The Sun.
London, England, 1824-08-12 00:00:00

CRISIIIIAL VIDE.

and
jokhinurnaormaibagnes,a only 9 years, was conVicted of maiming
the property of David Coombs, his em-
pinyer, in the parish of Idmerston. .
The principal. evidence was the boy's own confession, as
taken before the Magistrate. He acknowledged the crime, and
said he did it through revenge, his'inaxtir buying beaten him.
He was sentenced to be transported for 7 years ; but the sen-
tence was commuted to twelve months imprisonment in the
Penitentiary.

DERBY, normsr, AUG. 9.
The Commission was opened hero onSaturday by Chief Jus-
tice BEST and Mi. Justice IloLnoYD. The calendar was
excectlinglylight. The cause list contained 17 cauieslor trial.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDA.T.
PARK V. SAVILLE, CLERK.
the price of.
This was an action in assurnptit for :200 guineas,
a liittiter sold by the plaintiff to the revererid'defendant.
Air. CLARKE (withwhom was!leaden stated the case to
the. Jury (a special one). The plaintiff was Major Park, a gen-
tleman of great respectability, of Highfield-house, near Liver-
pool, and better known to his Learned friends abOut him as
the brother of n_ gentleman of great eminence at the bar, Mr.
James Park. The defendant was ihe _Hon. and Her. Lunt)*
Saville, a clergyman bf sporting celibiits, in this neightioitt-

hood. The period to which the transaction to which the present
proceeding referred was in February, last year, when Major
Park happened to be in these parts on'a visit to his nephew, Sir
George Sitwell. It would appear that the Major had at this
time with him a very valuable brown hunter, which he had no
intention to part with. The animal was a great favourite,
and he had but a short time before refused 150 guineas for it.
The defendant coming to the knowledge of there being such a
horse to be disposed of, and being at the time in want Ora
strong horse to carry his huntsman (for he keeps a pack of fox-
hounds), made overtures to Major Park on the subject, and
came himself' to Sir George Sitwell's for the purpose of seeing
the hunter. He was accordingly indulged with the fullest
trial, and after riding him 'himself, and seeing theplaintiff's
groom put the horse through his paces, he professed hint-
self willing to conclude a bargain. The horse had'shied nt
some of the leaps with the groom, but the Rev.. Gentleman said,
"he did not mind that, for ifany of his whippers-in had him,
they would soon make him do his business.' After sonic ne-
gotiation, the price agreed upon was 200 guineas ; and at the
defendant's desire, the horse was sent to Worksop, to be
examined by a farrier, after which the bargain was under-
tood to be concluded. Major Park had, in the meantime,
gone in a carriage to Spankerhill, where the defendant's
hounds were to draw cover, end where he was to have touch-
ed the cash. But for some cause or other the money was not
forthaiming, and Major Park, who was about to leave for
France, commissioned Sir George Sitwell to act upon this occa-
,sion as his receiver. As the approbation of the farrier was the
only stay to the payment of the two hundred guipeas, it was
unnecessary to say that MajOr Park never gave a warranty of
the horse. • It.had been'ainco said, that the horse had corns in
his feet, and upon this ground it was that paymont was re.
sisted ; but-if this objection really existed, it ought to have
been made in. the- first instance, and not after seven weeks,
which was the time the defendant thought proper to keep the
horse. It would be shown that he boughthim early in February,
but never made the objection until the end of March, full
seven weeks, embracing the greater part of' the hunting season.
He was then returned to Sir George Sitwell's in so miserable a
condition, that Sir George, seeing him pass the window, Was
unable to recognize him, but thought he was a horse for his
hounds. Ile was quite ame, his knees broken, and altogether
out of' condition. The horse was eventually sent to a livery-
stable in Liverpool, after giving notice to the defendant that
he must be maintained there at his cost. Such was the case
which would be proved ; and after it had been shown that the
defendant took the horse relying upon the skill of his farrier,
there could be no doubt as to the legality and juctice of the
plaintiff's claim.
Sir George Sitwell said he lived in this county, and was the
plaintiff's nephew. Recollects in February last Mr. Lumley
Saville, on a morning visit at his house, proposing to buy. Major
Park's brown hunter. At his request a groom trotted him out,
but the horse refused to take some of the leaps. Mr. Saville.
attributed the failure to the bad address of the rider, and ex-
pressed his confidence that One of his whippers-in would make
him do his business. lie subsequently. remarked that he was a
slow gallopper. Witness has seen the horse hunted, and thought
he performed well. When he stated to Mr. Saville that lie was
commissioned to receive .the money, the latter replied, that he
believed the horse had corns in his feet. He, however, thought
proper to keep him until the end of March, when lie sent bins to
witness's stables in a' ad condition. Witness had him brought
to Mrs. Park's (the plaintiff's mother), and he was subse.
quently sent to a livery-stable. The money had never been
paid.
Cross-examined—Witness had known the horse upwards of
three yeses; he was at this time too fat for hunting, and Mejor
Park himself proposed to subject him to a course to bring him
down. The stator had recommended the horse as a perfect
hunter, but witness had no recollection of any thing being sAid
about soundess. Mr. Saville said he wanted him for his hunts-
man. Nothing was said of his stopping short. No other ob.
jection was made than that his shoes were too heavy. The
bar over which the trial of his leaping was made was very low.
Witntss does not think it was a good test for a hunter.
Re-examined—lle was a large horse, and had just come (ilia
journey. A horse upon a journey will require larger shoes
Oman when upon the turf. The defendant never offered to re.
turn the horse on account of the corns.
John Fidler, a servant of Major Park's' took the horse, by
Atirille*l (lithe; to his farrier at iVorksop. Mr. Saville
Mime'. was there, and said he would meet the plaintiff in a
day or two, and give him a check for the money. No ob-
jection was made respecting his corns. Witness had attended
the horse for three years, and never observed him to be affected
with corns.

