The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-22 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Apzuz, 21

SMITH V. BODKIN. —A LEGA L MISTAKE.
Mr. WnrrEntt RFT moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the verdict for the plaintiff should not be set a>i te,
and a new trial had. It was an action upon a warranty of a
horse, which was tried before Mr. Justice Matteson. at the Lei-
cester Assizes, and the Jury found for the plaintiff, damages
22/. 14s. 6d. There were the usual counts for a breach of
cantract, and the defendant pleaded non assunzpsit, and to the
two other pleas ratification afier the breach ; What the mean-
ing of these pleas was he (Mr. Whitehurst) really could not
tell. There were a number of witnesses briefed to him, and
who were in attendance at the trial, to prove that the horse was
sound, but that not being pleaded, he could not produce them,
so that it was in reality an undefended cause. The plaintiff
merely produced the written warranty, and the only question
upon N hich the defendant's Counsel could address the Jury was
as to the amount of the damages. The Learned Counsel was
proceeding to state what had occurred between the defendant's
attorney and the pleader, when he was interrupted by
Lord DEN3tAN, who said, I think we ought not to hear
anything of what occurred between the a•torney and the
pleader. It is clear there must have been a mistake somewh-re.
Mr. WniTEnuR,T said there evidently was a mistake to the
detriment of the defendant, who, if he ootained a rule for a
new trill, would be able to make a good defence to the action.
Lord DENMAN—I think there ought to he an end to the
litigation. It would he a cruel mercy to the defendant to give
him an opportunity at enormous cost to raise this questi'm
again.—Rule refused.

TOUNE V. STOREY.
This was an action for slander tried before Lord Denman at
the last Middlesex sittings, when a verdict was had for the
plaintiff, damages 75/. The pllintiff was a cocoa and choco-
late manufacturer, and the words were alleged to have been
used by the defendant in a quarter where he was likely to be
injured in his business.
Sir F. PoLI.OcK now moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, arid a new trial had on the
ground of the damages being exec sive. .!'he Learned Coun-
sel proceeded to detail the facts of the case as they appeared
at the trial, and contended that there was no ground for saying
that the plaintiff had suffered any material injury in his business.
Lord DENMAN said the Court would say nothing at preset
as to granting the ru!e, but they would throw out a sugge;
tion that perhaps the plaintiff might think it advis dole to ac-
cept a verdict for 251., and the case might be mentioned to
them again in three or four days.
EGAN V. THE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR, OF THE KENS-
INGTON UNION.
Sir F. POLLOCK moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the verdict the defendants should not be set
aside, and a verdict, entered for the plaintiff, for so many days
of employment as the Court might think him entitled to. The
case was tried before Lord Denman, at the sittings after last
term. It was an action brought by a barrister against the de-
fendants, to recover the balance of his claim against them for
having acted as returning officer at the election of Poor-law
Guardians for the Kensington Union. The defendants had
paid Mr. Evan two hundred guineas, and had paid 50/. into
Court, and the question was, whether he was entitled to rec,•ive
any sum over that 2601. By the direction of the Poor-law
Commissioners the Guardians selected a barrister to act as re-
turning officer, and the rate of remuneration was fixed at five
guineas a day. The plaintiff had been employed for seventy-
two days and eighteen nights, the pressure of business being so
great that lie was cornpeled to deny himself ordinary rest, and
work day and night. It was contended, in the first plats, that
Mr. Egan, being a barrister acting for fee, was not entitled to
recover. but the Lear•ied Judge over-ruled that objection.
-.Next it was urged that. Mr. Egan, having been employed at ,
flue guineas a day, was not enti led to receive any thing for the
extra work he performed at night, although it was given in
evid,nce that several of the persons who had worked with him
day and night had been paid double the rate of remu-
neration agreed upon. Now he submitted, that an
agreement for five guineas a day must be subject to some
reasonable limitation, and that a plitty chose to draw upon
his resources for the fol!owing month or two, or upon his con-
stitution for years afterwards, and sat up night after night, he
was entitled to some additional remuneration. The defendants,
when employing Mr. Egan at five guineas a-day, must be un-
derstood to have contemplated the usual working hours, but
the present could not be considered in any other light than the
case of any ordinary workman who, being paid so much a-day,
had a right to make a charge and be paid for extra hours. It
was urged further that Mr. Egan had been at work from the
13th of March, but the order of the Commissioners not hav-
ing come into operation till the 18th, he was not entitled to
payment for these five days, but he submitted that the wo k
having been done by order of the guardians, they could not
now refuse payment on such a plea.
The COUNT thought the plaintiff was entitled to the rule.

