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

against the evidence. This was a running-down
tt 8 'ltaPpeared that on an evenin in Januar hist
~a named Bradshaw, who was an agg brothers,
to his brothera,
I:resver, was driving the plaintiff in a tax. cart from Lon-
.,ee to
Erna Hatfield, when they came into collision with the
chantsetid omnibus near the Holloway turnpike gate;
lan result was, that the plaintiff was thrown violently
Rut of the cart upon the road, and had his arm broken.
to tl_enlY witness called on the part of the plaintiff to sprak
the u actual collision was the man Bradshaw, who drove
prime!rt in which the plaintiff was riding; and it was
t.teeircvipeaerdiet.on his evidence that the jury relied in giving
He (Mr. Sergeant Wilkins) submitted that
evidence of Bradshaw could not be relied on
uatnuch as he was a strongly interested party he
h: powerful motive to make it appear that ho , was
t
h . right, seeing that if it turned out to be otherwise
I.,Bl3nght be held liable to the plaintiff for the injury be
sustained. And, again, there was a suspicion that
ton.nlan Bradshaw was intoxicated at the time of the
13inn, certain of the witnesses having deposed that ho
th::xcited or confused after the accident; and there was
holact that Bradshaw was a traveller to a brewer, and
city."L"n to London on the day in question in that cape-
paOta the other hand, six witneste4, called on the
rtot
tne defendant, spoke to their belief that the col.
04 i wall caused by the improper driving of Bradshaw.
!, these grounds he (Mr. Sergeant Wilkins) submitted
'Litt there should b trial.
errd CAMPI3ELLsaid at the trial he left to the jury
the ye which ho should leave to them again, if.
boil': diced(' be a new trial, namely, whether they would
told t the plaintiff's or the defendant's witnesses. Ile
tu, jury they %ere nut to number the witne.: es, but
utnVer what credit was due to them. The donee-
' Ilititiodi the witnesses called on the part of the. plaintiff
ae tile" 10 a favourable reception. The witnesses
to e part of the defendant consisted chiefly of parties
, baected, with his omnibus. He (Lord Campbell)
laust
he Was not at all dissatisfied with the verdict.
tl.O „
refused.

tX II
r.--,,`I4IEQUER.--(THIS DAY.)
'49 LORD CHIEF BARON and Barone ALDERSON,
ROLFE, and PLATT.)
• th;. MESSENGER V. CLARK.
'..44114 ea", which was tried at the last sittings at
jury, ail before the Lord Chief Baron and a special
for • 'and which a verdict was found for the plaintiff
144 15
..tr. 1.1
CHAMBERS moved for a rule to show cause
bsdols7ferdict should not be set aside and a new trial
tinest::l the ground of misdirection. The case involved a
ladeon of considerable importance, viz., whether a wife,
tottint"4 separated from her husband with a separate
. ken "lance, had a right to give away or dispose of her
Plsititlas she thought proper. It appeared that the
168, "Pasted from his wife in 1840, and allowed ber
!et, e,,.vreek for her maintenance, out of that sum she
In 04bled to save as much as 100/., which she invested
jh .rer
tee Ilulent stock in her maiden name. Some time
deityYtitr 1840 she became affected with a tumor, and
.dis,Atold that she would possibly not long survive the
keel et' she went, in company with 'her brother, the
oetu:t defendant, to the Bank of England and sold
1,41141',,ek• The amount realised she placed in the
nor d„4,her brother, who was to keep it in the event of
ept,„„ln• Two days afterwards, viz., on the Bth of
fitel,'"wers 1840, she was seized with cholera and sod-
' PtoseezPil•d• Her husband, therefore, instituted the
ositesz suit to recover the amount which was de-
%fed with the defendant; and at the trial the Learned
• diet 7, told the jury that they must find a vcr-
lh The plaintiff. Mr. Chambers now contended
ntot ,4t.direction was wrong, and that his Lordship
• 4, ore have left it to the jury to say, first, whether
lltrimplied authority given by the husband
Wthel°tfe to- deal with the money handed over to her
d
not .% ..`.u2ught proper, and, secondly, whether she had
like -4" 10 give to any one out of her savings a do-
',
1%1114- causa.
