The Sun.
London, England, 1827-09-17 00:00:00

SUMMER A S SIMS S:

NORTHERN CIRCUIT. —LANCASTER, Sc. IS.
DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF FLUNICEFE.-.4IIICHAWAH,
DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, AND OTHERS, V. LORD GEOLUE

CAVENDISH.
'This was an action of ejectment brought by the
lessors of the plaintiff against the defendant, in
order to deteriltine the title to an astate of large value.
The plaintiffs lu this action were two ladies, whose
names had been first mentioned, who claimed as the
co-heiresses of Sir William Lowther, who died in
17:i5, and the action was brought to recover frona the
defendant possession of certain premises near Ho!kir,
in this county. Sir William Lowther, by his will,
made a short time before his death, devised an estate
in tail-male to his sone Frederick, Charles, and John
Cavendish, charged with the payment of an annuity
to a Mrs. Humble. For the carrying into effect
the purposes of the devisee, the estate was
vested in trustees to the uses of tks devisees for
a term of /cars, with condition that, in case of their
dying, the estate was to go to the right heirs of
the testator. The lad of these devisees 'died in
1803, and consequently the contingency was fulfilled,
and the estate ought to settle to the right heirs of
the testator. The plaintiffs claimed as being such
right heirs. A claim of possession was made in
their name on the 29th of September, 1823, which
was within time, and that demand not having been
complied with, a declaration in ejectment was served
in 1824. The evidence adduced on behalf of the
plaintiffs consisted of a number of documents calcu-
lated to establish their lineal relation to the original
testator, Sir William Lowther.
Mr. Baron HILLOCK was of opinion that the re-
covery was valid, and he should direct the Jury to
find accordingly. He would, at the same time, give
the plaintiff leave to move to set aside the verdict
hereaftc,' if he should think fit.
The Jury accordingly, found for the defendant,
subject to the 07inion of the Courts above.

crrcrilw O. MU.
This was an action bro7sht to recover from the
defendant the value of some bank-notee, promissory-
notes, and other papers container; )13 a pocket-book
alleged by the plaintiff to have been iCet at the de-
fendant's house.—Verdict, Nonstrit.

SrrxxszaziL 14.
CILAUFOILD V. BRETHICRCOI.7

Mr. Sergeant ioNN stated that this action was
brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defend-
ant, a Sheriff's-officer, the cam of 511., which had
been placed in his hands by way of security for a
debt, and which he never returned. In April last,
the plaintiff was arrested for a debt of 501., and kept
in custody for eight days. Severa! tiersons were
proposed by plaintiff as bail, which the defendtlnt
refused; but, at last, the plaintiff named Ivo with
whons the defendant expressed himself satisfiel, and
bail-bonds were prepared accordingly. It was Olen
expected that the plaintiff would have been dis-
charged, as a matter of course; but before he was
liberated, the defendant said—" Oh, stop, I may get
into a mess in case these bail should not justify to
the action, so that to make sure, I shall require a de-
posit of 501." These terms were thought hard, as
they were decidedly illegal, but the plaintiff com-
plied with them, and paid into his bands 511. 198.,
together with five guineas for the expenses of the
house and arrest. When bail above had been per-
fected, the defendant was called upon to refund the
deposit ; and he said he would pay it ovt: to Mr.
Crump, the plaintiff's attorney. It was not, how-
ever, so paid.—Verdict for the plaintiff, damages, 511.

