The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-25 00:00:00

SECOND COURT.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before Mr.
Justice Erle, and a Common Jury.)
HANCOCK V. SO.A.AIES.
Mr. Digby Seymour and Mr. Lloyd were counsel
for the plaintiff; and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr.
Raymond for the defendant.
It appeared that defendant was a gentleman of
fortune residing at Lewisham, and the plaintiff was
his footman. On the 7th of September, after dinner,
at which the plaintiff had waited, he went up stairs
to light the lights in the drawing-room. While
doing so the defendant entered the room and asked
the paintiff where he got his drink from. Plaintiff,
said he did not know what he meant, upon which
the defendant pushed him down. The plaintiff got
up and seized the defendant by the arms, and held
him for some time. The defendant got loose, and
then threw the plaintiff over a chair, and hurt him
YerY much. The plaintiff then ran down stairs ;
defendant followed him, but did not again strike
him. The next morning he showed his arms to the
defendant, who said he was sorry for it. The plain-
tiff then told him he should get a summons against
him, and left the house. The defendant told him he
might do what he pleased. The plaintiff swore he
was not drunk. The plaintiff then obtained a sum-
mons, and the parties went before Mr. Traill, and
after hearing the case the magistrate told the plain-
tiff he had better go to a superior court.
In cross-examination the plaintiff said—Mr.
Traill did not say that I deserved what I got on
account of my conduct—not exactly those words.
He said my violence to my mistress was worse than
my getting drunk. I was out with the carriage that
day on the box. My mistress said, " James, are you
asleep ?" I said I was not. She said, " Then sit up
properly." I said, "I am o'Jlige,d to shake about as
the carriage shakes," and I said, when she was get-
ting out of the carriage, " I beg your pardon Ma'am,
but if you want another servant you had better get
one made for you." I don't consider that imper-
tinence. I was perfectly sober at the time. I waited
at dinner. I did not stumble at dinner, but I had
a bad toe; it just touched a chair, and I flinched a
bit. I had only had two glasses of mild ale during
the day. I felt very ill, and spoke to an attorney,
ind he told me to go to a doctor, This was the day
after going before the magistrate.
Re-examined—l handed some onion sauce to my
master, and he said " D—n that stuff." I had a
character of two and a half years.
Mr. Warren, an attorney, said he attended before
the magistrate with the plaintiff. Evidence was
given.

The Judge said where magistrates had heard the
complaint the Court did not interfere. The certi-
ficate concluded that the magistrate had heard and
determined. It was at the peril of the magistrate
not to do his duty. This Court had no right to
interfere with it.

Witness continued—The magistrate examined
the witness as far as he thought fit, and would not
allow the witness to interfere. The certificate was
not mentioned until after the parties had left the
court, but it was granted immediately after the
parties had left.
The magistrate's certificate being put in,
The learned Judge said he should not admit
further evidence for the plaintiff, but held the cer-
tificate to be a bar to the action, and directed a
verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

;Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—Before Lord

Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)

lITTGUES V. MACNAMARA AN D ANOTh E R ?BIT S

RIVALRY.

The declaration in this case charges that the
plaintiff, being an omnibus proprietor, carrying on
his business upon the road from Islington to
Brompton, the defendants entered into a conspiracy
to annoy him in his business, and to ruin him ; and
that they put omnibuses just before and behind
so as to deter people from entering them, and to
prevent the plaintiff from having a fair use of the
highway ; that they drove and placed their omni-
buses before, upon, and against the plaintiff's
omnibuses and servants in such a manner as to
harass, damage, and injure his servants and omni-
buses, and to prevent the doors being opened ; that
the plaintiff was so obstructed in his business that
he was obliged to abandon it. There was a second
count similar to this, except that no conspiracy
was charged.
The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. J. Brown
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Bal-
lantine, Mr. Hannen, and Mr. Poland for the
defendants.
Mr. Knowles, in opening the case, said that the -
plaintiff sought to recover damages for au injury of
a somewhat peculiar description ; he charged the
defendants with combining betw cen themselves and
with other people to injure him in the exercise of
his lawful trade by resorting to means which he
trusted the law would say were unlawful. It was
an important ease, for though it seemed immediately
to affect the plaintiff only, yet when the case was
proved the jury would see that the conduct of the
defendants went to the root of everything like fair
competition in the line of life in wll4i the plain-
tiff was engaged; and if the defendants and those
who acted with them were to be encouraged and
supported in the line of conduct that they
h
ey Imedfapiurlry-
sned, lie knew not, how any man could
said to be sure of his existence as 6 tradesman. The
plaintiff• had his stable in White Lion-street,
g-
ton, and his omnibuses started from the White
some distance beyond the Peacock, fromwhence Lion
pany's
plaintiff's
omnibuses started.
As
ot the e
thecompany
omnibuses sosoosoonacsboodnye
who was on the watch at the corner appeared,
of White Lion-
street, gave a signal to the company's timekeeper,
who communicated with the omnibuses of the com-
pany, that stood on the other side of High-street,
Islington. The course that followed was that one
of the company's emnibUses got to the . White Lion
before the plaintiff's • omnibus, • which was, conse-
quently, obliged to take the second turn. A
third omnibus- belonging to the company then
came up, so that the plaintiff had an enemy
behind and before. The police regulation was
that a single omnibus was allowed stay five
minutes, but three were not allowed to stay at all.
The police would order the first two on, so that
the plaintiff was deprived of the privilege of stay-
ing any time at all. The company's omnibuses
then "nursed" his along the road. The plaintiff,
in the early part of the affair, wade a profit which
rose in June to £4 a week on each omnibus.. On
the.l4th June twelve of the company's omnibuses •
were directed to run all the way to Brompton,
instead of to Sloane-street. The plaintiff's receipts
declined, and in September they were £27 a week
less than they had been in the middle of June, and
the plaintiff was obliged to give up the business.
Under these circumstances he asked for compensa-
tion in damages. The learned counsel said lie
understood that the defendants had a crowd of
witnesses, and he understood that they were to
•
nOA -c that the plaintiff's four omnibuses actually
"tweed" the company's twenty-four. (A laugh.)
He trusted that neither his lordship nor the jury
would grudge their time and attention now that
meansaonfdgnrialPgpilinsgtrllik'
ith Ne
a bNlionwt,
the system nuisance,prostriatte. trusted
the plaintiff had the
that the verdict of the jury
whichhad l)7
eoau ltrirelaayt-
put• an end to
what he contended was a great monopoly, and
contrary to law.

The -plaintiff's counsel then proceeded to call
evidence ill support of his case, and it was stated
that th' +l-1,-11 tn Inqf :4c-vcrni
tLe
P1t1.4. tli;- v,nrso 11,1\'.vit• a
it ,111.,
!,. be entued for the

01.:11,
•. . •
plaiut iif

51E1111..1 LEONE.—A return has been sent in to
the Helve of Lords of the names of the various pev.i-ns
11 'Ming ollicial appointments in the colony of Sierra Leone,
with their salaries, and the quota thereof ►paid by the Go-
volutlent and by the colny. It fills 21 pages of petty
detail, dov precise object of prin'ing which, at the cost of
tlv natiuu, is not patent,