,
le -get% 1;-'aL and uninteresting motions.
ordships rose shortly after eleven o'clock, and
Su'ar'44ll4 they would tike the new Trial Paper
COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
141-,_'i (Before. Mr. Justice PATTESOX.)
rdShip took his seat on the bench at 10 o'clock.
ThOMPSON V. 310oRE.
-,,,w,,,,11)111icati0n made to the Court for a rule to
„--,aa -1 Ilse why an order made by Mr. Justice Wight-
..1?Y -4,this case should not be rescinded, and
o
eh She `lle writs of capias issued to
D Somerset, and one other county,.
et, , , Devon,
the` repot no set aside. The writs had been obtained
ieoal %kitation that the defendant was about to quit
bat,,4)11 lilattl• The affidavit on which the present appli-
eaL"eY 3.P.ade, set forth that the defendant was. an at-
for tl
ns Court, that he had taken out his certifi-
`-Y 1 'e current year, and therefore that it was not
N 1 Wo
tilu aid quit the country.
11' '4Y ""tee PATTESON—That is gAn at-
-01°48417_ quit the country as any n
one else, and then
al."! Protection. Attorneys are not_ protected in
3' be 1". theY may run away, but in order that they
'ere att na.the C t Application refused.
our .•—•
k DOE ,Ssi. - DEM. FLEMING V. AMFIELD.
th 711, a case.of ejectment, tried at the last Surrey
11143soril whiell, as no consent rule had been produced,
4, tyke L 5 the plaintiff had been nonsuited by directionll!`)ve i74t.ci Judge presiding at the trial, with leave
to, kr, 444
,ec aside the nonsuit.
kai4 rule t:'sabacoordingly this day applied to the Court
e 41413,.. c!w cause why the nonsuit should notL be setth _
asel, • Terthet entered for the plaintiff. The earned
15,4 it 1,1, in support of his application, contended first,
t)een r 1 as not necessary that the consent rule should
tleed; a
kdr terena• nil, secondly, that if an irregularity had
4 4,4 t. lfitd, the defendant had no right to take
s3ll.Ptai VI i
ed to t at nisi prius, but should. have
ca e', the Court previously to set aside thehe
t4O defendant had pleaded after he
0-t
6t,r. /Nur: Of file irregularity, and therefore could.n d
P 4 ea, age- of it. The Learned Counsel then cite
A ku support of his argument.
• - „ r•-•
-.PN,t4tio ..-Take—.cake a rule to show cause.
n granted.
tsiq DELI. KINGSTON V. KINGSTO.N.wary A f
~setting
wn: In this case obtained a rule nisi
teNant wa ant of attorney, on the ground, thateirvhent the
ed by eeuted by the defendant, he was no
, Is attorney.
ah, Leis (MEE:sr V. STOWELL.
toit Nt the ease
two indictments, which had been found
telnov-",efeedant at the Central Criminal Court, had
tl't_.7 ktlto this Court by certiorari.
i,if' ou behalf of the prosecution, applied
°r4llllity, quash tho first indictment, on the ground o,
nisi granted.
" Itule
j
„,e 41.3. %%As ALLEN v. WALKENBY.
t)lp ;aceep~d action on a. bill of exchange which had
7,,tlie defendant. It was tried before
4/e'CitY Qf;+o,ll4on, and notwith-

standing the hand-writirg of the defendant had been
distinctly sworn to, the Jury returned a verdict for the
defendant.
Mr. JAMES applied for a rule to set aside the verdict
on the ground that it was perverse, and contrary to
evidence.—Rule nisi granted.
(Sittings et Nisi Penis.)
POLICE MEDDLING.—ATKIN V. SIMPSON.
This was an action to recover damages for an assault
andfalse imprisonment.
Mr. PRIDEALIX having opened the pleadings,
Mr. THESIGER stated the case to the jury. The plain-
tiff was a gentleman studying for the bar, and on the 9th
of May had accompanied a friend. Mr. Prior, the barrister,
on a walk to Kensington. At about four o'clock in the
afternoon they entered the Black Lion Tavern, kept by
the defendant, and ordered some refreshment, among
other things some lamb, for which they agreed to pay
2s. a head. The amount they owed the plaintiff for
the refreshment furnished was 75., and they tendered 75.,
and Gd. for the waiter. The defendant said their reckoning
was Bs., charging them 2s. Gd. each for the lamb. Con-
sidering this an imposition he refused to submit to it,
and the defendant called a policeman and gave them into
custody. When they came to the station-house the in-
spector said he could not take a charge of refusing to pay
a reckoning, when the defendant gave them in charge for
creating a disturbance in his house. The Inspector
recommended Mr. Simpson not to persist in his charge,
whereupon the defendant said he would not do so it the
plaintiff would pay 3s. more than he had paid already.
