The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-27 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 25.

BURT V. MASON.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 200 guineas
under the following circumstances.

Mr. Serjeant Bompas and Mr. Currie were for the plaintiff.
Mr. James conducted the defence. _ _ _

It appeared that the plaintiff sent a horse, called the " Gres-
ling " to be sold by the defendant, a horse commission-agent
and a celebrated rider of steeple-chases, and the son-in-law of
Mr. Elmore, the livery •stable keeper in Piccadilly, where the
horse was sent to. On the part of the'plaintiff it was alleged,
that the horse was bona fide sold to the defendant, who on his
part denied that he had purchased the horse, but had sold him
on commission to Lord Edward Russell; but on his transmission
he was claimed by the assignees of a bankrupt. There was
much conflicting testimony on the case;
And the Jury, after half an hour's consideration, found a
verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

APRIL 26.
Wr.ounntisi v. PRIOR.
The final hearing of this case, the facts of which have al-
ready appeared more than once in this paper, being fixed for
this day, did not commence until a late hour, in consequence
a a great number of small motions of practice which occupied
the Court during the early part of the day.
The plaintiff, Mr. *Loughlin, is the publisher of the Morn •
inq Advertiser newspaper; the defendant a gentleman of fortune.
On the road between Epsom and London, the carriage in which
the defendant was, was drawn at rather a furious rate by four post-
horsesduring the time of the races, in 1840, overturned the chaise
of the plaintiff, N ho suffered exceedingly severe injuries from the
collision, and was for months under surgical treatment in con-
sequence. The action was tried in London, in the sittings after
Trinity Term, 1841, when, as will be remembered, the jury
found for the plaintiff, 6001. damages.
A rule nisi was applied fur to set. aside the verdict, on the
ground that the carriage being a post-chaise, drawn by post.,
horses, the hirer was not liable for any damage, but that the
liability was with the owner. On the other hand it was replied
that the defendant having taken upon himself the direction
and control of the vehicle and the postilions, and being
thereby the cause of the injury, took the liability upon himself.
Mr. Sergeant CIIANNELI., in support of the rule, which
was to set aside the verdict and enter a nonsuit, said that it
was not to be denied that the plaintiff had suffered severely,
and that the carriage in which the plaintiff rode was the cause
of the misfortune. Neither could it be denied, on the other
hand, that up to a certain time the defendant and his friends
had done everything that could be expected of them,
and had shown every feeling of regret for the accident.,
and compassion for the sufferer. But circumstances had
since occurred, which made them think that they ought to
depart from the course which they had intended to take, and
to rest upon their nen-liability. Upon this ground alone they
relied, at the trial, and made no attempt whatever to lower the
plaintiff's claim to compensation, or to mitigate his own account
of the injuries he had received. Even though it appeared upon
the cross-examination of one of the witnesses that the perma-
nent lameness which had befallen the plaintiff, and which he at-
tributed to this accident, had probably a different cause, the
cross-examination was not pressed, nor was any at-
tempt made to lower the plaintiff's claim to da-
mages, by bringing out the evidence so as to show that the
lameness had no connexion with the ground of action. The
Learned Sergeant then cited a great number of cases to show
that persons riding in vehicles drawn by post-horses were not
liable for any damage done through the negligence or miscon-
duct of the postilions. If, however, their Lordships were of
opinion that there was any thing in the present case to take the
defendant out of the exemption, and bring him within the
liability, the plaintiff having set forth in his declaration, that
the defendant was driving a carriage which violently
intringed upon and overset the chaise in which the
plaintiff was riding, was bound to prove that the defend-
ant was driving, and that the collision did take place,
as alleged in defendant's plea, through the plaintiff's unskilful
management of the horse which he was driving. It was proved
that the defendant was not driving, the .carriage being drawn
by post-horses, rode by postilions, but his Lordship (the Chief
Justice) told the jury that it was for the Court above to say how
far the defendant's position and conduct (he having been seated
on the box) rendered the term " driving " legally applicable to
his act at the time. The Learned Sergeant then read the evi-
dence of the person (Mr. Mason) who rode in the gig with Mr.
M•Loughlin, who stated that the postilion on the wheel horse
ordered the postilion on the leader to " go in there," meaning
to force his way through a line of carriages on the road
at that part of the line where the plaintiff's gig was. The
leading postilion hesitated, when the other repeated the order,
and said, pointing to the place, "you can go in'there,"whereupon
the leader turned round, rode against the ch.aise, upset it, and
passed through the line. This was clearly the act of the pos-
tilion on the wheel-horse, in which Mr. Pryor had no part.
This witness stated that he followed the carriage and, with
others, stepped it, and reproachfully informed those in it
of the mischief that had been done, and insisted on taking back
the carriage to Sutton. Mr. Pryor expressed sorrow for what
had happened, and offered money, which witness indignantly
refused. Mr. Pryor then gave his card, upon which the wit-
ness allowed him to proceed. Surely that was not sufficient to
throw upon him the responsibility.
The COURT—It appears on the notes that he said he would
be responsible for any damage; and, but for that, the carriage
and horses would have been detained until the owners were dis-
covered. Did he not place himself in all the responsibility of
the owners, whatever that might be?
Mr. Sergeant CISANNELL argued that it was clearly Mr.
Pryor's meaning, in answer to Mr. Mason, that he would point
out the owners, on being applied to, at his chambers. The
Learned Sergeant went through the evidence of all the wit-
nesses of the accident, to show that the defendant had neither
said nor done anything which rendered him liable.
Mr. Justice ERSKINE— His taking out his purse looks very
like it.

