The Sun.
London, England, 1867-12-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONVON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECE.MBER 13, 1317.

Bitelncas
done.

10? 11
111 i 112

44 3I 41 )

51f
•
115 f 15 j 15
41 7
lla 1:f 15f ;

!MI II 11 12

901 100

t7i S g

BOW-STIR; ET.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn and a Common
Jury.)

COLEMAN V. SCOTT-A NOVEL PLAN FOR AN ORGAN.

This was an action to recover the amount of an
organ which bad been supplied by the plaintiff, who
is an organ maker and player to defendant. The latter
denied that the amount was due, and stated that it
was put up in such in an efficient manner that it was
useless, and that payment had been offered on con-
dition that the instrument was put into a proper
state and made fit to be of any service.
Mr. Philbrick appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
E. L. Smith for the ddendant.

It appeared that last Easter the plaintiff was
employed to construct and erect an organ for a
temporary church in one of the populoni districts
of the Emt-end. The building which was to con-
tain it was built over eo:nc stables, and the organ
was to be in order for performance on the Saturday
►sight before Faster Sunday. The plaintiff
averred that Lc had it perfectly in order
on the Saturday night, although he admitted
that it had no pedals, and seven of the strings
were stopped, but these he said did not in the least
affect the matter, as the instrument was perfectly
fitted for all it was intended for. He had subse-
quently brought an action to recover the money,
and a Mr. Elliott had offered him a cheque if he
would forego the expenses incurred—this he de-
clined to do. Nothing was said about putting the
instrument in condition, he should not wonder at
its being in a bad condition after remaining over
the damp of the stable.
The defence was that the instrument was de-
fective, and that payment had been offered and
refused.

The jury being divided, retired to consider their
verdict.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Days

NOT A BAD JUDGE.—A gentleman, who gave
the name of John Brown, was charged before Mr.
Vaughan with being drunk and incapable.
It appeared from the evidence of Police-constable
F 52 that last night or early this morning a cdb
drove up to Bow-street and put the prisoner down
at the police-station. The cab driver, saying that
he was instructed to drive his fare to Bow-street,
left without giving any further account.
Mr. Vaughan to the prisoner—How came you in
this state ?

Prisoner—l had been out to a dinner, and am
ashamed to say took a little too much to drink.
Mr. Vaughan—Have you any recollection how
you came to be in the cab ?

Prisoner—Yes, sir; 1 got into the cab myself,
and as I wanted to go to my hotel, and not knowing
how, like a drunken man's notion, I thought I could
place faith in the police, and that they would con-
duct me to my hotel; I therefore ordered the cabman
to drive me to the police station, which he did. I
paid the cabman his fare.
The prisoner was then fined ss.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Dec. 12.

SIIERRIFFS' COURT (RED LION-SQUARE). —DEC. 12.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff Burcholl and a Jury.)
DOVIELL T. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.—

OXFORD RACES.

This was an action in the Exchequer, in which judg-
ment was allowed by default, brought by the plaintiff, Mr.
John Doviell, against the company for turning him outof a
carriage at Reading on his return from Oxford at the time
of the races. The damages were laid at £l5O, and a writ
of inquiry was executed to asses the amount of damages
to be awarded.

31,-. Sergeant B,binson (with whom was Mr. MiLeod)
appeared for the plaintiff, whom ho described as a gentle-
man travelling for a City house in the spirit trade. He
wont in August to Oxforl, and at Reading he presented
his return ticket, which was available for four days, and
the stationmaster refit ied to recognise it, as he said it was
out of date, and he was dragged out of the carriage in the
presence of several gen:lemon, and prevented returning to
Paddington. For the misc,nduct he brought an actin
and the company had offered an apology iind £3l com-
pensation, which he (Mr. Sergeaut It )liinon) was willing
to accept, and the jury would be saved a long inquiry.
311. H. Janus, as counsel for the company, desired to say
a few words before the verdict was recorded. A mistake
had been made by the station-master at Beading. It hap-
pened during the Oxford races, for which the return tic-
kets were available for four days ; be had, however, mis-
taken the time, and considered the ticket out of date. He
at once apologised, and the matt,T would have been set-
tled but for the excessive damages demanded by the plain-
tiff.

Mr. Sergeant Robinson accepted this ample apology.
All ho could say was that there had been personal vio-
lence, and the plaintiff was prevented going by the train,
and obliged to go intoßeading for some hours ; and when
the station master found out his mistake he admitted it,
but all the gentlemen who had seen the indignity committed
had gone, and the only course was the action, and an
apology had now been publicly made.
Mr. H. James—You have the apology and £3O besides.

The learned Under Sheriff told the jury that, es the
learned gentlemen had arranged the amouut their simple
duty was to assess the amount agreed upon.
The jury assessed the damages at £3O.