Star.
London, England, 1822-12-10 00:00:00

COLORAVI V. DIOS SANTOS.

The plaintiff, Major Colgrave, .sold a freehold
house in Essex, called Dounsell Hall, to the de-
fendant, who is a Roman Catholic Clergyman, with-
out any reservation or mention of the fixtures. This
action was new brought in trover, to recover the
value of the fixtures, chiefly consisting of stoves,
ranges, and set pots, which it was alleged ought to
have been distinctly valued and paid for.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. STORKS, for the defendant,
contended, that fixtures of this description were a por-
tion of the freehold, and consequently passed with the
premises to which they were attached ; and cited the
case of go Wynne v. Ingleby," 5 Barnewell and Al-
derson, 109, in support of this position.
The LORD Citier JUSTICE intimated an opinion,
that stoves and ranges were not portion of the free-
hold, but that other articles were. The value of the
former being 801. he recommended the Jury to find
a verdict for the plaintiff for that sufn, giving leave
to the defendant to move that a 'nonsuit should be
entered in its room.

The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages SOI.

JOHNSON V. HILL.

This was an action of trover, against. an innkeeper
at Highgate, for converting a horse and cart of the
plaintiff to his own use.
It appeared that the cart was proceeding up High-
gate-hill with a load of pea sticks, when it was
•topped by an informer named Pritchard, on the
ground that the owner's name was not painted in
front, and taken to the defendant's inn. Afterwards
it was shewn that the board, on which the name was
painted, had been left by accident in the wood
whence the sticks were brought; but the defendant
refused to give up the bone and cart, unless 10s.
were paid for the keep of the horse fur the fire days
during which he had remained in his. possession.
The LORD CHIEff JUSTICE informed the Jury, that,
in general, an innkeeper had a right' r- detain the
propPr7 Rf a customer. uatil paid his reasorablo

Jeremiah Rose, the groom who put the horse in
*the tilbury of the plaintiff: he told Sir William that
the horse, which was a little awkward at starting,
had not been in harness for three or four months. He
.always received ;Elections from Lord Newry not to•
warrant a horse, and he declared there was no war-
ranty. This witness, and a postillion of Lord Newry,_
stated, that the horse had been repeatedly driven by his
'Lordship in harness in the country without accident.
The LORD Cutzr JusTlee told tile Jury that there
were two questions for their decision :—first, whether
there was any promise that the horse would go quietly,
in harness? and secondly, whether that promise, if,
made, had been broken ? On the first pc;irtt, he di.:
rected them, that although there was no warranty,
yet if the plaintiff was iuduced to purchase by repre-
sentations and statements, these would constitute a
promise binding in law. No precise words were ne-
cessary to constitute a promise upon which the seller
would be liable. On the second point, he requested -
them to consider whether the trial had been sufficient;
because the question was, not whether the horse would
go quiet in harwess at the time when he was driven
by Lard Newry, but whether he would do so at the
time df the sale? If their opinion on both these
points was in favour of the plaintiff, they would give
him 70 guineas, and the additional sum (respecting
which there was no dispute) fur the care taken of him
in the interval. •
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £lO3. Bs.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 7.
RAvEsscnorr V. A lICIIBOL D.

Mr. Serjeant ONSLOW Stated that this was an action
brought by Mr. Ravenscroit, an eminent dresser of
Barristers' wigs, against Mr. Archbold, a gentleman
of the Bar, for a series of dressings ft* his profes-
sional wig during a course of yea's. Theitiry might
not know that the custom of the Bar was to leave
their wigs in Westminster Hall and Guildhall, and
it was the business of Mr. Itavenscroft, who lived in
Serle-street, to send for these wigs three times a week
and dress them, the rate of payment being about
threepence halfpenny each dressing. The account
was permitted tia run on from 1818 to 1821.

For the defendant it was contended by Mr. Serjeant
TADDY, that the plaintiff had not dressed the wig for
the time specified in his account, the owner having
been abroad during a considerable part of the time
charged for, and also that 3/. 9s. of the account, if
due at all, was due to the assignees of the plaintiff,
who had been a bankrupt in the early part of the
time. The Learned Serjeant denied that the uniform
practice was for a Barrister to have his wig dressed
three times a week; that must depend not only upon
the taste of the owner, but also upon his business;
for the Jury very well knew that many Gentlemen,
particularly in the beginning of their practice, had
not that frequent necessity of using their wigs in
Court which they afterwards. acquired, and therefore
avoided incurring what was to them a useless expense.
Mr Shuter, the solicitor, was called to prove t' e
commission of Isankrui tcy against the plaintiff in
1817 ; but in his cross-examination he paid that at
the time a number of Barristers were indebted to M.
Ravenscroft, who to prevent their being sued, as was
threatened by the assignees, paid the amount himself
rather than risk the.loss of his employers' business.
A hair-dresser also-proved that lie had dressed the
wir a part of the time.
l'he LORD CHIRP JUSTICE expressed his painful •
regret that a Gentleman, known as the defendant
was., should be exposed to such an action as the pre-
mt. The qiury,:however, had but one duty to.dis-
chew, which voids sel abide* by the Zink, of OA
rise. and find 'for the amount.

111