The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-14 00:00:00

El-WOMAN V. SHIRLEY.

This was a special jury c tse. •
Mr. E. James, Q. C., Mr. Boyill, alidn Mr.
Hawkins were for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeaat Shee
and Mr. W. Williams for the defendant.'

The action was brought upon the warranty pf t
horses purchased of tie defendant, as being quiet
in harness and sound, and the declaration alleged
that one of the horses was unsound, and that they
were not quiet in harness. _ _

The plaintiff, it appeared was a patent agent and
civil engineer, and the defendant is a horse dealer
at Twickenham. The hor'ses in question were
purchased by the plaintiff for 110/., and tiny
were warranted: sound and quiet in harness, and
the defendant put them into his phaeton, an was
drivingdownßichmimd-bill, accompanied byhis wife,
his brother, who is in the navy, and a servant, and
while going do:xn the bill one of the horses c•An-
menced kicking, and they both eventually bolted,
ran the carriageinto a ditch and overturned it, and
the wife of the plaintiff received very severe inju-
ries. These facts wer?. proved -...g.0.br as the acci-
dent vu.s concerned, and a untnb3r of veterinary
surgeons w ere t xamincd, whose evidence -*mil, to
show that one of the horses had spavins and was
consequently unsound:
For the defendant several professicinal men were
also examined as witnesses, with a view to show
that the horse in question was sound, and with re-.
gard to the warranty of quietness it was alleged
that the accident had arisen solely through the un-
skilfulness of the driver, and the horses being put
into a vehicle not at all adapted to them. The
phaeton was brought in front of the court to be
examined by the jury, and it was evident to every
one at all acquainted with such a subject, that it
was a most unfit and improper carriage to put such
horses as these, 16 hands high, and full of mett:e,
to work in, it being a light small vehicle intended
for one horse, or a pair of small ponies, and as the
pole was of course much toe short for full sized
horses, the probability was that the carriage had
run upon the horses hocks, going down the hill,
and that was the c ,use of the accident.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages 1001., upon the count as to the unsound-
ness of the horses ; and for the defendant upon the
oount as to the qmetness of one horse, and that the
carriage was not suitable.

Mr. Justice Willes was engaged all day in trying
common jury cause', but none of them possessed
any features of interest to the public.

WESTERN CIRCQIT.--BRISTOL, August 12.

RA.LPII V. LANE.

andand s
rying
awayoh-
____
Mr, Montague Smith, QM, and Mr. Stone,
were for the plaintiff ; Mr. Collier, Q.C., Mr.
Prideaux, and Mr. Edin for the defence.
The charge was
This was an action fur illegal arrest, false it: aa
rpri. -
dis
noi
von
emr
st ehneatr
t,
pai
lcii
idens fto,
of
rrf as
ht
irrsersappmraoi
sspe,esr
ti, in carrying . cangy
laid in-the declaration with the Customary ampli-
fications, and there were a number of very long
pleas, in which the defendant alleged that the
search was made with the plaintiff's leave and
license, and that the articles taken away were not
the property of the plaintiff ; but the two most im-
portant pleas alleged that the defendant had had
reasonable and probable cause for the conrs3 which
he took ; that two of bis apprentices, named Bridges
and Davis, bad at divers timas stolen the goods of
the defendant, and that the plaintiff had feloniously
received the same, well knowing them to have been
stolen.

