The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-16 00:00:00

BLACKBURN 10. LLOYD.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a dissenting minis-
ter, to recover damages from the defendant, an engineer, fur an
assault. The defendant pleaded that at the time of the commission
of the assault complained of the p!aintiff was on his (defendant's)
premises ; that defendant had ordered him to leave ; that plaintiff
had refused ; and that defendant had not used more violence than
was necessary.

Mr. TriII:SWELL stated the case to the Jury, and from his state-
ment it appeared that plaintiff's son had been apprenticed to de.
Fondant; that being ill, the youth had gone home to his father, and
that during the father's absence the boy's friends had sent him a
voyage to Jersey for the benefit of his health, without In-
forming Mr. Lloyd of what they had done. On his return
Mr. Lloyd refused to receive him back. The plaintiff called
frequently at Mr. Lloyd's house, in order to explain to him
the circumstances of the case, without being able to see
him. At length, on the nth November, plaintiff' found defendant
at home, and, atter a short conversation, defendant committed the
assault which was the subject of the present action. An action had
also been brought on the subject of the refusal to take backs the ap_
Prentice, which had been referred to Sir John Bayley.
Mr. Justice WIGIITNILN—As the present action arises out of the
same transaction, had you not better refer this also.
Mr. TilkSIGaR, after consulting with his client, acceded to Ina
Lordship's suggestion, and a verdict for the plaintitt' was taken by
consent, subject to the reference.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 15.
(Sittings at Guildhall )
COOPliit V. LIOLLAII.

This was an action to recover compensotion in damages for
losses sustained by the alleged illegal distress of 133 sheep, the
plaintiffs property, impounded for ten days by the defend-
, ant, for trespassing on his lands, and ten of which bad
died from alleged over-driving. It appeared that the plain-
tiff's and the defendant's premises were adjoining each ether,
and that the sheep had strayed into the defendant's close through
a defect of the dense which bounded the premises. The material
issue in the case was, who was bound to repair that fence. For
the plaintiff, it was contended that the defendant was obliged to do
so ; and for that purpose examined several witnesses to prove con.
Sinuous acts of repairs of the fence dune by the defendant for several
years, and by his predecessors in the occupation of the lands.
The plaintiff also proved the excessive driving of ten of the sheep
which had died. For the defendant it was maintained that he was
not obliged to keep the fence in repair, and that he was justified
in impounding the sheep when found tresspassing on his close.
Lord MUNGER told the Jury that according to the established
law upon the subject where a ditch was on the Outside of a fence,
the presumption of law was, that the ditch and the fence belonged
to the party on whose lands the fence was situate; therefore, if the
defendant had a right to the hedge he wasbound to keep it in repair;
however, if a different usage had taken place, it would be sufficient
to show which of the parties was bound to repair the hedge; the
evidence of usage in this ease was not sufficient for it was not proved
to have existed for twenty years. The evidence only covered a
period at tne utmost of seventeen years, and that was not sufficient
to counteract the presumption of law.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 10/., the
value of the ten sheep which had died front excessive driving; and
upon the Issue as to the liability to repair the fence, they found
verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 15.
(Sittings in London at Nisi Prius.)
MOORE V. WOOD.

This was an action in this case, to recover from a wine merchant
the suns of 611., the amount of two claims—one for a return in
part of the price paid for eighteen dozen of wine, supplied by
the defendant to the plaintiff; the other for the value of the
bottles returned, for which, as agreed at at the purchase, a full al.
lowance was to be made. The case of the plaintiff (a bookseller)
was, that the wines were inferior to the quality which was paid for,
and at which they were warranted; and several witnesses, wine.
dealers and others, gave their opinion to that effect. The
defence was, first, that the wines had been several years
in the plaintiffs cellars, and had deteriorated; and
as to the bottles, that they had not been received back, In support
of the latter, witnesses were called that the signature of the re-
ceipts given for the bottles on their being returned, was in the

