The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-25 00:00:00

wa
ems agitinst the evidence. This was a running-down
tate' It aPpPared that on an evening in January last a
1r,.,. a named Bradshaw, who was an agent to his brother,
eiver, was driving the plaintiff in a tax. cart from Lon-
'p to Hatfield
defendant's when they came into collision with the
tad the omn
leadaat's ibus near the Holloway turnpike gate;
result was, that the plaintiff was thrown viob:ntly
,t 1: of the cart upon the road, and had his arm broken.
,e,oaly witness called On the tart of the pl sintiff to speak
ti'leute actual collision was the man Bratlfhew, who drove
which the plaintiff was riding; and it was
tt.l_la,ciPally on his evidence that the jury relied in giving
Pt
lie). ire
.Irret.rdiine t. He (Mr. Sergeant Wilkins) submitted that
is evidence of Bradshaw could not be relied on
,
Navin as he was a strongly int rested party, he '
it, the
a powerful motive to make it appear that ho wasise
he :3 right, seeintr; that if it turned out to be otherwise
theh., might be held liable to the plaintiff for the injury •
sustained, And, again, there was a suspicion that
eoli Jul
certain was intoxicated at the time of the
31°a, oc the ,'t ee • having deposed that he
wa,, e ,41 nss IA .
, excited or confused after the accident; and there was
ileafLact that Bradshaw was a traveller to a brewer, and
city, wen to London on the day in question in that capa-
otca(hiu:fseoendthdbeavratht,ani, six witnesei, called Cu the
la t°l
-e-seregsrhoou:ldds,:he eah(siMelp:oiwrmk.e to their belief that the col-
tpsrreioarpteerandtri
wrinirkiozlfs)Esurabdillsilitaterid%
tiohillitt°trrhciw:all: CAMPBELL said at the trial he left to the jury.
theca uestion, which he should leave to them again, it
he should be a new trial, namely, whether they wcuid
tare the plaintiff's or the defendant's witnesses. lie
to
_othe jury— they w ere not to number the witnesses, but
° asider what credit was due to them. The derma-
toelle:ttli,lieptaL.hr.et witnesses called on the part of the plaintiff
044,14°4 to a favourable reception. The s..ltuess.es
..ct d . the!:defentlAart consisted chicily of parties
4114% e Kith . bis Qmnibils. IL.. (Lird Campbell)
$ 11.7 he was not at all dissatisfied with the verdict.
the refused.

(30/OEQUE.—(THIS DAY.)
-r° thCe LHoan C RHIEF BARON and Barons ALDERSON,
ROLFE, and PLATT )
Ia tif 111ES:3ENGER V. CLARK.
Guilds le eases which was tried at the last rittines at
jury ed before the Lord Chief Baron and a special
14,Li4tild in 5 which a verdict was found for the plaintiff
3"
th Cllstemeas moved for a rule to show cause
had 0 verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
eitiesteinoine,ground of eaidirectior. The ease involved a
who w of considerable importance, z , ale tier a wife,
Illaiete4es separated from her husband with a separate
asvie nee, had a right to give away or dispose of heri
Pleitteci as she thought proper. It appenred. that t
11/4 separated from his wife in 1840, aed allowed her
,a 3 e-,,W,,k11 fur her maintenance, out t f that SUM she
le 0- awed to save as much as 100/., which she invee.t,d
to ererblment stock in her maiden name. Some timcei
Inin:3nar 1840 she became affected with a tumor, en
(140;714'1d that she would possibly not long survive the
Pres, er"he went, in company with her brother, toe
out t't defendant, to the Bank of England and sold
handc stock. The amount realised she placed in the
114 d bar brother, who was to keep it in the event off
f3epteer,set,,h- Two days aferwards, viz., on the Bth c_
dentquer, 1840, she was seized with cholera mud suid-
Pres;',:zPired. Her husband, therefore, instituted
dt
Pfeil.; 'mit to recover the amount which ws
ci
e
,lee" vPith the defendant; and at the trial the Learn
diet^fe t°1(1 the jury that they must find aver
that °,,r the plaintiff. Mr. Chambers now contended
peel :Jst direction was wrong, and that his Lordship
th:iet to have left it to the jury to say, fire, whether
W tlieWle„ an itnplied authority given by the husband
Its e'e to deal with the money Lowder! over to her
Ike thought proper, and, see.,naly, whether she
kafi: right to give to any one oat of her savings a
41 -io-
kr.Thalartis Causa.