This was refused, and the plaintiff and Mr. Prior were
locked up until nine o'clock, when they were bailed
out. The Magistrate, before whom the charge
was heard on the following morning dismissed it at once.
Under these circumstances the plaintiff had brought his
action.
Mr. Prior, the first v. itness called, detailed the facts
of the case as stated in the opening speech of Counsel.
On his cross-examination, witness said that both him-
self and the plaintiff were Irishinen, but that he was a
member of the English Bar. They had agreed, first of
all, for two plates of lamb, at one shilling per plate ; the
lamb was to be shoulder of lamb, but they sent up bad
looking lamb, from the scraggy part of the neck. They
eat this all but the bones, before the joint was
brought. The joint was the shoulder, and had not before
been cut. The waiter complained of their having, after
they had finished eating cut the joint all to pieces.: This
was what he had been directed by the landlord to say as
the reason of the overcharge. The waiter did not state
that the charge of 2s. Gd. was made because they had
spoiled the joint, but becau*se they had eaten so much.
Mr. PLATT—Was there anything left on the joint ?
Witness—More than you would eat.—(A laugh.) Wit-
ness asked the landlord if he thought he was so green,
and said to him, Does your mother know you are out ?
He said, Old chap, you want a nurse to take care of you.
Did not say, Don't you wish you may get your bill, old
fellow. Might have said, Don't you wish you may get it.
At the station-house witness said, you had better charge
fur the two shilling plates. That did not make the 10s.,
because the agreement was for 2s. Perhaps he might
have said, in answer, I will add the two shilling plates if
you wish it. Witness was exceedingly quiet in the house.
Witness has brought an action. Does not know when
it is to be tried. Does not know that it was put off at
his own attorney's request. Mr. Atkins is now in Ire-
land. Witness gave instruction to bring his action the
evening after lie returned from the Police-office.
Plaintiff did the same. Defendant offered to pay
the costs, and make an apology, but that was
only half my offer. Mr. Atkin refused the costs
and an apology unless he were paid 10/. The
terms witness offered were that he should pay 10/. to the
charity fund of the Police Court, and make a public
apology. This defendant refused to do. They did not
offer the defendant their cards. They were perfect
strangers to him. No offer for settlement was made to
witness but through his attorney.
Re-examined—His father is Vice Provost of Trinity
College, Dublin.
Mr. A. W. Irving, attorney for the plaintiff, and also
for Mr. Prior, received instructions to bring the action
on the lin May. Mr. Prior's action has been post-
poned because Mr. Atkin was obliged to be absent in
Ireland during the early part of the term. All pro-
posals for arrangement took place through witness.
Mr. Simpson called on him and offered terms of settle-
ment. Witness said he would see plaintiff. Defendant
proposed to make an apology, and pay the expenses,
The expenses were about 21. in each action. Witness,
after seeing plaintiff and Mr. Prior, proposed to settle
on defendant snaking an apology, paying the expenses,
and paying 10/. in each action. The la in Mr. Prior's
case to be paid into the poor-box at the police-office.
Nothing was said about the 101. in the present case. Mr.
Simpson did not agree to those terms. He said he would
think about it, snd witness never heard from him after.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—IS quite sure that
Mr. Simpson was told the money was to be paid to the
charity-box. Did not say it was to be paid to witness
himself. It was not stated into whose hands the money
was to be paid. Has no memorandum of the conversation.
Supposes Mr. Atkins's IC/. was for himself. The offer
to settle for 101. was made on witness's second visit to
defendant.
Re-examined—Did not expect to be called as a wit-
ness in this case.
Cross-examined resumed—The attorney, a Mr. Simp-
son, called on me afterwards, but on the first occasion,
to the best of witness's recollection he was not accom-
panied by the gentleman pointed out. Does not think
May, the attorney for defendant, called twice, but is not
certain. To the best of witness's recollection Mr. May
never called with the gentleman pointed out. Saw the
young man several times in the course of the action,
but will not swear that he ever in his presence mentioned
the poor-box.
Samuel. Hampton. police-sergeant, to whom the plain-
tiff was given into custody by defendant, described the
circumstances as detailed by Mr. Thesiger in his speech.
Mr. Prior proposed to go to the station-house, as he said
he wanted a lark. Mr. Prior said they were lawyers,
and knew exactly how far the' policeman could go.
Witness asked defendant if he had the address of the
gentlemen, and Mr. Prior said they had never been asked
for it. At the station-house Mr. Simpson said he had for-
gotten to charge for two plates. The Inspector asked if they
had' created a disturbance. Defendant said they had.
The Inspector asked witness if there was a crowd at.the •
house. Witness said there was, and the Inspector took
the charge.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUMPEREY—Witness said to
Mr. Atkin he thought he had better settle with the land-
lord. Mr. Prior interfered, and said, "No, I want to have
a lark." Mr. Simpson then went into his house.