name of a person who was never in the eamloyment of the de.
fondant_ The defendant also pleaded a set off of 591., a book ac-
count, and paid 21. into Court.
The Jury found for the defendant on the set-off.
BOTIBEL V. WILSON..
This was an action for false imprisonment. It appeared that the
plaintiff and his brother in March, 1840, took apartments from the
defendant, a grocer, in Old 'Change, for the purpose of carrying on
the business ofplumasiers and artificial florists. In March, 1841, the
defendant distrained for rent due, and again in June following, for a
further arrear. In the first instance, the rent was paid ; in the latter
there was not sufficient property to pay, and the goods distrained
were bought in upon a valuation. In the mean time differences
had arisen between the parties respecting the fastening of
the door, the defendant refusing to give the tenants
a key for the street-door, because he had recently been
robbed to an amount by which he would have been
ruined but for the assistance rendered him by the contri-
butions of his neighbours. At length the plaintiff's brother had
the lock of the hall-door taken off by a locksmith, and carried away
to have a key made. The defendant, on discovering this, called in a
policeman, and gave into custody the plaintiff', whom alone he
found in the apartments. On taking him before the Lord Mayor;
upon a charge of felony, the case was immediately dismissed and for
this the acton was brought. The plaintiff's brother swore that he
himself was a traveller in the employment of his daughters, mut:chat
the plaintiff was an assistant in the business which belonged solely to
the young women. But in his cross-examination, he admitted
that when lie and his brother took the premises from defendant,
the eldest girl was not nineteen, and the youngest not seventeen.
Ile had transferred the business to his daughter because he had
been unfortunate in business, and made a compromise with his
creditors, but could not go into business i n his own name. It was
by him the lock was taken off, and nr.t by plaintief
who knew nothing about it. The whole family, his
son, brother, and his daughters lived on the profits of the business at
his dwelling.house in the City-road. The manufacture was carried.
on in OldtChange.
Witnesses for the defendant swore positively that the apartments. were taken by the plaintiff and his brother in their own natn's ;
cbountctelriant, whenipeolaiindteiffc,alletv.htoo bweapsaidalfwora
thealways tst efnudr innv i s!'
to the
business of the father of the girls,
81:27c0n7.'.'s brother, who
duornso, agtla,iisitistinwthmhoe and 'ravelling for
orders, would refer the creditors to h
said that the business belonged tO his daughter, and
distressg s r eui i
1p ehr
ea t i
svaew. Thete
dt beef e' en
dwaenrte md
plaintiff carrying away the tables and chairs, a discovery which he
did not make until after the whole of what was valuable had been
removed.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that there was no ever for a charge: of, felony, and the Jury n 1: -.oound what-
t find for the plaintiff, in such reasonable damages as s.l..ey might consider ade-
quate under the circumstances of Os., Case.
The Jury, after deliberati.,g about half an hour, found for the
plaintiff, Damages, 40s.

1.42,L1CE INTELLIGENCE.
UNION-HALL.
bult" THR3uun FUiIIOUS RIDING.— A middle.aged gentleman,
named John Foit,,cs, a glove-manufacturer, residing in Tavistoek-
street, or,
cut -garden, was brought before Mr. Trail, charged with
r,•
„frig over and causing the death of Mrs. Gunton, the wife of am
oil and colour-man, residing in Church-street, Mile-end.
154 M stated that be was on duty on Monday near the Victoria
Theatre, and at five minutes past 11 o'clock he saw the prisoner
riding furiously past the Theatre, and saw the horse knock de.
ceased down, the horse partly stopped, but the defendant urged it
on. He Immediately took the lady to Dr. Sewell's, where she
expired.
L said that he stopped the horse in Oakley-street, and limbs_
diately afterwards the defendant and a gentleman came up, Covered
with dirt ; the horse was much injured, and very irritable,
He
took the defendant and the horse to the station-house.
The defendant, who was attended by a solicitor, stated that the
horse was frightened by a boy, just before the fatal accident ; it was
impossible for him to stop it; he was thrown off and very much hurt
himself ; was not aware cf the accident until after he was thrown off
his horse in Oakley-street.

