The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-17 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 16.

(Guildhall Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DEN-
MA.ZI and a London Common Jury.)
WATTS V. DEVEY.

This was an action brought by a cab-proprietor
against a brassfounder for.damages done to his cab by
defendant's truck. The collision took place on Black-
friars-bridge. The cab was going one way and de-
fendant's truck, loaded heavily with metal and lashed
to a cart, was coming the other. A collision took
place, and the wheels of the cab were carried away.
The defence was that the accident had occurred
from the carelessness of the cab-driver. The evi-
dence, as is usual in all cases of running down, was
very contradictory.
The Jury returned a_yerdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 16/..95. 'The case lasted the whole morning.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 16.
MILLS V. DYER.

This was an action to recover compensation in da•
rnages for injury which the plaintiff's vessel had sus-
tained by a collision with the vessel of the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff's vessel, the Johanna,
was a schooner employed in the coal trade between
the coast of Sunderland and London. On the even-
ing of the 14th of October last, at about half-past
seven o'clock, she was sailing from Walkworth with
a strong gale and a heavy sea. The captain had sent
his crew aloft to reef topsails, having, however,
at the time Lsoried, at the distance of about a mile, a
brig called the Lavinia (the defendant's vessel) coming
in the same direction, and sailing from the same quar-
ter. The Johanna was nearly lying still; the La-
vinia bore down upon her, and a violent collision took
place. The rigging of the Lavinia was in great part
torn away ; and one of her crew was taken with it,
and, by a very strange and fortunate accident, was
landed on board the defendant's vessel, where he es-
caped unhurt. The plaintiff's vessel had sustained
other serious injuries. It was stated in evidence
that her crew, apprehending she was about to sink,
called to the crew of the Lavinia for assistance; but
the latter immediately went on, and in less than a
quarter of an hour disappeared. The Johanna, how-
ever, was afterwards brought safe to port. It was
stated that she had split upon a rock, and was totally
lost on a subsequent voyage.
The case for the plaintiff was that it was the duty
of a vessel under management and in full sail to give
way to a vessel which was lying still. The defend-
ant's vessel was at the time in full sail.
It was contended, on the other side, that it was not
proVed that the plaintiff's vessel was lying still. She
was, on the contrary, making some way ; and, under
those circumstances, it was stated in evidence, that
the rule at sea was that a vessel on the starboard tack
should keep the wind, and a vessel on the larboard
should give way. The "essel of the defendant was
on the starboard on the occasion in question ; and it
was, therefore, submitted that she had a right to steer
a straight course onwards.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a
verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 16.

CHEESE V. REDMAN.

STRANGE CONDUCT OF A WITNESS.

The plaintiff is a pawnbroker and auctioneer, carry-
ing on business at Bow, in Middlesex. The defendant
is a shipowner and merchant engaged in the Turkish
and African trade, and also a dealer in opium.
The action was brought to recover the sum of
10t. 12s. 5d., for a quantity of umbrellas, linen,
drapery, and other goods, which were shipped on board
a vessel belonging to the defendant in the early part
of the year 1840, and alleged to have been so shipped
by the-defendant's order, and at his risk, for the Af-
rican
market. The defence was that the goods were
never ordered by, or had on the credit of, the defend-
ant. The case for the plaintiff was conducted by Mr.
Sergeant Channell and Mr. Butt, and the defence by
Mr. Sergeant Bompas and Mr. Marty n.
Several witnesses were called, who proved the pur-
chase of the goods from the plaintiff, by Captain Her-
bert, of the Gil Bias, in the name of his owners.
Captain Herbert, who was brought up in custody
of one of the turnkeys of Whitecross-street prison,
was called, and swore that he had purchased the
goods in question by order and on behalf of the de-
fendant. In his cross-examination] by Mr. Sergeant
Bompas, a book was handed to the witness, who said
he could not swear that the writing and figures therein
were in his handwriting. He would say upon his
oath that he could not tell whether they were in his
handwriting or not. He had been several years act-
ing as captain in Recltnan's vessels. He also traded
on his own account, until prevented from doing so
by Redman. Could swear positively that he had
never sent palm oil to Messrs. Hutton, with instruc-
tions to them to sell for him, and give the proceeds to
Mr. Cheese, the plaintiff, in liquidation of the latter's
claim upon him.
A letter wash3re handed to the witness, who
swore that he-was unable to say whether it was in
his handwriting. He did not know that he had ever
signed a letter in the name of G. C. Bethell. Would
swear that he never did.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS—Take him away. MY
Lord, we shall prove that he wrote the letter.
The witness instantly dropped down in a fit, and
on being carried into the hail was promptly attended
to by a medical gentleman, when the witness made
so much noise, and worked in such contortions as to
raise the suspicion in very one present that th lit
was not altogether unfeigned.
• - Mr. Sergeant BomPaslhensaid that he should prove
that the pods in question were shipped without the
defendant's knowledge, on the risk arid for the be-
nefit cf Capt. Herbert alone. They were never invoice d
to the defendant, nor were they entered in
the ship's manifest, or passed through the Cus-
tom House in the regular manner, but were mixed
up with the Captain's chests and stores on board the
Gil Bias. As to the palm oil, he could show that

it had been surreptitiously abstracted from Mr. Red-
man's stock, and this action would never have been
brought• but for his endeavours to recover it out of
the hands of the plaintiff. He (Mr. Sergeant Bornpas)
was grieved to be compelled to prove that the witness
had perjured himself, and that he was in the act of
perjuring himself at the moment of the awful visita- I
tion the Jury and crowded Court had witnessed.
Several witnesses having been examined to the effect
of the Learned Sergeant's statement,
Mr. Sergeant CHAISNELL said he could not think of
carrying the case of the, plaintiff any further, and ac-
cordingly a verdict of nonsuit was entered.