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

DROOMAN V. SHIRLEY.

This was a special jury else.
Mr. E. .Lmes, Q.C., Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr.
Hawkins were for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Shee
and Mr. W. Williams fer the defendant.
The action was brought upon the warranty of two
horses purchased of the 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 Twiekonbam. The horses in question were
purchased by the plaintiff for 1101., and they
were warranted sound and quiet in arness, and
the defendant put them into his phaeton, and was
drivingdownßichm accompanied byhis wife,
his brother, who is in the navy, and a servant, and
while going down the bill one of the horses com-
menced kicking, and. they both eventually bolted,
ran the carriage into a ditch and overturned it, and
the wife of the plaintiff received very severe inju-
ries. These facts were proved so far as the acci-
dent wAs concerned, and a number of veterinary
surgeons were examined, whose evidence Went to
show that one of the horses had spavins and was
consequently unsound.
For-the defendant several professional 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 bo
examined by the jury, and it was evident to every
one at all acquiiuted with such a subject, that it
was a most unfit and improper
elieGgbalidgshthisgnhaa'll vehicle intended
caanrdriagfuelltootpuintesttu:cehi
thnot:,ensrkasint,heits,..b,
and as. the
for full sized
down the hill,
fhpooorlresoenNsve,a
slti
the
efrspec,roolotrrasabe
probability
yiurcwohfa
sst ponies,ointlahlaslthort
the carriage had
The jury retumed a verdict for. the plaintiff,
arundn itlhp'a)tnwtahse
tlhreorenetus'snboncfkt4h,egaocniugid,.nt.
damlgen 100/., upon the count as to the unsound-
ness of the ,horses ; and for the defendant upon the
count as to the qu'etness of one horse, and that the
• carriage was not suitable.

Mr. Justice Willes wasengaged all day in trying
common
ttjuuerayoef lituULtee'r,esbtutto nthoen elm% possessed

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—BRISTOL, August 12.
RALPH V. LANE.
Mr. Montague Smith, .Q.C., and Mr. Stone,
and search-
were fur the plaintiff ; Mr. Collier, Q. C., Mr.
Prideaux, and Mr. Edin for the defence.
This was an action for Mee]. arrest, false impri-
isn%nnitehnet' and carrying away
premises, and
carrying
Givers articles of his property. The charge was
palnadinftofir
,as trespass,
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 conrs-3 which
he took ; that two of his apprentices, named Widges
and Davis, had at divers times stolen the goods of
I.he defendant, and that the plain, iff had feloniously
ed the same, well knowing them to have been

stolen. .
To prove the case the plaintifd and his wife were
called. They .depose 4 that Bridges first came to
their shop on the 14i Feb., when he sold a small
quantity of old brass, for which they give him the
full mat ket value. At his second visit he 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 an 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 de-
fendant, 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
investgation in a eourt of justice. He had, how-
ever, chosen to bring this action against the defen-
dant, who was not to be blamed for any disclosures
which might be made. The fact was, Mr. Lane
had been extensively robbed by two of his appren-
tices, the younger one making a confession of his
guilt, and stating that he and Bridges had repeat.
edly sold the stolen goods t ) Ralph. Not W ith •
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 tj.i.at
boll Bridges and Davis had b, en in the habit of
telling stolen goods to them from the end. of last
year. The learned counsel offered some observations
ou 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 aeked,
proceeded to refer to the places, contending, that if
be proved that the defendant had had reason-
able and probable cause for the course which be had
pursued he should entitle himself to a verdict for
the defendant.
The boy Davis was called, and deposed to having
with Blidges stolen from Mr. Lane sundry articles,
such as union-joints, pump boxes, a bar of solder,
brass tape, &Le, 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 s afe to clew 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 tliein of Bridges. The inspector
then said that he had prevaricated, and that he
(defendant) would be justified in giving him into
custody, whichlhe 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 hay ng been stolen from him.
Police-serjeant Newman, police-constable Bullen,
police-constable Masters, and other witne,ses, were I
called to prove that when at the 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 could 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 joie 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 an 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..--.CIIESTER, AUG. 12.
NISI PRIUS coma,.
(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 then alidity of a will, and
involves the ownership of prperty of the value of
1601. 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. Colon
appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Evans, Q.C., Mr.