To prove the case the plaintift and his wife wera
called. They deposed that Bridges first came to
their shop on the 14t Feb., when he sold a small
quantity of old brass, for which they give bird the
full market value. At his second visit lie gave his
name and address, and stated that he was a gasfitter,
and he was then engaged to do a job in the gas fit-
tings. Subsequently he sold au old teapot and
another small lot of metal, the full value of which
were paid to him.
Mr. Collier, in addressing the jury for the d.e-
fenthnt, said the action was a bold one, and the
plaintiff would have acted more prudently if he had
been satisfied with the narrow escape he had before
had, and had not courted the publicity of another
investigation in a eourt of justice. He ha& how-
ever, chosen to bring this action against the defen-
dan'., who was not to he blamed for any disclosures
which might be made. Tho f ict was, Mr. Lane
had been exterisive'y robbed by two of his appren-
tices, the younger one making a confession of his
guilt, and stating that he and Bidges bad repeat-
edly sold the stolen goods to Ralph. Not with
standing the statements of the plaintiff and his
wife, he should be able to prove by the boy Davis,
whom he should call before them, that they had
known Bridges long before February, and that
both Bridges and Davis had ben in the habit of
selling stolen goods to them from the end of last
year. The learned counsel offered some observations
on the loose way in which the plaintiff had
conducted his business, and the encouragement
offered to theft by marine store shops, at which any-
thing offered was bought and no questions naked,
proceeded to refer to the places, contending, that if
he proved that the defendant bad had reason-
able and probable cause for the course which he had
pursued he should entitle himself to a verdict for
the defendant. _ .

The boy Davis was called, and deposed to having
with Bridges stolen from Mr. Lane sundry articles,
such as union-joints, pump boxes, a bar of solder,
brass taps, Sic., which they sold at Ralph's. Sold
some before Christmas, and went to Ralph's many
times. On one occasion Ralph asked Bridges if he
thought it would be safe to clean some of the things
up and put them in the window, and Bridges re-
plied that he did not think it would.
Mr. Lane, the defendant, was called, and de-
posed to having missed property from his place,
part of which he identified as having been found in
Ralph's posse,sion. When Ralph was at the
station-house, Inspector Bell asked him where he
had obtained some gas-fittings which were pro-
duced. He said he had bought them at a fire in
Broad-street. The inspector told him that there
bad been no fire in Broad-street, and he then said
he had purchased them of Bridges. Tho inspector
then said that he had prevaricaiss3, and that he
(defendant) would be justified in giving him into
custody, whichfhe then did.
The police produced various articles which had
been found at Ralph's and detained by order of the
magistra, es, and the defendant identified several of
them as hav ng been stolen from him.
Police-serjeant Newman, police-constable Bullen,
police-constable Masters, and other witnesses, were
called to prove that when at lie station the plain-
tiff varied in his statement as to the persons of
whom he had bought the gas fittings.
Mr. Collier having summed up the evidence
adduced by him, commented on the case, con-
tending that Mr. Lane had only done what was
his bounden duty ; that if the jury conld be per-
suaded to give Mr. Ralph a verdict, it would be
a day of jubilee and rejoicing for the whole class of
marine store dealers and receivers of stolen goods,
but it would also be a disastrous day for every
honest man and for the administration of criminal
justice.
Mr. M. Smith replied on the whole case, inviting
the jury not to join in a tilt against the whole class
of marine store dealers, but to consider its case on
its merits. _

Mr. Justice Coleridge summed up the case at
considerable length, observing that if the jury be-
lieved the statement of Davis there was au end of
the plaintiff's case.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
The Judge—Do you believe, gentlemen, that the
property was stolen from the defendant, and that
the plaintiff received it with a knowledge that it
was stolen
The Foreman—Yes, my lord.

NORTH WALES CIRCUIT.—CHEsTER, AuG.l2.

NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.)
SUTTON V. SADLER AND OTHERS.-THE SPURSTOWE

WILL' CASE.

This action, the trial of which has lasted several
days, was brought to try the validity of a will, and
involves the ownership of property cif—the value of
160/. a year. The case was tried•at• the last Spring
Assizes in Chester, before Mr. - Baron. Bramwell,-
and has been sent down from -the Court of Com-
mon Pleas for a new trial, on account of his lord-
' ship having misdirected the jury.
Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Beavon, and Mr. Coxon
appeared for the plaintiff, Mr, Evans, Q.C., Mr,