1144 garret PLATT—Supposing she bought a watch
fonl it b a resent of t it to . a person, whose property
.
prop,..s 11ABIBER8--The watch would be her husband's
.
' but then he might give her absolute coetrol
9ti.
•
titt ')3aron PLATT—Again, if a wife deposited money
' nattli,:a-7nge bank, would it not be the property of the
I*?
ti liniltslenens—Certainly, but the wife might have
th;P',ied authority to dispose of it as she liked.
'ete4,lresent case the money was given to the de-
..
af47`..411 the shape of a gift, and surely' if a wife out
shy ,BeParate allowance made presents of money or
articles to her friends at different times,
stl• "ntwi could not recover against the persons who
kb, .
'...l4;:cietved the gifts:
,111n'wh-.""wr considered that no reason . had be-n
'h granting it rule. The whole authority given
by the hUsband was that she' should maintain
lien--"„but of.the allowance, and if she saved any money
;4414414.the'property of the husband, and she could not
..tri,,.0.41,'°.ka It either in the shape of gifts or presents of
14,c;f3b.:tefe:suese that formed no part of the authority
4. ttd been givea. to her.
Fused accordingly.
BOCRGEIU V. BRETT.
baill6i ease, whith was on a foreign bill of exchange,
f which e verdict was found- for the plaintiff,
th"Juiv "applied yesterday for a rule to show cause
ki.e;,..6 verdict should not be entered for the defendant
tots,l,llof the plens, on the ground that the bill was
hi:h.4,lltl One 'according to the laws of France, by
id oin.e contended, it ought to be governed, and not the
I,hilo'cbuntry The case was reported at length
Vtlli'3.'" yest-e.rday, when, it will be recollected, the
net4;'-illef Baron intimated the Court would give its
okett this. morning, as any delay might have the
Paralysing negotiations by foreign bills of ex-
iv , t
t.s,llDsitte; accordingly, stated to•day that the
ar unanimously of opinion that there should be
4.1,:!2!:--11-•
u e refined.

COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice Etu.E.)
„ Aft COLE V, .MARSHALL—CRIN. CON.
"Milt ALLEN applied f a rule calling upon
to show cause why the inquisition in this
it„"ln‘ not, be quashed, and a new inquiry had on
,c)( ir,"'„4144 of. misdirection, and the wrongful admission
'• -frop,,, evidence. This was an action brought by
to recover compensation in damages from
ladant for a criinitaat conversation with his wife.
was a carman in the employ of a City
it .""cmger, and the defendant a person living upon
~.4,11s in .Walwortb, where the plaintiff kept a cigar
'1 htie'fr"ich was managed and conducted by his wife, ,a
'424;V:ell:can scarcely, 20 years of age. The defendant
• mtatF Ivs- °Ciegmeliti to go against him by default. and the
W", -.which the plaintiff had sustained by the loos of
eltAlietbe "ere assessed at 2001. by a jury who were
ga erten; before the 'Under-Sheriff of D'ilddlesex under,
tittei,l virtue,' of a writ of inquiry. It was now con-
', quel that these damages were excessive, and would not
awarded by the jury had the Learned Under-
''',ll4l4i'-refused a admit certain irrelevant evidence,4and
qii ;rd. from introducing some improper matters into
',.,!litilt:'s•rge., The 'evidence complain of consisted of
of the plaintiff, to whom
ps?„4 2133. per week, that he bad seen in the news-
'...,:::464,;ttitaa.:llts'heeuretPaloartclet'hbaYt dltheeLapasl:intiff had been summoned
magistrates for refusing to support his wife,
',1141(11b„,-`)Inng her to become chargeable to the parish,
„itlef therefore dismissed him from his service. New
'"._,itiej--..aPPeried, observed the Learned Sergeant. that the
11,1-;41 took place long before any adultery was proved
"Me -4 been committed by the defendant, but inde-
-141,4 utlY of that circumstance the evidence had nothing
t ri,e,`" to-do with the inquiry, since it was not named
.Iteerk-kielred to in ihe declaration and ought not to have
, -,At. um uted.