Mr. Sergeant CIIA N N ELL thought net. He (Mr. Pryor)
showed, according to the witnesses, great sorrow for the ac-
cident. He spoke in a moment of feeling, and besides to get
rid of the annoyance of being detained ; and he was pressed by
the bystanders, who seemed to take it for granted that all
who were in the carriage were thereby liable for the con-
sequences of the accident. But at a subsequent interview with
Mr. Mason, Mr. Pryor declined to pay the farmer for the
damage done to the chaise until he had " settled with
M'Loughlin," lest the latter should make him liable, which he
was not in law.

Mr. Sergeant CRESSWELL—But: he refused to give the
names, and said he would do what was right. If he relied
that he was not legally liable, why did he go to the expense of
contesting the facts?
Mr. Sergeant CtiANNELL—It is often said, " Never trust to
your law, if you can rely on your facts."—( A laugh.) The
Learned Sergeant argued further, at great. length, to establish
from the facts as above, that the defendant was not originally
liable, and that he had not incurred liability by any of his subse-
quent acts or promhes.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE had given leave to move
for this nonsuit, in order that the opinion of the Court
might be had as to whether an action of trespass for any
injury done by postilions hired from a third person would
lie. It had been held that it would not, because the
owner of the horses who hired the men was alone responsible
for their conduct, as the person using the carriage could know
nothing of the character of the drivers. But the present case
did not come within that rule, as the action was brought
against Mr. Pryor as a co-tresspasser with the postilions, and
the question was whether he assisted in the trespass, which
had undoubtedly been committed. It was impossible not to
see that the jury had reason for coming to the conclusion that
he assisted, at the least. He was on the box, and 'he must
have known that the post. boys were about to break the line.
If he interposed, then he could not have been a co-tresspasser.
But there were admissions of his own afterwards, which proved
that he did know and approve of what the boys were going to
do—that he was a co-tresspasser—and therefore the verdict
ought not to be disturbed.
The other Judges concurred, and the rule was dismissed.

ADMIRALTY COURT, April 25.

THE DIANA.

The Court directed in this case, on motion, that the costs of
an appearance for the owners of the cargo should be paid to
them. The principal cause was decided sometime ago.
THE ELIZABETH.-..WAGES. - .

This was a suit fur the subtraction of 'wages, brought by a
mariner, for 24/. Is.
The Court pronounced in favour of the prayer of the pro-
moter.

TIIE DRUID-COLLISION.-JUDGMENT.

The arguments in this case were heard in the first session of
the present term, when the Learned Judge took time to consi-
der his decision, there being some peculiarities in the facts,
which have been already, however, fully reported—the party pro-
ceeding against the Druid, a steam-tug belonging to a Liverpool
Steam-towing Company, for damage done to a Danish vessel,the
Sophie, belonging to a Dane, named Gustavus. Capt. Newton,
while in comm Ind of the Druid, and, as alleged, to enforce a
payment of five guineas, due from the Danish Captain for
towage, maliciously and wantonly ran into the Sophie, took
her in tow to prevent her proceeding on her homeward voyage,
thus causing much damage and delay. The owners of the
steam tug repudiated the acts of Captain Newton, and pleaded
that, if the Danish Captain sought to recover, he ought to have
une against the Captain, and not against the Company to
which the Druid belonged.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON, after recapitulating the facts, said the
Court was under the necessity of dismissing the owners of the
Dodd from the suit. He (Dr. Lushington) could not, how-
ever, leave this case without expressing his deep regret that,
in British waters, and within British jurisdiction, a foreign
owner should be subject to such injury, loss, and almost total
ruin, without having any redress against the party who had
acted so wantonly and maliciously. If the master go without
punishment, and the owner without redress, it would work a
serious injury to the maritime interests of the country, and prove
discreditable to British hospitality and justice.
THE EARL GREY-SALVAGE.
This ship, on the 19th of November last, got on the Map-
land Sand near high water. The value of the vessel, the
cargo, and freight, was agreed at nearly 3,000/. Eight
smacks, with forty-five hands on board, tendered assistance,
which was accepted, and the ship was got off without damage
in about twenty-fours hours. A tender of had been
made and refused.
After hearing civilians on both sides,
The COURT thought the tender insufficient, especially con-
sidering the season of the year the vessel got on the sand, and
added 1001. more to it, with costs.