The Sun.
London, England, 1848-12-05 00:00:00

COL:RI' OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 4.
(Sittings in Banco.)
This was one of the days on which it was appointed
to hold sittings in Banco, but in consequence of the
Judges having to sit in error in Queen's Bench cases, the
Court did not sit in Banco, but the Chief Justice inti..
mated that the full Court would sit to-morrow, and pro-
ceed with the mew trial paper.
(Sittings at Ni Prius in Middlesex, before Chief Justice
WiLDE and a Special Jury.)
WEST V. BAXENDALE.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Hawkins appeared for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Willes
were for the defendant.

The defendant in this case is a member of the firm of
Pickford and Co., the well known carriers, and the
plaintiff was formerly in the service of Mr. Joseph
Baxendale, the defendant's father, at Finchley. The
'action was ono of false imprisoment.
From the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff had
been in the service of the defendant's ,father for eight
years, as coachman, and remained in such service until
within a short period previous to the time when the
alleged cause of action arose, when he was discharged.
On the evening of the 6th of March, the butler, on going
into the pantry to fetch some teaspoons, found that a
tray, with a quantity of plate which had been used at
dinner, had been taken away. A search was made for
the missing property, but it was not found, and the
plaintiff was arrested at his residence in Gloucester-
mews, Portn3an• square, two days afterwards, on suspicion
of having stolen the plate. Upon:being arrested he was
locked up in the station-house, and from the entry in the
charge-sheet it appeared that he was taken there on the
Bth of March at a quarter-past nine o'clock at night,
"on suspicion of stealing a quantity of silver plate, on
the night of the 6th instant, from the pantry in
the house of Joseph Baxendale, Esq., in the parish of
Finchley," and that the "person giving the charge was
Mr. Lloyd Baxendale, the defendant. The next morn-
ing.the plaintiff was taken before a magistrate, by whom
he was discharged from custody.
The defendant pleaded a special plea, stating that the
plaintiff had been coachman to the defendant's father,
from which employment he had been discharged, and
that he was acquainted with the premises of that gentle-
r man. That on the day of the robbery he was seen in
the neighbourhood of Finchley, a place where he did not
usually reside, or had any lawful business, and that he
then endeavoured to avoid being seen or recognised. That
on the evening of the felony, and directly before it was
committed, he was seen going towards Mr. Baxendale's
premises. That a person was heard shortly after the
robbery to pass through the lodge gate into the
road, whose footstep, in the opinion of the lodge-keeper
and his wife, was like that of the plaintiff;
and that a person saw somebody resembling the plaintiff
pass through the gate in question about that time. That
near the lodge dogs were kept, which were accustomed
to bark at strangers, but that the said dogs did not bark
at the person who passed through the gate aforesaid.
Lpon the part of the defendant numerous witnesses
were called to prove the various allegations of this, and
upon their evidence it was contended that the defendant
had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the plaintiff
had committed the robbery, and that he was justified in
giving him into custody.
His LORDSHIP left it to the jury to say whether the
defendant bad reasonable grounds for suspecting the
plaintiff. If he had, they would find their verdict for the
defendant; but if not, it must be for the plaintiff.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages 251.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 4.

