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

BAIL COURT, Nov. 3.

Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
(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 for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder and Mr.
Montague Smith conducted the defence.

Mr.VATSON stated the case briefly. The plaintiff
was a clerk in the Customs at Newhaven, and in June,
1845, went to Norwich with his wife and servant. O❑
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 entered 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. He stated
that the coach was overloaded, but he was the only per-
son who seemed to entertain such an opinion, for his
servant proceeded to London without expressing any
desire to leave. llis 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 desirable 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
at 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 outside the coach.

Mr. M‘Nanaara, a railway agent, proved that he was
on the coach on the 17th of June. He got up at Lowes-

toft, a few miles from Yarmouth. Remembers getting
to Yoxford about thirty miles from Yarmouth, and there
his attention was called to Mr. Lacon, who had been on
the box. There were some words between Mr. Lacon and
the coachman about an excess of luggage and passengers
on the coach. Mr. Lacon sent for a post-chaise and left
the coach.

This was the plaintiff's ease.
Mr. CROWDER haring addressed the jury, and called
certain witnesses to testify as to the loading of the coach,
and

Mr. WATSON having replied at some length,
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and said that he
certainly did not consider that the contract for the seat
meant allowing a given quantity of room abstractedly
from all other considerations, for much inconvenience
might arise from such an interpretation. The question
for the jury, after all, was, whether the coach was so
overloaded as to render the travelling in it of a dangerous
character.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron PLATT and a

common jury.)
FOXFORTH AND ANOTHER V. RING.
This was a case tried at Newcastle at the last assizes,
before Mr. Justice Cresswell, to recover the amount of a
policy of insurance effected on the ship Helena, in
which a verdict was returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. WATSON, Q.C., now moved for leave to enter a
verdict for the defendant upon the first and second
issues, and also for a new trial upon the ground
of the verdict being against evidence. Upon
the first and second issues the Learned Counsel
contended that as the plaintiffs had parted
with their interest in the ship, by virtue of a bill of sale
which they had effected in favour of a Mr. Hutchinson,
to whom the plaintiffs were indebted for sundry repairs
done by him to the ship in question, in which bill of sale
no mention whatever was made of the policy, plaintiffs
could not, therefore, have any claim upon the policy
originally effected by them, they having parted with
their interest in the ship upon which such policy was
made. The ground upon which a new trial was sought
was, that the verdict was against evidence, inasmuch as it
was proved that the ship was not at the time it was insured
in a seaworthy condition, and also that a number of augur
holes were discovered to have been made in the ship's
side, and that in consequence of these holes, combined
with her bad condition, the ship went down in still
water, and not "in consequence of storms and tempes-
tuous weather," as set forth by plaintiffs in their decla-
ration.

The COURT stated that they would take time to con-
sult Mr. Justice Cresswell, in order to ascertain whether
he was satisfied with the nature and amount of evidence
given upon the trial.