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

LAW IIiTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF IA CHEQUER, July 2.
The Court did not sit to-day, the Judges being ncelipied
in *e further hearing of Sheehy v. Lord Muskerry, in the
House of horde.

(Sittings at Nisi PritiJ at Uttildholl, before the LORD CHIEF
BARON and Conn-non (Tories.)
6DIMONDS V. ROBSON.
_ _

The plaintiff is a silversmith and jeweller, residing at
Southampton-row, Bussell square ; the defendant keeps
the Swan Inn, at Kensington, Last New Y ear's day,
the plaintiff went with some ladles of his family to spout the
afternoon with a friend at Kensington. lie drove down :11
a piaeton, drawn by a singh horse, which he put up at the
Swan. tie was told I;y the ostler t "at the house was situ. aily
closed between eleven and twelve ; but he said .Nev,r
mind; I'll make it all right with von." The cloak'4 the
ladies were put into the bar, and the horse was put Otto
sort of shed, which was used as a table. 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 ter 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 some ladies waiting with
him; and that he should get to town. After some furthei-
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 station-
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 bins at one o'clock, was not binding on the innkeeper
his master.

The LORD CutEr 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 opini .n on a question of 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 ',Jed, 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 hor,e; 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 hive 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 BVIICHALL
VINE V. HOLMES.

IMPORTANT RAILWAY CASE.— This was an action to
rec.ver the sum of 141. 178. 4,1. for worli and labour
done by the plaintiff, as a surveyor to the Bristol and
Dever Railway. The defendant, who is the solicitor to
the Compan:, pleaded that he was not indeb ed.
Mr. FISH stated the case. The plaintiff, as stated,
was the surveyor to the Company ; and in Novenibr
last was employed by the defendant to send down a
person to point out the difflyrent parts of the line, to
enable hits, 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-
clare, 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 on him afterwards, and defendant said he did cot
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 j udgment, 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 or 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 amen', 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 hale ben 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-SHERIFF said he would hold the writ
four days.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

CHARGE 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 17/., when a tall, gentlemanly-looking man, rather
puck-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. After 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
into Holborn, and parted. Complainant had scarcely been
left alone one minute when he was accosted by .an elderly
y a
sc ounevde r shi ni
mg wit t
hhe hi mo u
lodn t ra ekl ge
ai ogul sa
glans
iu bo-f
to suspect that some trick was n.
jgpeiecnrts.so, °a
n'n dews t vhh eoennbt
beganeuga all
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 Naaton,
the potboy of the Golden Lion, deposed
to the prisoner coming in with four men, when they had a
pint of ale. Afterwards a quarternof 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 having hold 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 by witness,
who overtook him and gave him into custody. lhe others
escaped.

Tile landlord gave similar testimony.
Alderman Wort decided on remanding the prisoner, to
make further inquiries concerning him, as the case was a
very suspicious one.