The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-18 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

Price

A HORSE CASE,.-SPINKS V. BARDELL.

Mr. Humphrey and Mr. E. James were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins for the defendant.
This was an action to recover 271. 6s. from the defen-
dant for " horse meat," supplied to a horse, which he
had bought from the plaintiff, under the following cir-
cumstances:—The plaintiff is a livery-stable keeper,
and the defendant is the well-known omnibus proprietor.
The horse was sent to Aldridge's Repository, and was
sold to the defendant for twenty-nine guineas. The
horse vs as sound, and in excellent condition. A few
days after it was brought to the plaintiffs stables by a
boy, but his appearance was so altered, he was such " a
poor limping, miserable wretch," that those employed in
the plaintiff's stables, who had known him before he was
sold, scam ly recognised him. The boy left the horse,
and said his master would call and speak to the plaintiff
about it. He came, and in a conversation which ensued
between them, the plaintiff said, if he allowed the animal
to remain, he should charge him 1/. ls. a week for keep-
ing it, so that the defendant knew perfectly well that he
was rendering himself liable for his keep.
In suppoet of this statement, a number of witnesses
were called, who were in the service of the plain-
tiff. They all agreed that the horse was perfectly
sound ; that he had not been "nursed," "plugged,"
or " rowelled ;" that he was not affected with " farcy,"
that he had no "jog," no swelling in the glands, no
" ulcers in the nostrils," no " mumps." It appeared,
however, that he had a " rowel in his chest" when he
came back ; and that he was now in high condition—so
high that it had been found necessary to put him in a
box by himself, as he had kicked down all the
partitions in the stables. The plaintiff's veteri-
nary surgeon said he had treated the horse for a
lameness in the hock. He was afflicted with farcy,
which, in an advanced stage, was almost incurable; and
no one would think of putting an animal so affected into
a stable with other horses, as this horse had been placed,
on account of the great danger of infection. Farcy was
a morbid poison, which affected the whole system. The
horse had had a " seton.' He did not notice whether
he had been " rowelled."

For the defence the very reverse was shown, and that
the plaintiff well knew that the animal was afflicted with
all these diseases. The defendant, it appeared, had
kept the horse for a month, at the plaintiff's request, as
he induced him to believe that he would soon get well,
and that at the end of that time he sent him back as use-
less, and demanded the return of his money. A veteri-
nary surgeon saw the horse a week or two ago, and found
he had recovered, but the veins were still " corded." As
soon as the horse was brought from the repository, he
%vas found to be in the diseased state alluded to.
Mr. HumPHRET replied.
(The jury had not given their verdict when we went
to press.)

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

GOLDICIITT V. BEAGIN.-BREACH OF PROMISE.

