The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-14 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

The business in this Court commenced this morning at
the usual hour. As was stated by Sir J. A. Parke, on
Wednesday last, Lord Chief Justice TINDAL (who had
been presiding over the Commission at Bristol), took his
seat on the bench.

GWILT V. CR.AWLEY.
Mr. Serjeant STORKS, on behalf of the defendant, Peter
Crawley, the well-known prize-fighter, and landlord of a
public-house in Duke-street, West Smithfield, moved for
a rule to show cause why a new trial of this action should
not be had. The cause was tried by Sir James Allen
Parke, at the sittings in Westminster, after the last term.
The plaintiff was a poor milkman, of Harrow-road, and
the defendant was returning home in a gig, in compan
with another boxer named Macdonald, from a prize-fight,
when in the Harrow-road Crawley, who had charge of the
horse, drove at a most, furious rate, and the animal be-
coming unmanageable, the plaintiff, who was crossing the
road with his milk-pails, was knocked down, and the
wheel of the chaise passing over his thigh, it was dread-
fully fractured. Several witnesses proved the plaintiff's
case, and no Counsel or witness appearing on behalf

of the defendant, the Jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff—damages 20/. The Learned Serjeant,
in shewing cause for the rule, read an affidavit made by
the defendant's solicitor, wherein he deposed that he was
constantly in attendance in Court, from November the
26th, (when the cause was first placed on the list for
trial) till the 2d of December, when the cause was tried,
and that believing the trial would not then be called on,
his witnesses, who had also been in attendance, had gone
home, and consequently the case went off undefended.
The deponent further stated in his affidavit that he
considered that he hail a good defence to the action,
having so many witnesses to depose to the circum-
stances of the accident.—The Court refused the rule,
inasmuch as the affidavit did not go so far as to prove
that the witnesses had been exatnined before coming into
Court, or that a brief had been prepared and delivered to
Counsel. It would be an act of great injustice to the
plaintiff if the rule was allowed, as in that case a defendant's
solicitor had only to attend in Court whilst the plaintiff's
case was being detailed, and havitir possessed himself of the
farts be had to answer, to prepare his brief, and to instruct
Counsel to apply for a new trial. Such proceeding would
he a gross injustice. In the absence of such proof being
given, the rule must be discharged.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

ALLEN AND ANOTHER. V. GRIPPER.

This action was tried before Lord Lyndhurst at the
sitting after last term at Guildhall. The plaintiffs are
seedsmen at Twickenham, and the defendant a water-
carrier to Hertford.

The plaintiffs sold a quantity of oil-cake to a person
named Pestall at Hertford ; they were sent down the
river on the 13th December, and were put on hoard of a
lighter belonging to the defendant, who carried them to
Hertford, where they arrived on the 17th December, but
were not taken out of the vessel till the 20th. On the

19th of the same month the plaintiffs heard of the 11001.
vency of Pestall, and on the following day they gave
notice to the defendant not to deliver up these
goods to Pestall, but to bold them on their account. The
defendant had put the whole of the goods into his own
warehouse before the arrival of the notice, and then he
said he would not give them up to any one, as Pestall
was indebted to him, and he wished that there had been
double the quantity. At the trial it was proved that
Pestall had used the warehouse of the defendant for many
years, he warehoused his goods there, and ordered them
away WI he wanted them.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant, on the
ground that the goods had passed entirely from the custody
of the plaintiffs, the warehouse of Gripper being their last
destination.

This morning Mr. Serjeant JONES applied for a rule
to chew cause why there should not be a new trial, on the
ground of misdirection by the Learned Judge. The
Learned Serjeant said that the real question in the cave
was whether the goods were still in transitu on the 20th
of December, when the notice was served on the defendant.
He contended that they were, and the transit had not
ceased so long as the goods were in the possession of the
carrier, who had a lieu on them for the carriage.
The Court were of opinion that the direction of Lord
Lyndhurst was a proper one, and that the transit of the
pods had ceased, it being distinctly proved that the ware-
house of Gripper was, and bad been for years, used by
Westall as his own.—Rule refused.