The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-23 00:00:00

LEITH V. YOUNG.

The further arguments in this part-heard appeal from
the judgment of the Court of Session in Scotland occu-
pied their Lordships the whole morning. The case has
already occupied several days in being argued.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Lord DENMAN.)
SOLOMONS V. DUNSTAN.
Mr. WATSON stated the case to the jury. He said it
was an action brought by Mr. Solomons, an extensive
fruiterer and greengrocer in Covent-garden Market, to
recover the sum of 331. 4s. Id. from Miss Sarah Anne,
and Miss Fanny Stuart Dunstan, for expensive fruit and
greengrocery supplied to them in the early part of 1846.
The ladies at the time lived at Hampstead, and subse-
quently at Kentish-town and Brighton. He would read
some of the items, in order to show the extravagant
price at which the ladies were content to have fruit
and vegetables, wholly out of seaso❑ at the
time. On February the 25th, 1846, they or-
dered a pine, the cost of which was 21. 12s. 6d.
Now a tradesman had no objection to people
having extravagantly priced articles at unseasonable
periods, at which more reasonable people did not dream
of them, provided they paid for them. Then again, they
ordered a bundle of asparagus in February, when he was
sure there were not five tables in London which showed
anything of the kind, for which thirteen shillings. was
charged. Again, on March the 13th, they had som,
strawberries.

From the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff,
it appeared that one of the ladies ordered the fruit and
the other the vegetables, and that they had never denied
being indebted to the plaintiff. They usually came to
the shop together, and consulted as to the purchases.
In cross-examination it was elicited that goods were
sent to the ladies at Bushy, through a Mr. Beaston, ac-
cording to their order. It appeared that there were
three Misses Dunstan, and that they generally resided
together.

Mr. H. WILD, who was for the defendant, contended
that the goods were supplied to the eldest of the three
ladies, Miss Sarah Anne, and not to any of the others.
Evidence was adduced to show that this was so, in the
course of which it was stated that Miss Sarah, at the
time this action was brought, was in Hertford gaol.
The jury found a verdict for the plantiff for the full
amount.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY).
(Before the CHIEF BARON and a Common Jury.)
GRUE V. HILL.

This action was brought to recover compensation in
damages for injury sustained by the alleged negligence
of the defendant. It appeared that a short time since
the plaintiff was proceeding along the Cambridge-road,
Hackney, at night, when his toot caugfit in some
grating on the pathway, which it was alleged was in
the possession of the defendant, and for the improper
construction of which the plaintiff contended he was
liable. The plaintiff was in consequence seriously hurt,
and was prevented attending to his business for the
period of a fortnight. A question arose in the case
whether the Commissioners of Sewers, or the con-
tractor who constructed the sewers, was liable for any
accident that might happen. The defendant admitted
that ho was the contractor, but contended that the
liability as to any irregularity in the laying down of the
grating attached to the commissioners under whose direc-
tions he had executed the works.

His Lonostur, in submitting the case to the jury, ob-
served, that a person passing along a highway had only
a right to expect a reasonable degree of care in the
construction of the road, and could by no means expect
an exemption from those casualties which was incident
to common humanity. The question in this case was
simply to whom the liability attached—whether to the
Commissioners of Sewers or the defendant, who admitted
he was the contractor.