This cause was tried before the Lord Chief Baron on
the 25th of February last, but a new trial had been since
ordered.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Lush appeared for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Cockburn and another Learned Gentleman appeared
for the defendant.
The counsel for the defendant, however, retired from
the cause, under the following circumstances :
Last evening that Learned Gentleman made an ap-
plication to have the trial postponed, on the ground of
some affidavits.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said he had perused them,
and it was his opinion that if the defendant should at-
tempt to call witnesses on the part of his defence, it
would certainly be acting like an insane person.
ll
of:
et arr ens
epde c
Judge
fuu d
gye,
but erneergceKtincaulnlyN,lrloYteLstoradialinmstusatnmy,
prejudging a case, and therebytporetjruychtchmegestuhsee.minldts oisf
the jury who are summoned
most likely that some of the jury are
in
any other
e cause,
had r
anduse d
application to your Lordship, about an hourcosuindc'e,asour
Lordshipth rsayies e
n t waswhether
the you ou
next
up
would
oi take'th
Ie
list. After what has dropped from your Lordship,
e f
the to
present
fear that it will be impossible to get a fair trial.
The conversation then dropped.
Upon
the case being called on this morning,
iu • Coexnuara said that, after what had passed last
night, he should not wish the cause to be tried during
whichthis sitting.c ul at all
A warm discussionP BARON denied having The LORD CHIEF
wOtrhaeten tdh, e
which
mindsie
• o• said anything
Mr. CocksitraN
Mr. WATSON thethdrawing from the cause.
tiff. The present wnas opened
the case of the plain-
eopfdethdeljnury.
compensation in an
action brought to reoover
of marriage made to damagesthe • for a breach of promise
pleaded that he never promised, The defendant had
young lady had herself exonered, and
secondly, that the
ments. This was a • ated him
ease Which from his engage-
that considerable damages ought e the jury would tee
The first witness called was to be awarded.
Mr. Plimpton, examined by Mr. P.. RENTIC
mem-
ber of the Stock Exchange. Had known E—Was a
from the year 1844; she was a governess: Miss Goldicutt
in sa-
y family. I
know the defendant, he was formerly a clerk
he was so for four or five years. He commenced of mine;
busi-
ness on the Stock Exchange for himself i 18e4n2e ed
about 26 years of age. The age of Miss Gold' Ifs
is
is
about 20 ; she was a person of considerable twee icutt
ments, and from her agreeable manners she was treated a member of the family. The defendant
in the habit of visiting the house. I 01"
served that an attachment had sprung up between the
parties. When upon the Stock Exchange, the defendant
called upon me, and said to me that no doubt I was
surprised at the frequency of his visits latterly to his
house. The fact was, that he had formed an attachment
to the young lady, and should feel it his greatest happi-
ness to be united with her. Upon that, he was intro-
duced to the members of Miss Goldicutt's family as her
suitor. (The witness then gave a detailed account of the
conversations which had taken place, and which ended
in a mutual acceptance of the defendant as suitor by the
young lady, and his pledging himself to marry her as
soon as he possibly could.) The defendant took a house
on Maida,hill, which was unfinished at the time, and re-
quested the owner to get the house completed by the
end of August; the rent was to commence from the Ist
of September. The defendant some time after com-
plained that " he had been led into it," and wished to
break off from his engagements; and upon the last occses
sion of his visiting the plaintiff he rose from the table,
and left the room without shaking hands with any person
present, and said to Miss Goldicutt, "If you have
any message you had better send it to-morrow by Mr.
Plimpton." He was afterwards waited upon by the father
of the plaintiff, sand in the presence of witness and
others, said that he did not intend to fulfil his promise to
his daughter, but at the same time he added that it was
not in consequence of any impropriety he had seen in
his daughter's conduct. Ile spoke to him on the subject
of the expenses incurred, and he replied, " What ! is it
is money you want, then?"
By the Lon) CHIEF BARON—The defendant is now
married. I do not think he ever saw the plaintiff's
mother. Upon the former trial the counsel for the de-
fendant said that his client was ready to marry the
plaintiff.
Captain Goldicutt was formerly captain in the Rifle
Brigade. Recollected what took place during the inter-
views already deposed to by the former witness. lie
had waited upon the defendant to demand some expla-
nation of his conduct upon that occasion. Defendant
told him that he certainly would not marry his daughter.
Upon that occasion witness felt considerably annoyed,
and used very strong language to :him, such as no gen-
tleman could mistake.

BARDON V. BENTON.—SHARE DEALING.
Mr. Bovill was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Humphrey
for the defendant.
This was an action to recover the value of a bill of
exchange for 1001. 18s. 6d. and the value of several rail-
way shares, which the defendant had undertaken to sell
for the plaintiff. The plaintiff had carried on business
as coal agent at Wapping, and the defendant,
who was a railway share-broker, had had offices
in Nicholas- lane, but, to use the graphic words of
Lord Denman, in summing up, " these parties had
come to no good at all," as it seemed they had left their
respective residences. The plaintiff, like most people in
the autumn of last year, bad speculated largely in rail-
way shares, and the defendant had acted as his broker.
In this way a small number of shares in the Eastern
Counties ; the Exeter and Dorchester ; the Exeter,
Yeovil, and Dorchester; and the Warwick and Worcester,
were deposited with him for sale. The plain-
tiff gave the defendant the bill for the above sum
on the understanding, that if the shares were sold,
the defendant should take it up, but if the reverse
occurred, that the plaintiff should do so. The shares
a ere Tact sold by the defendant in the strict sense of the
word, as the defendant had pawned some shares with a
person named Stanley for 121, and with a person named
Thompson for 81., but the plaintiff had not received
even those sums, and he had been compelled to take up the
bill, for which he had received no value. The defendant
after the "panic" became a bankrupt, and in his exami-
nation he stated that a person named Somers had stolen
the bill from him, and thlt ho had not therefore re-
ceived any value from it.
The defence was, that the defendant did not undertake
to dispose of the shares ; that the nanic came on, and
that many of them would not have -brought more than
one quarter per share.
Lord DENDIAN said the question which they had to
decide was, whether the shares were or were not depo-
sited with the defendant for the purpose of being sold
for the plaintiff. He was bound to pay to the plaintiff
whatever he received on account of the share', with the
deduction of a reasonable sum for selling them. The
bill, it appeared, was given to the defendant for value,
but he had not given any.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 1004
18s. 6d.