Star.
London, England, 1823-01-24 00:00:00

SIR THOMAS HORTON V. LORD NEWRY.

This was an action on an alleged warranty of a
horse. The facts of the paselyere shortly these
Thomas Horton wanted, a horse which was quiet in
harness, and inquired of Sir Simeon Stuart, who was
his intimate friend, whether he knew of any one who
had such a horse to dispose of. Sir Simeon said, Lord
Newry had a horse to sell, 'which he, Sir Simeon, had
seen, and had rode him two or three times, but had
never driven him. Lord Newry, kowever, told him,
that he had driven the honer several times with Lady
Newry and the children, in the chaise, and that he
was quiet. Sir Thomas Horton afterwards went to
look at the horse, and bought him without any other
warranty, and the horse proved unquiet in harness.
An action was brought upon the warranty, and the
verdict was-found for the plaintiff.
Mr. SDARLIETT now applied for a new trial, on the
ground-that there had been 'no warranty; here was
only an opinion give; by Lord Newry, to his friend
Sir Simeon Stuart, who bad reported that opinion to
another friend. *fore Lord Newry could be made
liable, it must be shewn, that Sir Simeon was antho-
'rLied by Lord Newsy ter *Cm an agent fcir
Rule to 'shew cause granted.
STAYTE D. LADY CARS.
This was an action against tady. Carr, to recover
a caalpens4icol in damages for an injury which the
plaintiff had sustained; as was alleged, by the careless
driving of the defendant's servant. The verdict was
for the defendant. The cause was tried before the
Lord thief 4ustice at. the Sittings at Westminster,
and it wili'be recollected that the injury of which the
plaintiff complained was, that the defendant's coach-
man had driven against the plaintiff's chaise, in the
Regent's Circus, by which the plaintiff's chaise was
overturned, and the plaintiff and. Mrs. Wayte thrown
out pad severely injured„ and the chaise broken.—
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant, on the
ground that the accident was inevitable, and did
not originate in any negligence or carelessness of the
coachman. _ _

Mr. Guanne now applied for a new trial, on the
ground that: this decision was against the evidence ;
the facts of the case being that Lady Carr's carriage
was coming from Piccadilly toward the Circus—that
is, from West to EAU ;a hackney coach was coming
111 the same direction. 'Mr. Wayte was driving from
the-Haymarbet towards Regent-street ; they had en.
tererl the Circus, and Mr. Wayte supposed be had
time to cross before the hackney-coach would come
up. , Lady Carr's coachman was at this time tassing
the hackney-coach clearly, on his wrong .side,i#inely,,
the near side, and Mr. Wayte, thesefore, tool& mat
see him; and just as.the chaise had passed-rho heat
of the hackney-coach, the pole or-Lady (;arr's' mat
riage, the horses in -whith itiwtoirig At 4 gra,tqCiA
came in. CoAtiAct. W.4h 141{.0itillt-iri: crhaiisept and :awl
esei the mi, schieE This. we*. provad.hy segeral wile 1
and 'Mr. Garner :to* ;contended 'that Lady Ca
,soachman,. by being.on his.wrong sitebadcleai ,
heenqpiiltplof
.this n4IMEtOe iihich (awed the aro
'chianti' ingttleittordlctouglit. to hove been for plaintidle
'.. Thittitht•riltimerer, was unanimously of opinion
It)sax the vefissites *As Tier. • It *as tile duty of chip
Atintiff, actording to the Otahliobed, law- of.drivittoo
ito Wait-Orli the
,haskaercoach had. pasted}" gat
Awn:terse behind It. • It;-was not irnpnvbibithiefittief
Lath Carr's servant,,th Coil ighthave rightly,
live. Aalien
:the mai side ofkbe,hieiteefreps4— Isio,4oobitquagdi
exist that the plaintit had acted indixreetlyin en-
.

-s^-3•JiV'

.hV'

7.