MIACHER V. TAYLOR.
This was an action brought to recover damages of
the defendant, a surgeon, for his unskilful anal negli-
egurtnitretiry lost the useeatmentoft of
the plaintiff's
p aintiff's leg, by which he
Mr. Batouotran stated the case. The plaintiff
was driver of the Association van from London, and
the defendant was a man who practised in the heel-
ing line in the neighbourhood of Manchester, better
known as the " Old-field-lane Doctor." On the
?sth of June, I 525, as the van was proceeding at a
gentle pace down a place called Brink-top, the vehicle
was overturned, though through no fault of the
driver, and the plaintiff had the misfortune to have
his leg, just above the ancle, shattered in a dreadful
manner. Assistance was procured, and it was re-
commended to him to be placed in the Infirmary at
Manchester, but he himself rather chose to confide
his case to Taylor, the present defendant on this re-
cord. A messenger was accordingly despatched to
the defendant, who returned in a very 'short time
with Mr. Taylor, jun., the father not being in the
way. This young man proceeded to examine the
fracture, and then to treat it in the way which led
to this action. He (Mr. B.) did not pretend to any
skill on the subject of surgery, but hoped to be able
to convince even the most unskilful that the defendant
betrayed towards this unfortunate plaintiff, not only
the grossest ignorance of what he had undertaken,
but also the most culpable neglect in his mode of
treatment. The old man was not long in coming to
see his son's work—and what was it, did the Jury
think, he prescribed ? Why, that two bricks should
be applied—one at each side of this already highly-
inflamed limb. His treatment in other respects
was equally mischievous. It would be shown
that he kept the same bandages on, week after
week, bound so tight and hard, that at last they
dropped to pieces in a state of utter rottenness..
It required no surgical skill to see that such neglect
as that must be most injurious. Neither did it re-
quire professional proof to show, that the neglecting a
wound so much that it breeds insects and nauseous
vermin, the creatures of putridity, and which, in
warm weather, will be generated if proper care be
not taken, was unjustifiable and most reprehensible.
lie (Mr. B.) should show that these noxious con-
sequences were produced in great number; that
they overran the bandages ; and that, when the
defendant was informed of the circumstances, and
asked with some alarm, by the patient's friends,
whether he did not mean to remove them, he re-
plied—" Oh, I mean to have them there; they do
good, for they eat away the proud flesh." Whet
other than the most ignorant professed quack could
have made such an observation ? and this was the
ignorance,
flo r
at, o
;el confidedhwol
as
seN
t‘chriaetrheo
or tibghsie lives
obstinacy
an
laceoyklerqs odtereopaile treatment
es e
iv)nyetr
spuuctriol-
e of
sued ; and the consequence was that which has of
necessity followed—a large, not a small pieee„of
the bone of the leg came away altogether.—
The defendant was rather astounded Et this
frightful result of his mismanagement; for it
wouldwha t ebvee r shown, Ovr
and
ds that at this
would be proved that he said—" Oh, now I am
afraid I am short ;" meaning thereby that he
had been mistaken. But though he thus partly
admitted his error, yet was his confidence not the
least shaken ; for it is always the way with 1110
pretenders to go on blundering, until death or a
desperate resolution of shaking them off comes to
relieve the unhappy patient. He was, even aftet
theth e pc
ao
tmi
ei coming-off ff
friendsof the
bbgaoeodni‘ieegw,
iltoehhnadirsdr
vtowee::in, say—" Oh, in a
fortnight he'll be ready for spilking." What spilking
meant, he (Mr. B.) did not know; bat he believed,
that
h at inflicted,
e
bpeofocrtoe:shatcaorpee.ratliton,
time the stench from the unhappy man's limb
:unknown
to offensive
nwe:nhacasopt
uolsds
wound. The very dressers could not stay itt
the room, and
yet the defendant constantly
.It‘)svahsateeissereittestodc sasos'toheffusae lntd be as well asens
possess
vaebredaienrg ratoefehoawrotmpinffrei og,flaicatthnsn:dutthdlihin:le
!he mean time the bandages were never removed for
weeks together, and the fracture Was in a complete
wassmseam,
'tate of putrefaction; what the ultimate conse-
quences would have been,
saying
l t
but
sues a skilful surgeon having been called in, found the
limb of all colours, and that it was very near dropping
( ff
dbitcot, be
Wouldthese
y hoped,
f at
fellows'
trefore, that the Jury, by their
%:esheimpud thereent m ano
once do justice to the public, and
rive adequate compensation to the plaintiff.
After evidence had been adduced in support of
the above facts, the Jury retired for a cc ,4iderable
time, and then found for the plaintiff.-Damages-50/.