COURT OF EXCHEQULR, APRIL 21.
STF.IL V. MUNDELL.
Mr. DUNDAS moved for a rule nisi to set aside the verdict
for the plaintiff in this ease, and for a new trial, on the ground
of the improper rejection of a witness by Mr. Baron lio'fe,
who tried the cause at the late Assizes held at Liverpool.
The action was brought for the balance due for the building
of a ship, and extras. By the contract the ship was to be
built in such a manner as at the end of twelve years to stand
A I at Lloyd's. In order to show that she was
not so built the defendant proposed to call the cap-
tain who had sailed the ship, but he being examined on
the voir dire said, although he was not a co-contractor with
the defendant, he, while the ship was building, became a part
owner of the ship. Upon that admission the Learned Judge
rejected him as a witness. The defendant had not offered the
captain a release.

The COURT thought the Learned Judge had acted rightly
and the rule v,as refused.

MOLT V. iior.uscs.
This was an action to recover the sum of 1,0001. It also
was tried before Mr. Baron Rolfe at the Liverpool Assizes,
when a verdict was found for the defendant.
Mr. KNOWLES now moved for a rule nisi for a new trial.
It appeared that the defendant had been in partnership with a
person named Booth. The partnership was dissolved on a
:Monday, the sum in question was borrowed on the following
Friday, in order to pay a partnership debt. The money was
borrowed
by Booth, who was now out of the way, but as he had
prover!, that the money had been anUed to the payment of a
0.',;0t for which the defendant was liable, he contended the
Jury had taken a wrong- view of his liability for the 1,0001.
Ihe Coutur considered the case was one peculiarly for the
onsideration of the Jury, and did not think there were any
circumstances in the case to justify them in disturbing the
verdict,

ADDISON V. SIR lIEDWOP.TII WILLIAMSON.
Mr. GRANGER, on th'! part of the iilsintiff, appeared to
move fora rule nisi for a new trial in this case. It was
an action of trespass and seizing goods by the Sheriff,
which was tri 'd before Mr. Baron Wolf 3 at the late
Durham Assizes. lie now moved on affihavits, which di:.
closed that the bailiff whose conduct was impugned
was the officer who summoned the Jury in this case, and that
one of the Jurors who actually tried it was one of the
hail to the Sheriff for the Bailiff—they further showed that
the v*rlict was entirely contrary to the evicience, indeed
so much so as to be accounted fur only by some interes.tei
party being on the jury.