The MAGISTRATE said he should require the defendant to tin
di
sureties of 501. each, and himself in 2001., to appear again on Fr._
day next.

---
DOUBLE SPEECII—WEEL's
AVEHA
TO THE EDl7'Ol OF THE SUN,
pretence of having the averages
Sin,—Sir Robert Peel, untl:„. the
taken more fairly, prop:
~scs to add more country towns to the list at
present contributi:,g, to the averages, the real object of which is to
destroy the uence of London, Liverpool, Birmingham, Glouces-
ter,istol, &c. Just obierve if those five show a return of 50,000
quarters at 606., and the tther towns show the like number at stls.,
the average will be 585., but if other towns be added, making the
same return at 565., the average will be found to be 575. 4d. per
quarter, thus, the only benefit of the addition, will be to swamp the
influence of the large towns, keeping down the averages, and keeping
up the duty. So much for making the addition of inure country
towns, in order to destroy the working upon the averages.
I have no doubt that the addition of the new towns will be equal
to a reduction in the averages of 3s. per quarter, so that Peel might
as well keep to the o'd list of towns, and propose that wheat shall
not be admitted at Is. per quarter duty, until it reaches the average
of 765.

We have all read of " Single-speech Hamilton,'' we may now
point out " Double-speech l'eel ;'' there is more Jesuitism in the
new preposition for taking the averages than in the whole schertie
besides. I am, Sir, yours, Sic.
Ilfracombe, Feb. 14, 1842.

R. W. D.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
PRIVATE BILLS.

1. Resolved--That with respect to all petitions for Private Bills
presented in the present Session which proceed from the same
parties, or some of them, and which are substantially for the same
objects as were sought by any Bills which had passed the second
reading in the last Session of the last Parliament, and wero pending
at the dissolution of that Parliament, a compliance with the requi-
site Standing Orders preparatory to the introduction of such Bills
in that Session, be deemed a sufficient compliance with the Standing
Orders of this 'Luse, so as to authorise the introduction of such
Bills in the present Session, provided it shall be proved that Notices.
of the intended application to introduce such Bills shall have beets
given in the London, Edinburgh, or Dublin Gazette, as the case
may be, and in some newspaper of the county or districts to which
such Bills relate respectively, in the months of October or No-
vember last.

2. Resolved—That with respect to such Petilit ns the Minutes of
the Proceedings of, or the Minutes of Evidence taken by, the Com-
mittee on Petitions for Private Bills in the last Session of the last
Parliament, be taken by the Committee on Petitions for Private
Bills in the present Session, as evidence of the compliance with the
said Standing Orders; but such Committee may call for further
evidence, if in any case they may deem it necessary.
3. Resolved— That the Committee upon any Private Bill do
examioe, in the first place, whether the said Bill be for the same
purpose as any Bill which was presented in the last Session of the
last Parliament, and Contain the same clauses and provisions as
were contained in such former Bill in the last stage of its proceed..
ing, and whereupon any proceedings were pending on the dissolts.
tion of the last Parliament ; and in such case, that all Minutes of
Evidence, together with any documents therein referred to, which
were taken before the former Committee on such Bill be received
in evidence of the allegations therein contained.

4. Resolved—That, to enable the parties promoting any such.
Bill to avail themselves of the last.mentioned resolution, they
hall, after the introduction of such Bill, and previously to the
second reading thereof, give notice, once in the I.olldoh, Edinblisk
or Dublin Gazelle, as the case may be, and eace in some newspaper
usually circulated in the district or districts to which the Bill spe_
daily relates, that it is their intention to proceed with the Bill, and
to avail themselves of the above resolution ; and that the Cont.
tnittee on the Bill do examine how tar such resolution has been
complied with, and do report the same to the House on the report
of the Bill.—(Lord Granville Somerset.)