Cross-examined.—Witness had never said that he was a
Lumbering horse, and that he was glad his master had got rid
of him. Cannot account for his not taking his leaps with wit-
ness, as he generally took them well. Cannot speak to his age,
as he never looked into his mouth.

Joseph Weedon, Mrs. Park's coachman, said that the horse
was in good condition when the plaintiff' sold him, but that he
was much reduced when he was returned. Ile had all the ap-
pearance of a broken-down horse, and there were caps to con-
ceal his broken knees. ills shoes were not fitted to his feet.—
Witness never had a Suspicion that the florae had corns.
Cross-examined.—Witness believes the shoes in which the
horse was returned were the sante he had on when he was bought.
Two letters were put in to chew that the defendant acquiesced
in the demand which watt made to him for the money imme-
diately after the purchaie, and that he made no objection to the
state of his feet.

This was the plaintiff", case.
111 r. Sergeant VAUGHAN then opened a case for the defence,
which he rested entirely upon a distinct warranty,
which he
should prove had been given with the horse.

• He then called the defendant's farrier, who swore that Major
Park, in his presence, warranted the horse to be " sound, free
from vice, and rising,► eight." The witness i contra from his
observation, insisted that he was unsound, inasmuch as he had
corns which lamed him ; vicious, because he balked every leap ;
and as to his age, there was no accounting; for that, as all the
Marks were out of his mouth. He admitted, however, that all
these defects, if any such ever. existed, were all known to the
Rev. defendant a day or two after he had bought the horse.

Half a dozen other witnesses, some of them the defendant's
servant's, were called to speak to the unsoundnesis of the horse.
One fellow, maugre the testimony of Sir G. Sitwell, who mis-
took the horse for a dog-horse as he was passing his window,
swore that he was in a better condition when he was returned
than when he was bought. Another, that the day on which he
was employed by his master to try the horse was a Sunday. The
delay in returning the horse was not accounted for.
CLARIM, in his reply, warmly animadverted upon the
sort of defence which had been attempted to be set • uti, and the
Learned Judge, in charging the Jury, regretted that the de-
fendant had been advised to bring the action intoCourt.—Verdict
fur the plaintitl—DaMeges 2011'guineits.