The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-03 00:00:00

WATT V. NICHOLLS.

This was an action to recover the amount of a quantity of
Edinburgh Ale, supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant,
who was a publican carrying on business in Wood-street,
Cheapside. The sum claimed was 631., and of this 42/. had
been paid into Court.
Mr. HUMPHREYS appeared for the plaintiff, and the ATTOR-
NEY-GENERAL and Mr. KELLY for the defendant.

It appeared from the evidence of the several witnesses exa-
mined, that the defendant is in the habit of obtaining his supplies
of \Vines and Spirits from Messrs. Nix and Grinsell. The defen-
dant tasted some ale there, and directed them to send him ten
barrels, and followed this up by further orders. The ale was
supplied by the plaintiff, and when Messrs. Nix and Grinsell
became bankrupts, the plaintiff applied for payment, which
was refused on the ground that the defendant had had no tran-
sactions, or given any orders to the plaintiff, and that he had
paid for the ales which he had ordered on his account, as set-
tled with Messrs. Nix and Grinsell.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said the two questions the jury had
to decide were, first, whether any goods had been supplied to
the defendant by the plaintiff over the amount of 421., the sum
paid into Court; and, secondly, whether, if such was the case,
the defendant had not paid for them, and was responsible.
The jury, after deliberating for a few minutes, returned a
verdict for the defendaut.

This being the last case on the list, the Court rose at twenty
minutes to two o'clock.

EXCHEQUER COURT--(THIS DAY.)

lIENINIINGS V. TROUGHTON.

Mr. ARCHDOLD having opened the pleadings in this case,
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS stated to the jury that the action
was brought to recover compensation in damages for damage
done to the plaintiff's barge, the Southampton, by the steam-
boat the Emerald, belonging to the Gravesend and Milton
Steam-packet Company, of which the defendant was the trea-
surer.

The plaintiff was a brickmaker at Grays in Middlesex, and
the barge in question was coming up with a load of about 60
tons, to deliver in the canal at Hampstead. While off the
Half-way house the Emerald, going to Gravesend, came
up, and they having no look out, came full upon the
barge—struck her right on the head, and made her
leak so much as to endanger the lives of the man,
the woman, and boy who were on board. They got assistance,
and were towed up to town or they must have perished, the
steamer having gone on, and left them to their fate. When
the cargo was delivered the barge, which had undergone a tho.
rough repair only two weeks before, was examined, and notice
given to the Company. No attention was paid to it, or a
second one. The barge was repaired at an expense of 321.
I Is. 3d., fur which sum, with the incidental expenses and the
demurrage of the barge while under repair, the action was
then brought. The defendant had paid a sum of 30/. into
Court, but he (the Learned Seageant) had no doubt the Jury
would do justice to the plaintiff, who might even claim a much
larger sum, for the barge was not then so good as before the
concussion.

He called the Captain of the barge, who fully proved his
case, also the boat-builder who had repaired the barge, who
said it was not worth so much by from 301. to 401. as it was be-
fore the damage, and the plaintiff's foreman who proved that
they would have employed the barge every one of the 22 days
it was at the builder's.

Mr. THESSIGER, for the defendants, said from the nature
of the pleadings he was precluded from saying that there had
been any negligence on the other side. It appeared, how-
ever, that the plaintiff was anxious to swell his amount as
much as possible. After going through the various
items, he said the defendants were extremely desirous on all
occasions to act with liberality ; but that was an attempt, if not
to pick, at all events to take money from the pockets of the
Company. They had paid 301. into Court, because, accord-
ing to the known custom of the River on such occurrences
happening, one-third was always deducted from the charge for
repairs, and that on the ground that new materials were sab-
stituted for old. It might be said that that was not the case
here, because the barge had just been repaired, and the mate.
rials were therefore new ; but he would call a Surveyor at
Lloyds, who would prove the custom of the River to be
that that made no difference ; and also that, in all his expe-
rience, he had never known a charge made for the loss
of service of any vessel while under repair. He trusted that
he had shown that the 30/. would be found to cover, mos.•,, fl
berally, all charges to which the Company were
Isaac Corney, 14 years a surveyor at Lloyd's, said he had
always seen one-third deducted from the Yepairs, and never
heard of any charge being made for detention from work. All
his experience, however, had been in ships, and he knew no-
thing about barges, but he supposed the same rule applied.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS having replied,
Mr. Baron GURNEY summed up. He said if Company's
would come oftener into Court in another way—if, when
their servants had been guilty of such negligence as
they had confessed in that case, they were to come
forward as prosecutors, they would be dragged much more sel-
dom into Court as defendants. He considered the plaintiff
had made out a clear case. His opinion was, that he was
entitled to the whole of his claim.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff, with 58/. 16s. 3d. damages.
Mr. Baron GURNEY said the plaintiff had acted with great
forbearance. If he had made a claim for special damage done
to the barge which could not be repaired, he had no doubt he
would have recovered.

Mr. THESSIGER—Not without deducting the third.
Both the Learned Judge and Mr. Serjeant ArguaEws made a
reply.

-Mr. THESSIGER—Don't let us argue the point now. The
Jury have decided the case. Such remarks are improper, and
out of place—they tend to excite prejudice.
Mr. Baron GURNEY with great warmth—But, Mr. Thes-
siger, IN like to make them, I am not to be—

-Mr. THESSIGER—I do not think it is within your Lordship's
province to make such remarks, after the cause has been settled
by the Jury having returned their verdict.

INSOLVENT COURT-(THIS DAY.)

Thomas Dawson, the elder, a carpenter, lately residing at
Sutton in Surrey, applied upon his petition to be discharged.
He was unopposed.
The insolvent was imprisoned at the suit of his own son.
It appeared that he had borrowed some money of his son's
wife before the marriage ; a quarrel had taken place, and the
son had arrested his father. He had been in prison some time
at his suit. He swore that the arrest was a hostile one.
The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER said he could not be-
lieve it.

The son, who was present, was examined. He said he had
arrested his father, because his wife threatened to leave him if
he did not.

CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Are you speaking the truth?
Son—l am, Sir.

CHIEF COMMISSIONER—You ought to be ashamed of your-
self, if you have any shame in you, to put your father into
prison.

- The Court discharged the insolvent ; and the son was hissed
as he quitted the Court.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(THIS DAY.)

OLD C
A SUMMARY STATEMENT, DESCRIPTR

?0 URT.
E OF Tile VARIOUS OFFENCES WITII
VERALLY STAND CHARGED.
IBreaking into a building: 1
ißeceiving stolen goods
Embezzlement 2
Stealing from the person 2.1
Larcenies
Assault with intent to commit
a:felony
Assau't with intent to prevent
the detention of a felon I
Having Counterfeit Coin in pos-
session I
Uttering Counterfeit Coin ll
Fraud
Conspiracy to defraud 1

Total

171

121

17-172