The Sun.
London, England, 1802-12-04 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, Dm 3

TTINGS'BEFORE LORD ELLENBOROOOH IN WESTMIN--

STER-HALL.

SAWYER V. BRUNTON, ESQ.

GARROW- said, that
.this was an aftion
brought by the Plaintiff, who was a Carpenter and'
Buildir in Leicester-fields„ apinst the lefendant,
John BruntOn, Esq. Manager ache Norwich Thea-
tre, for recovering the amount of the Plaintiff's bill,
for repairing ,and elegantly fitting up a House in.
Hatton-Garden, the charge, for which was_ only
7 71. He had been given to understand, that the
Ptaintiff was to'be treated. with by a Gentleman of
the name of :Columbine, as the pay-master for this
business ; but that was shifting the scene, and in-
troducing the wrong charafter on the Stage ; it
was an Harleguia trick to introduce Colum-
bine into this huiiness, and such a :cast of.' cha-
raaer, as was not allowed even to the Mana-
ger of a Theatre to make.—He should prove that
the repairs to this house were made' by order arid
tindet the direetion Of Mr. Brunton ; that be came
to the houSe of the Plaintiff, an old acquaintance of
his, and ordered 'the house to be repaired; that it
was accordingly done k that the .Delendant super_
intended it himself in many instances ; that when
it was,filiished,'he desired the bill,to be made out,
not'in his name, but in the name of Mr: Colum-
bine, who was his son_in_law, and for whom he de-
signed to have it fated up, which was accdrdinev
done; but so far was, the Plaintiffirom havingdone the
work on the. credit of Mr. Ccdumhine, that. wben.t he
work was ordered, and while the Plaintiff's son and his
servants were going on with it, they did not know,
nor had so much as heard of Mr. Columbine ; and
that even when the Plaintiff made out his Bill, by

the Defendant's particular desire, making Mr'. Co_

lumbine• debtor, it was inclosed and sent, under
cover, to John Brunton, 'Esq. the Defendant in this
action.--Mr. GAR lIoW added, that Mr. Columbine
had become insolvent, and that his failure had
amounted to 80„0001. &c. of which there was, how..
ever, no pronf--but the rest o( the case Was clearly
proved, namely, that the Defendant ordered the
work.; that the Plaintiff,- by means of his son and
workmen, perforMed it; tiLit the Bill was made out
making Mr. Columbine debtor, at the request of the
Defendant and Was,direaed to the Defendant himself;
the Plaintiff, until that. moment, nor knowing there
existed such a man as Columbine. The at-
tempt to put off this rerson on.the Plaintiff, for the
Pay-master in this busines, Mt. GARRoSv said,
was a stage trick, which would not tell in a Court
of Justice.
The Plaintiff's Books, which the Defendant had
given him notice to produce, shewed that the De-
fendant had been constantiventered, as the person
for whom the wok was done.; and with which. Mr.
Eisitmv, the Defendant's Counsel, declared he
was satisfied.
- Verdia for the Plaintiff--.—the amount. of his Bill,
'lB7l. 2s.

DECEMBER 2.

SEAI. V. WARD.

Ttus was an Alion to recover in Damages the
value of -the Plaintiff's Vessel, a Fishing Smack,
run 'down and destroyed by the Vessel of the De.
fen-dant, in the River Thames, by Blackwall.
There was no dispute as to the value of the vessel
of the Plaintiff; for it was agreed that the Damages
should be computed out of Court, if the jury should
be of opinion that the Plaintiff was. entitled to a
verdid.

it was a mere question of 'credit between the
Witnesses, the one swearing it was entirely the fault
of those who conduled the Derendant's ship, the
_loss happened,; for that they saw her half a mile off,
and that she was coming before the wind, and had
room enough to pass the Pliiintiff's ship with pe/ired
ease, had they minded their helm as they should do
that they were hailed, aid desired to be carefuls- hut
they came athwart the. Plaintiff's vessel, which, was
only`botween zo and 3o tons, the Defendant's eso---=
sunk her immediately, and the men on board nar_
rowly escaped drowning. They said also, that the
Defender's vessel had her anchor pendent on the
outside of the ship, a thing entirely wrong, and al.
ways reprobated, ;specially in coming up" a, river
so crowded as the River Thames, .and that the more
especially still, when it happened that the anchor
was out of .sight, and ender water,. as it was hete
they said that this anchor struck against the Plain-
tiff's vessel,- and totally destroyed it. _ _ _

On a conversation which the Defendant had with
a Fish Salesman at Billingsgate, respe&ing the value
of the fish on board this. vessel when it was sunk,
the Defendant said, among other things, that he
was glad it was not a passage-boat, for that if there
had been passengers below deck, they must have
Leen drowned, and- he hoped that the Berwick Com-
pany would make up the Piaintiff's loss.
On the part of the Defendant, several persons
who were on board the Dete►►dant's vessel, swore
they thought there was no fault in the management
of her, and that it was a mere accident, in which
those who were on board the Plaintiff's vessel were
to blame; but the Jury gave credit to the Wit-
nesses on the part of the Plaintiff, and therefore
found_ their verdiEl for the Plaintiff.—Damages to
be computed out'of Couri according to agrAment.

SMIIII v. COATE3.

This W4S an Anion to recover the sum of 4914. Bs.
money paid, laid out, and expended by the Plaintiff
for the Defendant's use.

It appeared that the Defendant was a Milliner by
business, and an acquaintance of tie Plaintiff; and
lived with him for about a month at his house at
Uxbridge ; that a house was to let at Uxbridge,
by a person of the name of Wagner. The De-
fendant being desirous of setting up in her business
in that Town, desired the Plaintiff's wife to take it
for or to secure'it for her. frhe only ques-
ti6n in the ause was, Whether the Defendant was
surly of 191. Bs. which the Plain_
bound to re-pay
tiff's wife had p„idizri account of the Defendant,
for the lease,
fixtures,
,(Iro. after the house was