The Sun.
London, England, 1821-08-27 00:00:00

SHERWOOD V. COOK.

'This was an action to recover the sum of 3541. being the
amount of the plaintiff's bill for erecting a 'abuse for the de-
fendant. The defendant pleaded n set-off to the amount of 2441.
for medicines supplied to the plaintiff, as an apothecary, from
the year 1811 to 1818. The principal part of the set-oft was for
medicines supplied to the plaintiff's wife and daughter, both of
whom died, and for medicines to the plaintiff's son, and to a
charwoman employed in the service of the plaintiff: This
case excited a goad deal of mirth, upon the investigation of the
defendant's set-off.

It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff and defendant had
been on very good terms of neighbourly friendship. The plain-
tiff was employed by the defendant to build a house‘for him,
and the debt which was the subject of the action was incurred.
When the day of reckoning came, however, the case was alter-
ed, and the defendant insisted upon setting off' a long score for
pills, emulsions, and draughts, against the flaintifi 's bricks,
mortar, and timber • and he accordingly made out a bill to the
amount of 2441. The plaintiff not choosing to yield to the de-
mand, brought his action, and the matter was fairly brought to
issue.

The defendant's late assistant was called to prove the set-
off. Mrs. Sherwood, the plaintiff's wife, was a nervous
patient, but she was not affected by any serious illness
shortly before her death ; and bliss Sherwood was ill for
only eight days before her death. A few medicines had
been delivered to the plaintiff's son, but nothing 'of any great
amount.

On his cross-examination, he admitted he had heard the de-
fendant say, that Mrs. Sherwood was a good patient, for he
could persuade her to take as much medicine as he pleased.
The medicines delivered for the charwoman were privately
marked, with a view that they might be delivered at the plain-
tiff's expence without his knowledge. . The quantities olmedi-
eines sent into the plaintiff's family were immense. The charge,
per diem, in ,some instances, amounted to 11. 16s , and it ap-
peared that in less than two years, 2,000 draughts, 300 mix-
tures, and 250 boxes of pills, had been charged to the plaintiff's
account ! The bottles had been returned to the defendant.

Mr. NiARRYAT, for the plaintiff, insisted that the set-off of
the defendant was made up in fraud and imposition, for the
purpose of cutting down the plaintiff's demand. He had no
objection to allow him a reasonable remuneration for his medi-
cines and trouble, but he trusted to the justice of the jury not
to subject the plaintiff to so severe'a visitation of the doctor as
to make him pay for so enormous a catalogue of boluses,
draughts, and emulsions, more especially as two of the defen-
dant's patients had unhappily died.
Mr. Baron Wow) summed up the case for the jury, and they
found a verdict for the plaintiff for 2541., allowing the defen-
dant's set-off to the .mount of 1001.

DURHAM, TUESDAY, AUG. 21.

TRIESPASS.-.THE BISHOP OF DURIIA.M V. SIR MAT

THEW WHITE RIDLEY, BART.

This case excited extraordinary interest in the

northern counties. The question, it was under-
stood, respected manorial rights. This morning
was fixed for the commencement of the trial, and
eleven special Jurors attended, and were sworn
with one talis. The Court was extremely
crowded.
Messrs. SCARLETT (Attorney-General), RAINE (Solicitor
General), Serjeants HITLLOCK, and PARK, were arrayed for
the Right Reverend Plaintiff; Messrs, BROUGHAM, Losx,
TINDALL, and HOLT, for the Honourable Defendant.

At the time of calling on "the cause there was a suspense of
about half an hour,
.when it was announced that an arrange-
ment had taken place.
Mr. SCARLETT—The"-Bishop of Durham, for whom 1 ap-
peared in this cause,had been always strongly disposed in favour
of what, with the consent of his Honourable and most excellent
Friend Sir Matthew 'White Ridley, was, he was happy to say,
now effected. The principals could always settle matters of this
sort better than their agents, and he was happy to see his friend,
Sir Matthew White Ridley, here, and to find every desire on
his part to enter into the arrangement now agreed upon. Both
parties consented to withdraw a Juror.
Mr.Bnotrn Ham—On the part. of the defendant, Sir Matthew
White Ridley, he entirely agreed in what had now been stated
by his Learned Friend. The only object of his Hon. Friend
had been to prevent particular rights from being encroached on.
He bad had no wish to encroach on the rights of others, and still
less to maintain any invidious claims.
Mr. SCARLETT.—The interests of both parties, and of the
public too, have been consulted and protected.
Mr. Justice HOLBOYD.—From what I have understood of
the arrangement, I think it beneficial to all parties.

