The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-03 00:00:00

LAW IN TELLIGEN CE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, July 2.
The Court did not sit to-day, the Judges being occupied
in.the further hearing of Sheehy v. Lord Muskerry, in the
House of Lords.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the Lotto CHIEF
BARON and Common Juries.)
SIMMONDS V. ROBSON.
The plaintiff is a silversmith and jeweller, residing at
Southampton-row, Russell-square ; the defendant keeps
the Swan Inn, at Kensington. Last New Year's day,
the plaintiff went with some ladies of his family to spend the
afternoon with a friend at Kensington. He drove down in
a phaeton, drawn by a single horse, which he put up at the
Swan. e was told by the ostler that the house was usually
closed between eleven and twelve ; but he said, "Never
mind; I'll make it all right with you." The cloaks of the
ladies were put into the bar, and the horse was put into a
sort of shed, which was used as a citable. The plaintiff left
his friend's house about one in the morning of the 2d of
January, and preceded his family to the Swan, to make pre-
paration for their return to London. He knocked repeatedly,
but for some time got no answer. At length the ostler was
aroused, he struck a light, and having inquired what the
plaintiff' wanted, ha told him that he had sat up until his
master forced him to go to bed ; that the house was shut up for
the night ; and that neither his horse nor his cloaks could be
procured till the following morning. The plaintiff told him
that would not do; that he he had souse ladies waiting with
him ; and that he should get to town. After some further
parley, and after having at length by repeated knocking and
kicking forced open the gate, the plaintiff was surrounded by
a mob, was struck, and finally given into the custody of the
police by the defendant. He was carried to the stalion-
house, but the inspector on hearing the circumstance refused
to entertain the charge. He was subsequently obliged to
procure cabs at great inconvenience, and thus got with his
family to town. The next morning he went to Kensington
with his brother, and paid the defendant 3s. for the keep of
the horse. It was proved that the shed was in a very
wretched state covered with dung, and open at the roof.
The horse got ill, and was obliged to be put under the care of
a veterinary surgeon. These were the main features of the
case, which was conducted on the part of the plaintiff by Mr.
Martin, Mr. E James, and Mr. Prentice; and for the de-
fendant by Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Bovill.
It was contended on the part of the defendant that he was
not bound to keep his house open to an unseasonable and
unusual hour for the convenience of the plaintiff, and that
the private agreement made between the latter and the
ostler—viz., to keep the horse ready harnessed and to de-
liver him at one o'clock, was not binding on the innkeeper
his master.

The LORD CHIEF BARON told the jury that he would not
leave them any question to decide on about which a legal
difficulty might afterwards be raised, but that he would take
their op.ni non a question • fact. He was of opin on that
it was settled law that an innkeeper was bound to receive a
guest or traveller in his house at any hour that was not per-
fectly unreasonable, and it was no defence that he was a Sun-
day traveller, or that the innkeeper was gone to bed. An
innkeeper was bound to submit to the inconveniences of his
calling; they might be great or they might be trivial, but
the calling was his own choice. The law could never and
did never contemplate that a traveller travelling alone at
midnight over the moors of Yorkshire, for instance, and who
sought admission into a public inn, was to be told " You
can't get in ; we are all in bed, and you must wait till five
o'clock in the morning." It was absurd to suppose that the
law would sanction such an act as that; and he told
the jury that the law did not sanction it. But even
supposing that such was the law, he would put it to the
jury whether it was not a hard, unfeeling act for the
defendant to say to this plaintiff, " You can't get your
cloaks or shawls; they are shut up in the bar; you can't
get your horse; he is shut up in my stable; you may walk
to town,-or you may remain in the open air all night, just as
you please, and you shall have them at five o'clock in the
morning." Suppose he had the strictest right to do this,
ought he to have done it? and did the jury conceive that
such a proceeding ought not to meet with punishment? The
ostler was the agent of his master, and he was bound by his
agreement; and if any inconvenience occurred to the master
by such agreement, the ostler might be dismissed.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101.

SHERIFFS' COURT, July 2.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHALL.)
VINE V. HOLMES.
IMPORTANT RAILWAY CASE.— This was an action to
recover the sum of 141. 17s. 4d. for work and labour
done by the plaintiff, as a surveyor to the Bristol and
Dover Railway. The defendant, who is the solicitor to
the Company, pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. FISH stated the case. The plaintiff; as stated,
was the surveyor to the Company ; and in November
last was employed by the defendant to send down a
person to point out the different parts of the line, to
enable him to make out the books of reference, which
was the duty of the solicitor, and he was now charged
at two guineas a-day and expenses, for an assistant
sent down.

