The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-31 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

PLUCKWELL V. SIR T. WILSON, BART.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS stated the case to the Jury,
from which it appeared that the plaintiff is the master of
the parish poor-house at Tottenham, and the defendant,
Sir Thomas Wilson, Bart., is a gentleman residing at
Charlton, in Kent. On the 14th of March last, the
plaintiff, accompanied by his daughter, had been to
Deptford upon some business connected with the parish,
and was returning home along the Kent-road in a horse-
and-chaise, behind Matson's Greenwich coach, when the
stage pulled up to take up a passenger, consequently the
plaintiff pulled his horse round the off-side of the coach, in
order to pass it, at this moment Sir T. Wilson's
carriage passed towards Charlton, and the postillion,
to avoid some gravel on the left side of the road,
drove against Mr. Pluckwell's chaise, which was over-
turned, and Mr. and Miss Pluck well were thrown out, and so
much injured that they were confined to their homes
several weeks under the care of two medical gentlemen,
and the chaise was broken to pieces. The amount of
the injury sustained, doctor's bill, &c., amounted to about
35/., which sum was now sought to he recovered. The
Learned Sergeant said, that the moment after the accident
happened, the ladies who w.-re in Sir T. Wilson's carriage
stopped the postillion, and sent back their card, which
was highly proper ; hut, subsequently, upon application
being roads to Sir T. Wilson, he refused to make any com-
pensation, declaring that the occurrence was owing to
Mr. Po ukwell's neglig ire. He (Mr. Sergeant Andrews)
would, however, show to the contrary, and it would be
for the Jury to decide the question between the parties.
Miss Piuckwell, the daughter of the plaintiff, was exa-
mined, but she merely proved being thrown out of the gig.
Charles Matson, jun. (the proprietor of the Greenwich
coach, behind which Mr. Pluckwell was driving), stated,
that when near the Saxe Coburg public-house, in the
Kent-road, the coach pulled up, and the plaintiff drew
out close to the coach, in order to pass; the gig bad
just passed his leaders, when Sir T. Wilson's car-
tiage was coming down at the rate of about nine miles
an hour, and bore upon the gig, the off-wheel of the car-
riage caught the step of the gig and threw it over. Mr.
Pluckwell and his daughter were thrown out, and were
much hurt. There was plenty of room for the postilroa
to pass ; but he, to avoid some gravel on the side of the
road, drove in upon the chaise and caused the accident.
Cross examined.—Witness was driving at the rate of
six miles an hour.

Benjamin East, the driver of the Greenwich coach gave
milar testimony.

Mr. Colake, a coachmaker, living in the Kent-road,
repaired the plaintiff's gig. His bill came to 4/. 10s.
After the accident happened, he (witness) drove him and
his daughter home in a gig of his own. The plaintiff and
his daughter were very much hurt.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant ScRIYEN__The plain-
tiff was perfectly sober.

Mr. Evans, a medical gentleman, attended the plaintiff
for a fortnight. He was very much contused, and bad a
violent strain of the hack. He also attended his daughter,
whr. was also very much bruised.
This closed the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Sergeant ScRivEN addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, and was calling his witnesses when our reporter
left the Court.

In the case of Thompson v. France, which was not
concluded yesterday when we went to press, the plaintiff
was nonsuited.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

PEMBERTON V. GROOM.
On a former day Mr. Whately obtained a rule nisi,
calling on the defendant to show cause why an award made
by an umpire should not be set aside, on the ground that
he had made Hs award without hearing the evidence in
the cause.

Two gentlemen, not professional, were appointed as ar-
bitrators, with leave to name an umpire. A meeting was
appointed to take place, but the umpire did not attend.
The evidence in the case was gone into ; the plaintiff's
attorney acting as Counsel, and that of the defendant
took a note of the evidence. The arbitrators, in place of
considering the else themselves, at once agreed to leave it
to the umpire, to whom the notes of the evidence were
sent, and be gave an award in favour of the defendant.
The plaintiff now came before the Court to have the
award referred back, the articles of agreement entered
into between the parties having been all ret aside, and the
umpire not having heard the evidence, being unable to
come to a correct conclusion.
The Court, after hearing Mr. JARVIS, jun. against the
rule, and Mr. WHATELY in favour of it, made the rule
absolute.