111(1
.., AMA PLATT-Supposing, she boeet watch
ittbeY
'toted'l° present of it to a person, whose prone. ty
kr, e
Pre,e itAIIBERS-The watch would Le her husband's
eset it Y' but then he might give her absolute. co. t..0l
•
11.
All a a'arOtl PLATT-Again, if a wife deposited money
4444,t 0 dtige bank, would it not be the property of the
kr, •
,r 1 ith 14A3IDERS -Certainly, but the wife might have
tl• e-13'ied authority to dispose of it as she liked.
ends Present case the money was given to the de-
ef tertlt in the shape of a gift, and surely if a wife out
kaY P iseparate allowance made presents of money or
the he'llsble articles to her friends at different times,
htd;:'}:and could not recover against the persons who
11,7ived the gifts.
COURT considered that no reason had keen
• 4)10 for granting a rule. The whole authority given
el4tteliwif° by the husband was that she should maintain
oat of the allowance, and if she saved any money
diepo;ree the property of the husband, and she could not
41011 cf it either in the shape of gifts or presents of
Winceiirlheettuse that formed no part of the authority
'a ref 4 been to her.
used aceordingly.
/11 th. DOURGEAU V. BRETT.
-.l4,,Pase, which was on a foreign bill of exchange,
4.14 /numb. a verdict was found for the plaintiff,
on Ithyrih'aurr applied yesterday for a rule to show cause
• verdict ehoteld not be entered for the defendant
k"ot -,,"a,1 Of the pleas, on the ground that the bill was
74ist'attid one according to the laws of France, by
i"e contended, it ought to be governed, and not the
1_41?% country. The case was reported at length
'le 1140- ;:)," of yesterday, when, it will be recollected, the
,:elen-r,`"°r Baron intimated the Court would give its
„Teetl-Z, this morning, as any delay might have the
"484 " Paralysing negotiations by foreign bills of ex-
114etr
• ire• 51t
LORDSHIP, accordingly, stated to-clay that the
"'telt -Ite unanimously of opinion that there should be
'-'-Rule refuted.
A
`'LL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice E-ann.)
firCOLE v MARSHALL-CRISI. CON.
pii,...".geaUt ALEN applied for a upon
4'43 seirltdr to show cause why the inquisition in this
410kt-4°4ld not be quashed, and a new inquiry had on
tttid misdirection,- and the wrongful admission
the proper plav evidence.
This was an action brought by
tier Utlff to recover compensation in damages fro_m„
eadant f nee hi.. or a criminal coaversation with is wif,.
% tuna
Itis 441 was a carman in the employ of a City
„. °tiger, and the defendant a person living upon
ettl°Pal est' Walwortb, where the plaintiff kept a cigar
• ;11144 'ZIOI was managed and conducted by his wife, a
,1101v-e-I'man scarcely 20 years of age. The defendant
figment to go against him by default, and the
ult leis which the plaintiff had sustained by the loss of
14r4ftWin't Wtre assesed at 2001. by a jury who were
;tlcl tied before the Under-Sher iff of kiddlesex under,
bodes virtue, of a writ of inquery. It was now con-
' :tst 1,, that there damages were e:soessive, and would not
• eif•lett awarded by the jury had the Learned Under-
need to admity certain iorelevant evidence, and
4111 tiedf
ro 11• • roer atters into
i gem Intro
The d
evidencemucing soe im4steete, complain
p !n
of consisted of
Pti'lDe -ezit made by the master of the plaintiff, to whom
4 ere„"• per week, that he he .d seen in the news-
. *or VePOrt that the plaintiff had been summoned
!141 n-f'llagistrates for refusing, to support his wife,
rq hilet-Itng her to become chargcseble to the parish,
ifffihn luerefore dismissed him f tom his service. Now
t:tei IPened, observed the Lear Sergeant, that the
tt" 81,1: place long before aay adultery was proved
r:Lttl,,-, been committed by the. defendant, but inde-
' "sete-IY or that circumstance th .e evidence had nothing
e"er to do •
efer with the inquiry, since_ it was nut named
Nuareci to in the declaration, and ought not to have
or.
