The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-17 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCIIEQ,UER.

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons
Martin, Bramwell, and Piggot.)
WINTERBOTHAM V. THE EARL OF DERBY.

Mr. Temple, Q.C. (with him Mr. Russell), moved for a
rule for a new trial in this case, on the ground of misdi-
rection on the part of the learned judge who tried the case,
and stated that the facts were these. The action was tried
at Manchester at the last assizes, before Mr. J ustice Mellor,
and uu that occasion the defendant submitted to a non-
suit ; and he now complained that through the
misdirection of Mr. Justice Mellor the jury was
induced to give compensation in damages to the
plaintiff, and in consequence he now asked for a now trial.
The matter in dispute was a certain right of way through
a place called Preswich in Lancashire, and which belonged
to the Earl of Derby. The plaintiff complained that a per-
son named Staker, who was the agent of the Earl of Derby,
had placed across the road wire fences, which had put him
to inconvenience and expense on that account, and that
the defendant and his agents had no right to put up this
wire fence, inasmuch as the way was a public one. The
learned counsel then reviewed the possession of the estate
from a very early period, and stated that in 1808 it came into
the possession of Lord Derby, and from that time the right
of way had been disputed. The right of user arose in
1780.

The Lord Chief Baron—lf the user of 1780 is right, there
is, undoubtedly, an immemorial right of way ; if it is
wrong, you are doubtless entitled to a new trial.
Mr. Temple—Precisely, that is what I contend, my lord ;
and also that when the question of the lease granted in
1808 came into question the onus of proof was shifted from
the defendant to the plaintiff. He contended, further, that
the user must be subservient to the person bringing the
action. It had just been pointed out to him that in the
leases a specal clause had been inserted, reserving a right
of way to Lord Derby and his successors.
Baron Bramwell—But there is a right of way to Lord
Derby.
Mr. Temple—But it was special to him, and has existed
to him and predecessors from time immemorial.
Baron Bramwell—That would be a question as a matter
of evidence certainly.

Mr: Temple—There was another road kept up for the
public, and this road Lord Derby had a perfect right to
allow his farmers to make use of.
The Lord Chief Baron intimated that tho Court should
grant a rule.
Rule nisi accordingly.
BROOM V. NICHOLSON.

Mr. Brett moved in this case to set aside the verdict,
which was tried before. the Lot d Chief Baron at Guild-
hall, and in which a verdict was given for the plaintiff for
the sum of .£550. The case arose out of the collision of
two steamers, in which the plaintiff's vessel, the Ross D.
Mangles, was sunk, it was alleged, by the negligence of
the parties in command of the other. The plaintiff
sued the defendants for the loss of his personal property ;
the question relating to the recovery of the Yalta) of the
ship not having yet been tried. The two vessels were
steering in opposite dii ectious, and in consequence of the
lights of one of them becoming obscured by the smoke
issuing from the funnel the collision took place, but ❑ot, it
was contended, at all in the way described by the plaintiff.
The Court took time to consider the points involved in
the case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
(Before Mr. Justice
LAYIES Y. FRANKS.

This was an action brought to recover the value of a
horse, which the plaintiff, a surgeon, had purchased of the
defendant for £lO, on the understanding that it was quiet
in harness. The plaintiff, after he had had the horse a
short time felt that it was not such as had been de-
scribed, and communicated the fact to the defendant. The
defendant said the horse was not
properly managed, and
the matter resulted in the plaintiff sending the horse to the
defendant's residence, and leaving it there fastened to the
gates of the house. The horse was taken to the Green-
yard, and from there to Aldridge's, where it realised the
sum of 35 guineas. The matter could not be amicably
settled between the parties, and the present action was the
result.

After hearing evidence the jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages x• 10.

POLICE INTELLIGEME.--This Day.