Alexander Smith proved that he went down to Kings-
dare, by direction of the plaintiff, to point out the
starting and ending points on the different portions of
the plans. Did not see defendant at that time, but
called oa him afterwards, and defendant said he did not
want him to do any more.
Cross-examined—Was a farmer and surveyor at
Amersham, Sussex. He could not say exactly what
part he did. Was at work for four days from the 21st
of November.

Mr. Bushy, engineer, was called to show that for
making the book of reference at that time, in Novem-
ber, two guineas a day was a very moderate charge.
Cross-examined--If the attorney sent for assistance
it was unreasenable to expect the surveyor would send
assistance without being paid. His duty was done when
he sent in the plans, and the attorney ought not to
undertake the reference if not competent.
Mr. Whittel, the engineer to the Company, proved
that defendant applied to him to get Mr. Vine to send
some one to assist the defendant's assistants, as the
time pressed to get the plans in under the order of the
House of Commons. In witness's judgment, the plans were
sufficient for the purpose of the reference, but they were
not complete, as the base and deviation lines were not
marked, nor could it be till the sections were completed.
The plans were sent in pieces, as time pressed.
The defendant, who conducted the case in person, con-
tended that the reference could not be made without the
explanation of the plans, and therefore that he had a
right to claim the assistance of the surveyor who had
been employed by the engineer.
Several witnesses were called for the defendant, who
all agreed that the plans were very imperfect ; in many
instances the divisions of fields were not marked,
whole rows of houses left out, and some marked not in,
or a great way off from the spot; and one witness said
that in the neighbourhood of Newbury he believed, and
so an old inhabitant believed, the plan bad been made
from an old plan.
Mr. Spicer, a solicitor, said he had had great expe-
rience in railway affairs ; such plans would have been
sent back to the surveyor to amend, and it was impos-
sible to complete a reference by them. He did not think
the attorney was liable.
Mr. Holmes then tendered a paper to show that de-
fendant himself had only demanded of him about 91., and
therefore plaintiff had no right to pay him, and add the
difference as profit.
The UNDER-SHERIFF refused to admit this document
in evidence, and left it to the jury to say whether the
plaintiff had been engaged by defendant.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
sum.

Mr. Holmes applied for the record to be held, on the
ground that the document ought to have been admitted
in evidence„. and further, that the whole time charged
for had not been proved in evidence, and that the rate
allowed was 31 guineas for three days, which was con.
flictory with the evidence.
The UNDER-SKIERIFF said he would hold the writ
four days.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
CUARGE OF Hocussum.—Yesterday a weaver, named Jo-
seph Fraser, but whose real name was Ferry, was charged
before Alderman Moon on suspicion of stealing 10/.
Thomas Newbury, a superannuated naval officer, residing
in Cannon-street-road, stated that on the previous afternoon
he was coming from the Admiralty, after receiving between
161. and 171., when a tall, gentlemanly-looking man, rather
pock-marked, with black hair and small dark whiskers, trod
on his heel, and immediately begged his pardon. They
walked on together, the gentleman saying that he delighted
in the conversation of sailors, and asked him if he would
take a glass of ale, which witness declined. Alter walking
some distance further, his kind companion at last prevailed
on him to accept of a glass of rum, and a quartern was called
for. After that, witness, as his friend was so liberal, thought
it his turn to stand treat, and they had some more rum,
They then left the public-house, the gentlemanly-looking
individual being very attentive, and pressing Mr. Newbury
to come home with him to see his domicile, which kind offer
was declined. They proceeded along Chancery-lane, when
a similar offer was made to show him the various offices
there. Finding that this did not succeed, witness was pre-
vailed upon to go into a public-house and have some
gin at the stranger's expense, after which they proceeded_
ileft
to
aloneHolborn,
on e andmin
minute
w parted.hen Complainant
he was
accostedh a d
bs;.aarcne scarcely
dbeerle3n,
i person, who
eventuallybega n
asked e conversing r sit l
himg with
if
he him
wouldon
traeklei gal ogulsa
glass
sub-
jects,
glen!' andHe then began to suspect that some trick was in
tended, and declined taking anything. However, they were
joined by another man, and complainant did not know any-
thing more until he found himself being robbed in the par-
lour of the Golden Lion, King-street, Smithfield, by four
men. The prisonor was one of them.
Thomas Nauton,
the potboy of the Golden Lion, deposed
to the prisoner coming in with four men, when they had a
pint of ale. Afterwards a quartern of rum was ordered; but
on returning with it he heard a scuffle, and found the door
fast. He knocked, and on its being opened the whole five
walked out of the room, the complainant haying held of the
prisoner by the coat, and accusing him of robbing him
(Newbury) of 101. They all walked towards the door, when
the prisoner slipped away and ran off, followed bey witness,
who overtook him and gave him into custody. The others
escaped.
The landlord gave similar testimony.
Alderman Moos decided on remanding the prisoner, to
make further inquiries concerning him, as the case was a
very suspicious one.