The Sun.
London, England, 1804-06-01 00:00:00

tinned, then the Stock should be transferred from
hips alone. The jury were to consider whe-
. cher'
.the Plaintiff had that agency, and ". if the
Defendant refused to fulfil that contrati,...the seller
was. holm& '0 wait . till the ultimate period of the
day ; „but Wthe purchaser„ peremptorily refused, then
the ,seller was at liberty to dispose. of his Stock
' when he'liked. In that case, the jury would find a
verdict for the difference between the. original con_
tray made by the Defendant at 7511. and the sum
far which the"-Plaintiff was afterwards obliged to.
sell them for, which was 641. -
Tire Jury found 66z1. los. for .the Vlaintiff.

GEORGE DORRIEN 'V. HUTCHINSON.
This was a similar Adion to the formcr. The
Stock sold was goool.
Verdid for Plaintif, 3311. SS.

BOTT ,V. ELLIOTT, PYBUS AND CO.

The Plaintiff is a Calenderer and Presser, the
Defendants are eminent Brewers. The cart of the
Plaintiff was, at six o'clock in the evening, last
winter, loading at the warehouse of Mr. Dickens,
an Army Clothier, in Streatham-street, Blooms.
bury-square, when the caravan of the Defendants
came by
_loaded with malt. Notwithstanding the
street,Was only 19 feet. to inches broad, and the
tilted—Cart of the'Pl'aintiffstond across it, the cara-
van. proceeded with Opt notice, from which neglea
'the Wheel pressed on the font' of the horse in the
'cart, and completely separated the hoof of the'ard-
mal. 'Consequdrice of this injury he died in a
few days.
• •
Nlessrs, EttstclNE and JEttvls, fur the
produced testimony to these fats.

Mr.:GAR ttow, for the Defendants, said, that it
was not sufficient to chew that the injury to the
horse had been occasioned ; that the pruof in two
particulars more was necessary. First, that the in-
jury had originated, from the caravan of the .De.
Pendants; and next, that it was not the neglefl .of
the Plaintiff's carter, bet the negleCt of the driver
Of the Defendants ; and he rroduceci testimony to
establish that the injury sustained was by a hack—
ney coach which preceded the caravan of the De-
fehdants.

L-)rd ELLENBottouct-i.---" This is an Anion for
damages for the loss of a horse, on the ground of
negligence in the carman of the Defendants. A very
serious complaint may be founded on the careless
manner in which carts are abandoned, and it will
be for you to consider if the cart of the Plaintiff was
so deserted as to exonerate the Defendants from the
consequence of this Prosecution. If you think the
injury was occasioned by the neg,lea of the De-
fendants' servants, then you will have to ascertain
the value of the horse, and give your verdia ac-
cordingly. It seems at least dear, that the age of
the animal was t wenty.one years."
Vetclid fur the Plaintiff, 301.

UOTAINGWANT P2NVYMM.V.

It is to be regretted, that domestic contests
should be introduced into Courts of Justice. The
Defendant had married a daughter of the Plaintiff,
and the question was, whether 561. were a debt, or
whether it was a consideration given for the near
relation sustained by the Defendant ?
Mr. DAMPIER, for the Plaintiff, proved the sum
paid ; and Mr. Ginßs, for the Defendant, endea.
vowed to establish that it was a gift, not a debt.
Verdia for the Defendant.