The mob collected could not be off hearing Mr: Prior
saying he wanted to have a lark. At the station-house
Mr. Simpson charged them with
.having cut and hacked
the joint in a very improper manner: They said they
did not see any impropriety in having a good appetite.
Inspector Brown, who took the charge at the station-
house, corroborated the testimony of the last witness,
as to the occurrences at the station-house. Mr. Simp-
son said he had no wish to press the charge if
they would pay for the refreshment they had had.
Witness asked the police-sergeant if there was a crowd
outside. The sergeant said Yes, and witness entered the
charge against them for creating a disturbance at the
house of Charles Simpson. The cell in which plaintiff
was locked up had no window. They were there en
hour and a half. When before the Magistrate Mr. Simp-
son said lie did not wish to press the charge. Mr. Atkins
said then he should bring his action, and the Magistrate
said " You had better not." Mr. Rawlinson was the
Magistrate. Defendant entered into a detail of the cir-
cumstances, but did not press the charge. •
Mr. Justice PATTESON (to the witness)—lt is no
part of your duty to suggest a charge to any body. This
action is principally owing to your officiousness in sug-
gesting this charge. The police have an excellent nose
for smelling oist a disturbance.
James Taylor, a sergeant in the Guards, who was
in the room in which the plaintiff had dined,
stated, that the landlord complained that after gour-
mandizing a shoulder of Jamb they refused to pay the
extra charge. Mr. Prior asked, "Do you think we are
green ?" " Does your mammy know you are out ?"
" Has she done suckling you yet ? if so, you ought to
have a nurse." There was no other disturbance. Both
parties were irritated.
Cross-examined—Simpson did not attempt to prevent
them from going out of the room.
Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, asked what did the
case amount to ? The plaintiff and his companion,
who, for anything that appeared to the contrary, might
be supposed not to have dined for two days, went into
the plaintiff's house, and with a caution which gentlemen
in their state did not usually adopt, they bargained before-
hand, and on the landlord remonstrating with them on
their spoiling the joint, and charging. 6d, a-piece more than
agreed for,;Mr. Prior used language which no gentle-
man at thepar could be supposed to use. Could Mr.
Simpson imagine that persons making use of the slang
of pickpockets could be moving in -the situation of gen-
tlemen ? However, he did not give them in charge;
they, proceeded voluntarily to the Station House,
so that there could be no pretence for the action up to that
time.. Arrived at the Station-house the Inspector
suggested the charge which was made, and Mr.
Simpson, who was no lawyer, signed the charge
which had been booked by the Dogberry of the station-
house. In that he had acted in ignorance of the law,
and the verdict must go, against him ; but he thought
that one farthing damages would ampy satisfy the jus-
tice of the'case. The Learned Counsel then commented
severely on the , conduct of the plaintiff's attorney in
writs before lie had written a letter to de-
Suing out tile.
fendant, and on the conduct of plaintiff in endeavouring
to put
10£ into his pocket at the expense of his unfortu-
uate client. .
MT. Justice PATTESON, in summing up, said it was
much to be regretted that the subordinate officers of jus-
tice were not better acquainted with their duty ; had they
been so this case would never have been heardti of. The
inspector had no pretence whatever for suggesting to Mr.
Simpson the propriety of making such a
charge,. and
even had Mr. Simpson voluntarily made it,
Police
thesp ctor
had no power to take it. The Metropolitan Act
gave great power to policemen seeing any
nethdintog im-
proper going on, but those powers were confinthe
e
actually on duty in the street, and seeing theeonri-
mission of impropriety, but an officer at a station-house
had no power to lock up an individual because a person chose
to come and say this man ha 4 been:creating a disturbance
in my house. He wished this was more generally known,
for people seemed to imagine that the police had the
'power of settling every thin ; and he had recently seen
several instances-in which serious inconvenience had
• arisen from their improper interference.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
40s. ; costs, 40s.
:0

By the ship Margaret and brig Claremont, the
brigantine Royal Albert, and an Austrian polacca, there
have arrived in this colony within two days past, about
700 emigrants from Madeira.—George Town Gazette,
August pl.

GUILDHALL,-(THIS DAY.)
A miserable looking creature, dressed in the work-
house garb, was placed at the bar, charged with the fol-
lowing daring robbery :
Mr. William Barnet said, he was a watchmaker in
Brick-lane, Spitalfields. About seven o'clock yesterday
he observed the prisoner looking in through his shop
window for nearly a quarter of an hour, when he sue.-
denly drove his arm through it, and snatched up a
valuable watch which was exposed for sale in the window,
with which he ran away, but was eventually taken, after
a sharp run, and given into custody of the police.
The Constable who took him into custody informed
the Alderman that he had been only one week discharged
from prison.
He was fully committed for trial, and the parties
bound over to prosecute.