GREGSON AND GREGORY V. ROBSON.

Mr. SCARLET T stated, that the plaintiffs were surgeons and
apothecaries in Monk-Wearmouth. A pauper, while employed
in conveying an anchor to a boat, had been thrown into the sea,
and most dangerously bruised and burnt. It had been thought
impossible to save his life, but one of the plaintiffs, who happen-
ed to be passing, gave him surgical attention, and the recovery
of the man formed an extraordinary proof of his humanity and
skill. Though Mr. Gregory was not surgeon for the parish, yet
his attendance in this case was adopted -by the overseer.—
The pauper was, after his recovery, sent to his own
parish, which was in Durham. But he had previously
received relief from the defendant, Overseer of Monk-
Wearmouth, who had also sent to the plaintiffs for their
bill. The bill sent amounted to £27. 17s. 6d. The de-
fence, he understood, would be, that Mr. Gregory was not the
parish doctor. That was admitted. But the parish doctor had
been so far away, that the man's life would have been lost if the
plaintiff had not attended. Lord Ellenborough had held, in
Lamb and Budd, that if the overseer see the surgeon attend-
ing, and does not say that he will not pay, he is liable and
bound to pay. But Robson, the-defendant, had actually sent
in this case for the bill.

Several witnesses were called on the part of the plaintiffs.
John Crowders, a Surgeon, spoke to the reasonableness of
the charges.
By Mr. TINDAT.L.—For operations
..the charges were the
same to a man of fortune and to a pauper. Allowances were
often made, but they rested always in the breasts of the sur-
geons. He heard Gregory state this case to the profession as
important, and ask assistance to conduct it, but he did not suc-
ceed. He heard that Gregory had been parish-doctor three
years ago.
Mr. BROUGHAM now appealed to his Lordship upon the
law in this case. In the case cited by his Learned Friend there
was this trifling difference—that the parish doctor had been the
person who attended. Here anothet person had attended ;in
him it might possibly have been am act of charity, and an act
of moral duty ; and probably he might have looked to Free-
man or to Lumsden for remuneration.

. .
Mr. Justice HOLROYD referred to several cases in which a
moral obligation to pay had been held to arise from the know-
ledge of the overseers. ,
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that as he had no wish to waste the
time of the Court, he would state what he was prepared to prove.
He could prove that flapper was the regular parish doctor,
that Gregory knew this, and that in the case of another pauper,
Gregory, when applied to, referred to flapper as the parish
doctor. From these facts, which could be fully proved, he
submitted that the inference was, that Gregory in this instance
had expected payment elsewhere, and not from the parish.
Mr. Justice llommYD—That would have been a good de-
fence if Mr. Robson had not adopted the attendance of Mr.
Gregory. If there had been no adoption on his part, he would
not be liable. But it was in evidence that he had inquired who
attended; that he had known it was Mr. Gregory—and that he
had desired the bill to be sent to him. This spewed that the
overseer had adopted the act of Mr. Gregory ; and it might be,
too, that he had had conversations with Mr. Gregory on the
subject.—Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 271. 17s. 6d.

By the excellent arrangement of Mr. Justice
BAYLEY respecting the attendance of witnesses
at the York Assizes, at fixed periods, an immense
saving arises to individuals who are so unfortu-
nate as to be involved in lawsuits. Instead of being
quartered in the city for a fortnight, perhaps, a
day or two, at the most, now suffices for their 're-
spective attendance.
ECONOMY.—A gentleman, who had remarked
how magnificently a friend of his lived upon a
small income, observed, that with such slender
means to make such a figure was much to his
credit. " Not only his," replied another," but
to the credit of all his tradesmen."