OUTTERIDGE V. BOWERMAN.
This case, which was part heard on Saturday was re-
sumed and concluded this morning. The plaintiff is a
master cooper, carrying on business in Bermondsey, and
the defendant is a butcher, living in the same neigh-
bourhood. • The action was brought to recover damages
for injury done to the plaintiff's pony-chaise, in a colli-
sion with the defendant's cart, charged in the declaration
to have been occasioned by the negligence of the defen-
dant's servant. The plaintiff himself was throws out
and much hurt.
The jury, after retiring for a few minute?, returned
with a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, 2.4.
(Before Middlesex Special Juries.)
BEARDEN V. THE LONDON AND WORT/ -WESTERN RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.
Mr. Baines and Mr. Unthank appeared for the plain-
tiff ; the Attorne3 -General and Mr. Bovill for the
defendants.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for an injury of a most serious and melancholy descrip-
tion, sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the al-
leged negligence of the servants of the London and
North-Western Railway Company. It appeared that the
plaintiff was a child of seven years of age, the son of
Mr. Peregrine Dearden, a gentleman living at Birken-
head, in Cheshire, who sued for the plaintiff in the
present action. On the 3d of Augusi Mr. Dearden left
Birkenhead, and travelled on the London and North-
Western Railway to Euston-square station with his
family, which consisted of two female servants and five
children, aged from eight years down to a baby in arms.
The train was a long one, consisting of 19 or 20 car-
riages, and arrived at the platform at the Euston-square
station, about six o'clock in the evening. At that time
the plaintiff was standing at the door of the carriage,
with his chin resting on his hand. The train was still
in motion, when the door on which the plaintiff was
leaning suddenly opened, and he fell out upon the plat-
form. He was immediately caught by the moving car-
riages, and dragged down between the platform and the
wheels, where he was frightfully crushed in several places.
When the first alarm had subsided he was removed to
University College Hospital, where it was ascertained
that bis right leg was completely smashed, the foot of
the other much hurt, and the great toe much shattered.
The injuries were so serious as to render it neces-
sary to amputate the right thigh and the great toe of
the other foot. The declaration charged that the door
was opened by one of the servants of the company,
which
claim
for was de
they
hndoemyo from nipf
he e
an
theirdds
ab
completet y the i
within,
osnroservants
nnthtdsee
vni defendants,inodtteonb thec h
ye ground
tawthnhayatot,ot
particularsresistedhn eeafter
d iao orf
theirh
the
had
close
de
n
abeexeceainindeionnptae,tni
employ.
Mr. Boviu, on behalf of the company, said that the
directors had already expressed their deep regret at so
unfortunate an occurrence, and the sufferings it must
have occasioned the plaintiff; but it was their duty to
see that the funds of the undertaking, over which they
presided, were not unnecessarily diminished; and as
they bad found upon inquiry that their servants were
not to blame in the matter, they felt bound to defend
the action.
The LORD CHIEF BARON having summed up the evi-
deuce with great minuteness,
The jury retired for half an hour, and then returned
into court with a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages
600 L

then read, fro In which it appeared the defendant's prin-
cipal object it i h ecoming a member of the committee was,
because the 1 )ro jected line was to run very close to his
father's (Lor d Berner's) property, and he therefore
wished to ha.,, re some control over it.
The ATTO: aN EY"GENEIAL then addressed the jury for
the defendant;, .and called the following witnesses:—
Mr. Thom: is, Brown—l am a solicitor at Uppingham.
I was one of thi a local agents of this company. Mr. Sea-
man called on me, and requested I would be a local
,agent. I re fusod at first. He said there would be no
responsibility r, tßnd to prove it he would leave me a gua-
rantee signed try the plaintiff, from whom he came. He
left some wit:a me to circulate. I sent a prospectus to
defendant, aeLd I also sent one:of the guarantees to him.
Mr. Power, isolicitor, confirmed this evidence.
Letters from the plaintiff to Mr. Power were then put
in, and the ci re ulars in which the plaintiff requested pay-
ment of 501. each from Mr. Power's clients in discharge
of all liabiliti‘ !s. The guarantee was also put in. It was
signed by the, -plaintiff and Mr. Dunstan, :and declared
that " they % .coald not call any member of the committee,
to be or beco m e, in their personal or individual capacity,
liable or cha: rg cable then or thereafter, for any salaries,
costs, charge s, matters, or things whatsoever that might
be, or had b pen done by plaintiff and Dunstan, or their
direction, an d, that they would look solely to the funds
of the company for their remuneration."
Mr. Sergi ;ant &ZEE replied.
Lord DE/ (NAN was about to sum up,the evidence; but
was stopped , My
The jury, .who said they only wished to know what
was his Lor( (s'hip's construction of the guarantee.
Lord DEN:MAN read the guarantee, and said in his
opinion it applied to the short line as well as the original
project, and that it was not, as was contended, a gua-
rantee only against the solicitor's charges, but against
all charges generally which might be incurred by the
company.
The jury thereupon immediately returned a verdict
for the defendant.