The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-04 00:00:00

WOOD V. WIT LIABIS AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiff is a cab owner, and the defendants linen
drapers, carrying on business in Oxford-street. The
action, which was tried in the last Trinity term before
Lord Denman, was brought to recover damages for in-
juries inflicted on a cab belonging to the plaintiff by a cart
driven by the servant of the defendant. The jury gave a
verdict for the plaintiff. It appeared from the evidence ad-
duced at the trial that the cab was on a stand, and that the
cart, which was driven t,y a man named Phillips, came
in collision with it, causing the injuries for which com-
pensation was sought. It came out, however, that the
cart was only hired by the defendant from a person
named Gamp, who employed his own driver, but on
the day in question Phillips drove it, in the
unavoidable absence of the driver; bet', ,re doing so, pri-
soner Gamp cautioned him, that if he did so it would
be at his 0%4 n risk. The else had been twice tried, each
time a verdict having bren returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. KNOWLES to-day applied for a new trial, and
contended that the ♦erdict was fallacious, inasmuch as
the cart was not driven by Phillips on the authority of
the defendants.
Lord DENMAN turned to his notes, and held that the
evidence proved that on the day in question the man
Phillips was acting as the servant of the defendants, aq
he had received directions from their foreman, named
Collins, to drive the cart to a certain place. Looking at
the whole of the evidence, he considered the verdict
warranted by the evidence, and refused the application.
WESTON V. POTTER.

This case was tried at the last summer assizes at Ips-
wich, before the late Mr. Justice Williams, when a
verdict was found for the plaintiff.
Mr. O'MALLEY moved for a new trial on the ground
of misdirection. It appeared that in May. 1845, tb
plaintiff purchased a horse from the defendant for 281.
The horse was ultimately attacked with lameness, which
was supposed to result from a " splint" in the fore leg
of the horse, which existed at the time of the purchase.
The defendant had given a written warranty to the
plaintiff as to the soundness of the horse. The question,
therefore, at the trial was, whether there was a breach
of warranty or not. It was shown that the plaintiff had
exam'ned the horse before he made the purchase. One
of the witnesses of the plaintiff said that the horse had
no splint at the time, whilst all the others said that 'it
was distinctly visible in the fore leg. The Learned
Judge thus put the case to the jury. If the horse had a
splint at the time of the contract, and afterwards produced
his lameness. then the warranty was incorrect and the
contract void; whereas, he (Mr. O'Malley) contended
that the " splint" turned into lameness in consequence of
the improper treatment of the purchaser, and that the
" splint" was well known at the time of the contract, and
was, therefore, excluded from the terms of the warranty.
Lord DENMAN took time to consider the application,
and in order that he might have an opportunity of con-
sulting the late Mr. Justice Withanas's notes.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. JUSLICP PATTESON,
COOKE V. SIR W. R. TONKIN, KNIGHT.

Mr. PHINN moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict given for the plaintiff in this case should not be
set aside and a new trial granted. The Learned Counsel
stated that the cause was tried before the Under-sheriff

for Middlesex during the long vacation, and a verdict
given for the plaintiff for the sum of 17/. 18s. 9d., and he
moved for this rule on the ground that the verdict we.;
agai, st evidence, and by misdirection. The action was
brought for advertisements and prospectuses for
a railway company called the Oxford, Thame
High Wycombe, and Uxbridge Junction Railway,
The plaintiff was the proprietor of the Oxfonl Chro-
nicle, and he sought to fix the defendant as a member
of the provisional committee. It appeared on the trial
that some meetings were held previous to the formation
Df the company, at an office in Regent-street. The de-
fendant had acquiesced in a proposal made to him to
become a member of the provisional committee. The
only evidence adduced on the part of the plaintiff was,
that the solicitor to the company had, through his
clerk, given orders for the various items in the bill for
advertisements, &c., to be inserted, and for papers con
taining them. It appeared on the evidence, that on the
formation of the company there was a managing
committee, as well as a provisional one, and that ma•
naging committee were entrusted with the affairs of
the company. MI the items in the plaintiff's bill
were for November, and the evidence only went to
show thht the defendant, in October, attended two
meetings, which were not, regular meetings, but meet-
ings held before the formation of the company. The
managing committee had been appointed Wore the
debt for advertisements had been contracted. When
the defendant was a member of the provisional com
mittee, it did not appear that there was any company
for which they could act. The plaintiff's right to sue after
the appointment of the managing committee was clear,but
did not show that after the 10th of October any act
was committed by the defendant, identifying him with
the managing committee which then commenced. He
(Mr. Phinn) had submitted to the Under-sheriff that
they were entitled to a nonsuit, as the managing com-
mittee were prima facie the parties who obtained
credit. The presumption certainly was that the credit
had been given to the managing committee, if, indeed,
it had not been given to the solicitor. Two cases had
lately been decided, viz , Lowe v. Wilson, and Banker v.
Good.

-- -
Mr. Justice PATTESON—The cases have been cited
frequently. In the Court of Exchequer yesterday, a
rule was granted on that very point. There were two
cases tried before me at Derby—but then there was
some evidence that the provisional committee had au-
thorised the managing committee to act for themselves,
and, of course, the Learned Counsel made the most of
that, and it went to the jury on that ground. In this
case there does not appear to have been anything done
to connect the defendant with the managing committee.
It, however, is not intended to be laid duwn as a matter
of law, that on the appointment of the managing com-
mittee the provisional committee are freed from all

liability. -
The Learned JUDGE said that it was clear that the
case must be discussed in full Court, as a great many
cases of this kind would arise, containing nearly the
same points as the one in which the rule had been
granted in the Court of Exchequer yesterday.—Rule
granted. _ _ _

(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
PICKFORD AND OTHERS V. LACON.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
3L 45., the sum which the defendant had contracted to

pay in consideration of three seats being reserved for him
in the plaintiff's coach from Yarmouth to London.
Mr. Watson, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Archbold)
appeared fur the plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder and Mr.
Montague Smith conducted the defence.
Mr. WATsoN stated the case briefly. The plaintiff
was a clerk in the Customs at Newhaven, and in June,
1345, went to Norwich with his wife and servant. On
the 16th of June in that year he sent to 'engage three
places in the plaintiff's coach to London for the following
day. They eut?red their places, but on the coach reach-
ing Yoxford he got out, saying that the coach was over-
loaded, and proceeded with his wife in a post-
chaise to London. On the coach arriving at
London, application was made to Mr. Lacon for the
money for the fare, but he refused to pay it. lle stated
that the coach was overloaded, but he was the only per-
son who seemed to entertain such an opinion, fir his
servant proceeded to London without expressing any
desire to leave. II;s clients had been anxious to try the
present case as cheaply as possible, and therefore would
have brought it on before the Under-Sheriff; but the
Learned Judge was of opinion that the nature of the case
rendered it siesirable that it should be brought forward
in one of the higher Courts.
Mr. C. J. Powell proved the license of the coach,
which contained the names of the proprietors.
Mr. Cooke stated that, in 1845, he was book-keeper
fit the office at Yarmouth. Has seen all the plaintiffs
there, and he has transacted business with them as pro-

prietors. On the 16th of June in that year the man-
servant of the defendant came and took three places—
one inside and two out. Directions were given that the
passengers were to be taken up at Mr. Lacon's, on the
quay. A pound was paid down. There were twelve
people out.ide the coach.
Mr. M‘lislarnara, a railway agent, proved that he was
on the coach on the 17th of June. ile got up at Lowes-