The COURT granted the rule upon payment of coats,

BAIL COURT, APRIL 21.
THE QUEEN V. THE MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY.
Sir F. Poet.ccx moved for a writ of certiorari to bring
up the iiirii,ori ins held on the bodies of Thomas Taylor
arid John Livesay, who were killed on the Midland Coun-
ties Rail xay. in order that they might be quashed. The
Learned Counsel said ha had several objections to the
finding of the Coroner's jur, in both cases, but he would
first inf irm his Lordship of the nature of the accident. It
occurred during the time of an interase frost, which pre-
vented one of the trains moving along in consequence of
the plugs being so frozen that they could not get a supply
of water. Whilst the train in which the deceased were was
standing still, another train came up, and a collision took
place, by which Taylor and Livesay, who were attending
the engine, were thrown off and killed. It was not denied
but that the cause of death was purely accidental; no
blame was attached to any individual ; but the Jury levied
a deodand of 3001. in each case on the engine of the second
train. He (Sir F.) had several objections to urge against
the validity of the inquisition. In the first place, it was
held at Derby before the Coroner for that borough, when
it was proved that the deceased met with their deaths
within the jurisdiction of the county Coroner; therefore
the borough Coroner had no legal jurisdiction to hold an
inquest on the bodice His next objection was to the
ineirmality in the wording of the inquisition ; it was posi-
tivel) nonsense, and many other words must be introduced BOTV-STREET.
to make it readable, or anything like wive The William Stacey, a van driver in the service of the Me-
Jury in both cases found that the same carriage tropolitan Parcels' Delivery
driven Comp over v
any,w\asiibliraomugßheteurpe:
or engine caused the death of both the partiC3, and charged with having wilfully
they valued the engine at 300/, and yet they an officer on board of the Marine Society's ship at Dept-
gave a &edam' of 3001. ;.., each case, arid ford, by which his leg was broken.
proceedings were now going for-vard to recover It appeared that Mr. Reece, in company with three
the amour', his Lordshipgno doubt was aware that fors. other officers and thirre 1.7,.: i..-,.e glen to the Admiralty,
111(''rl'i there was great difllenite in knotkitie! *het to de.
end werlil crosslngfroinj NrWift'ehall, when the prisoner rine.:
with deodands after they Pad becn recovered ; but by a I up, and Mr. Reece, fearful that the an might run over
existed. The leseine of the boys, who Were crossing in a line, seized hold
recent stolite they were elielel
of Exuhquer, and no Iliac of the reins to stop the horse, having previously put up his
hand for th , risotierp to stop, but to which he paid no
both the na'en wet' Killed by one and the same concussion, attention. Immediately upon Mr. Ile eve's seizing the
eait)ed Poiltilitteflntort 116Ceinf.p8aidr' contendedri°n P'tor
ii't'l
Cl
thatriCli') ouawt:
on`y tits'deodand could be levied. If the accident had Lorsei the prisoner commenced whipping the horse, and
been more extensive and apoalline',
and, instead of two; also attempte Ito strike Mr. Reece ; the horse rearel up,
twenty or thirty individuals had lotit their live:, could It and ktreckinti Win down passed over him. He was imme-
be supposed for ar! instant that a deodand of 3001. on every diitely conveyed to the ttspital at qharing,cr)ssi when
case might b., levied ? Consequently; it weS clear one or it was discovered he had received a compound fracture of
, •
the other of ,licie inqui;itions could net stand; il .
iii -
h.
Mr. Justice ateinnt,i,N___tbe Jury e 1:,1 the value of Tvei.risoner on Otile„4 .40(.4 for his defence, said that
the engine to be 300/., and they gave that sum in both it was Mr. Recce's own fault, as he at uirripted to climb up
cases, eons, quentiy a levy may be made against the Corn- the shaft of the van that he might have an oppertunity of
panv for 600/.
Sir F. Poenocx E tl Lord ; and Ifthat ' * Nrir Reece.
xac y s'), my certain the extent of the injeries sustained by . .
principle is once admived, parties may
as accidents might take place in which 20 or 30 persons
be utterly ruined, Rave about 14 or in ye irs of age,
and
strikin, heat, Ile was remanded, in order further to as-
Price, a boy
may lose their ii,,,• suppose, for instance, a horse were !se ' ' la ontrining I.lllee of vermicelli and six
...nen two parce , c
the
to cause the death of an individual) and the Jury levied of Mr. Stringer, of 84,
a bottles of pickles, property, . .
...
deodand on the animal greater than its value, thenawil,g• received the
mi • owner Thanes-street,and the litter w:tn
1 Jatnes Steeuens, were charged, the former with having
ita ~.g_r_ca: tneort
siamountn: bthant the: valuejurymoefr . the
ght give up the animal, and insist upon its being taken ' ti,
in discharge of payment. No deodand could be levieo the prisoner Price had been
machine •with a view to his
ne taus, ' '
the death. A •tle' in his, F.e.i;ice nea,li, twel.e months,.
tearnmerr,. ksnorwinigngtr ideeheadvetio,;tenstilen,
notber objection to the inquisition was t:iat being apprenticed. 7 The prisoner Steevens is a jobbing
artery 0.1 ri had.
ldr. Justie %xi ee TT IGllTelAtia../t is signed by 14 out of 1,5, ' '
i tunes., 4 -hi the! 1 • P..
been employed by the witness at different

~ , .

that a gentleman had ordered six bottles of pickles, which
r:e h.d paid for, and wished to be sent home at once. In
the warehouse of the witness, when articles are sold, it
customary to put the amount on a slip (..f paper, and put
it in the t1:1, and the prisoner had done so on the present
occasion. The prisoner was sent with the six bottles,
and he was a long time away. The other parcels pro-
duced were the property of the witness, no part of which
he had even sold. He had frequently missed articles to a
considerable amount, but never suspected the prisoner.
Mary Ann Young deposed that she lived in Queen-
street, Tower-till, and the prisoner Steevens lodged in
her house. He had frequently brought parcels for her to
take care of, and she remembered him bringing the par.
cell produced. About a week after he brought the last
mentioned parcels he left her house without any notice,
and the day after he left the younger prisoner called and
inquired fur him. She told him she did not
know where he bad gone, but wished to know,
as he had left her house without paying his
last week's lodging. The younger prisoner asked how
much it was? She told him 35., and he said he would
pay the amount for him, as he knew him to be a very re-
spectable man. The witness sail she should not deliver
the parcels to any person but Steevens, and he not calling
for them she had retained them till the officer took them
into his possession.

Susan Tyson, a servant to Mr. Baker, who keeps an
eating house, stated that the prisoners were in the habit of
coming ti her master's house of an evening to their supper,
and on the 13th of April the younger prisoner brought six
bottles of pickles and reque,ted her master to allow him
to leave them there until the next day, and he consented.
The prisoner then went away, but returned shortly after-
wards and had his supper, and he asked for one of the
bottles and a corkscrew, and took part of the contents of
the bottle with his supper and gave the rest to the witness.
In a few days afterwards the officer called at her master's
house and took possession of the remaining bottles.
The officer who took the prisoner into custody confirmed
the latter part of this evidence, and the prisoners were
fully committed for trial.