; 'l,4.4tice EgLE—There are cases, I think, in the
tethZeere.it has been,held that evidence of a master
IFlng hie servant 'through malicious slander,
skihiu4n come to his ears by common report, is not a.l-
all action to recover damages for the slander,
in
the voluniarysact of the master hinsselt.
ted tis Sergeant Auxte believed there were such cases,
Niot," Court would perceive that they were strictly
114'11)111 with the present one.
Justice ERLE—What is the ground of iniscli-
eiap•
,;.‘Sefgetint ALLEN - 'Aid he hod the misfor-
, p;" aPPear at the inquisition for the de-
'. • "Itiasta: 414 he told the,jury that in assessing the
I.4itiirfea they ought to look at the value which the
,Ihdeld-P,PPeared to have set upon his wife. He re-
that he bad turned her oat of doors on a
b","Fht suspicion, and subjected her to be relieved by
• i'''l„,tlilrii,r,b„lnog before the act of adultery proved against
which went to show that he set very little
3!ty •61)01her. The Learned Under-Sheriff told the
ICtleti
6;11a, Ltbis mode of defence was only an aggravation
.1417;4nd in estimating the damages they must
•,000n„3° consideration the address of the defendant's
.which the Learned Sergeant now contended was
44,, Per .direction. The fact that a defendant's
nee,' had drewn an unstable inference from the evi-
ought dot to militate against him in the minds of
t;'i .• Or • - „ , .
nstice EaLx said, as the action was one
,for a
; trespass- might not' he Learned Counsel a
,tivettit6wJtiie Malice of the instructions which had been
Whet' him?' For' instance, •in an action of slander,
he defendant's counsel. urged upon the jury for
tupis7ehce that there was still abundant ground for the
WouiVlLl.offelony which was imputed to the plaintiff,
' ti.,.tetiecit.l6°tlbe right to direct tine jury to consider that
';"ade —"lthce in'ase.ertaining the malice of the defendant
hirs,timating the damages?
m 1 ht be ALLEN said In that case the address
e taken with_ the other evidence as proof of the
tten-iit', but here there was nothing to prove—all was
Ablifjedi and his address could not tend to prove any-
' 6.
brk.‘tA UaticeEßLE—Suppose in your address you had
'l4°ll' that the plaintiff connived at his wife's adultery,
it.htr; be an aggravation of the injury should
m'iteve that there was no foundation for such a
_ .
rad Slrgenni ALLEN wits boned to admit that it
'L*44411,4.85 at the inquiry he almost hinted as much
'Would "441011 was suggested by the Learned Judge he
.. abandon g
',lip. on the point of misdirection.
..Qtiter ERLE--You may take a rule, then, on the
b PPIOL
44111 e • '
,TamiaCcordin
g
•11Q • ,
11 Th. -STREET.--(THIS DAY.)
, ettyer g a man dressed in the garb of a country
.t. `4l4teea was plseed at the bar, before Mr. Henry,
447: with
i the following cruelty to a pony.
Guest het-gardener deposed that in Kingestreet,
, ttiloliTarden, this morning 'hie attention *as drawn to
' hailtatini°lo4Pde,...irsons.who were' surrounding a large. cart
Oat. Th va with vegetables, and only a pony in the
'l4libt of 8 Poor creature was hardly able to bear the
theeks th e shafts, much less* to draw' the cart. The
"wig.thAt the pony could hardly stand, told the