omittd.
etl4tice Eanz-There are cases, I think, in the
tinitehalyrn-ere it has been held that evidence of a master
•4ien tn,g his servant through a malicious slander,
111,1,4silitnu_eonie to his ears by common report, is not ad-
Lses -i'n an action to recover damages for the slander,
ese4 was the voluntary act of the master himself.
41,,Zti1,-reFtant Annette believed, t here were such cases,
11eg,.-,„(Alrt would. perceive th at they were strictly
ees.nrus With the present one.
4titi "Wee Eann-What ts the grcund of miecli-
k"
ten r* See • said be had the misfor-
eLle to geant ALLEN
de-
titlut aPpear at the inquisiton for the
ei'4l) ' end he told the jur y that in assessing the
Lltippes th
c3' oueht to look Ex the value which t e
4e,,PPeared to have set upon his wife. He re©
ter that he had turned her cut of doors on a
tht-!Pittleirs-ht,,sonnsPicifon, and subj acted her to be relieved by
tjdetem..l.,g be. orethe act of adultery proved against
j4tle -.LIT, which went to s how that he set very little
vth °II her• The Learned T.Traler-Sheriff told the
(It at • •
ti In, this mode of defence, was only an aggravation
plltt 4,114rYs and in estimating the damages they must
ikStit: consideration the address of the defendant's
67, ig,r, which the Learned Sergeant now contended was
ettterirec/e ,Per direction. The fact that a defendant's.
ee,:d•et drawn an unstable inference from the en-
' .e.ti -"Mit not to militate against him in the minds of
m4l' t
Dua, tie. Enn id, as the action wag one for a
4141°- trespass,Esamight not the Learned Counsel's ad-
tivea ltilew the
n; malice of the instructions which had been
ere the For instance, in tan action of slander,
-me edit eefeadant's counsel urged upon the jury for
114Pi.":•'"c0 that there still abundant ground for the
cte, was
• it-. 'l4 telony which was imputed to the plaintiff,
41ctieht4nt be right to direct the jury to consider that
leeati,e'ane.,o in ascertaining the malice of the defendant
.the damages?
fir, ?1,-;ragtintiagn
I. ALLEN said in that case the address
kkitee ee te`e4ea with the other evidence as proof of the
hero there was nothing to prove-all was
• est end his address could not tend
Ijood aee
old
.Itl Y behe
thu unn-Suppose in your address you had
" the plaintiff connived at his wife's adultery,
bhrgebe au arava.
veva. that therogg was tnioonfoundation for such la
r•
ot• ild n ergeant ALLEN was bound to admit that it
thelnnd as at th inquiryhe almost hinted as much
'toles which 0
kd an was suggested by the Learned Judge he
r -ander, 0.• " . . • ,; , oth, • eta
-0 point ot misdireet.on.
re, ice Enix-Y y take a rule, then, on the
Ittaeoiet. ou
niSi accordingly.
t 0 ammo
I t. hi ill "Orni n
STR
oh EET,—(THIS DAY.)
't 4
erer g a man dressed in the garb of a country
,ted withae placed at the bar, before Mr. Henry,
~0v4,41.11_. the follovving• cruelty to a pony.
e cring,rn't'garnener deposed that in King-street,
lie4oll of 'ens this morning, his attention was drawn to
oheftlY lea 118 who were surroundirg a large cart
es,,, tin ed with vegetables, and only a posy in the
ttoght of t"he Poor creature was hardly ebbs to boar the
Wal Illaftir! muc leas to draw he cart. The
g wilt the pohny could hardly atand, told the