Star.
London, England, 1830-12-02 00:00:00

.

•.;.1
4

1,

r.

;Ic4' c4'

.Y
~,

LAW REPORTS.

ROLLS COURT, DEC. 1.
The Court was occupied this morning in the hearing of pctitioos and
skim causes, none of which involved any principle of public interest.
His Honour left his scat shortly after one o'clock.

VICF.-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DEC. 1.
Several bankrupt petitions were brought before the Court this day,
and disposed of, none of which possessed the least public interest.
MSEDIVILLE V. THOMAS.
At the rising of the Court, Mr. SIVANSTOX moved for a special in.
htnetion to restrain the defendant from receiving, and the Bank of Eng-
land from transferring the sum of 7301. Three per Cent. Consols,
standing there in the name of Alexander de Themines, now de.
teased, on the ground that the defendant, who is the executor of the
will of the last-mentioned gentleman, lives beyond the jurisdiction of
this court, he being a notary residing in Brussels. It appeared that
Alexander de Themines was formerly the Bishop of Blois, who.
during the early part of the French revolution in the last century,
emigrated from France to Savoy. and thence to Spain ; and on the French
entering Span in 1808, came and took refuge in England. He was
also one of the 38 French bishops who addressed an set to Pope Pius VI.
against the concordat concluded between that Pope and Napoleon. He
afterwards visited Brussels, where he'died. leaving a will, by which he
gave several legacies to persons residing in England, among whom is
the plaintiff, liferinville. An application had been made by Mr.
Thomas to the bank of England for the transfer of the above sum,
and this motion was made to restrain the Bank from making this trans-
fer, on the grounds we have rientioned.—lnjunction granted.
COURT OF KINO'S BENCH, Dec. 1.
( London Sittings, before 3lr. Justice LITTLEDALE, and Common
Juries.)
COACH ACCIDENT.—LAIILER v. PAGE.
This was an action brought to recover compensation in damages for
an injury sustained by the plaintiff; through the negligent driving of
the defendant's coachman.
Mr. BUSBY conducted the ease for the plaintiff, and Mr. GURNEY
fur the defendant.
A sailor of the name of Pratt was called for the plaintiff, a dealer in
Dantzie spruce ; and he stated, that he was walking along Bishopsgate-
street one day, in Dec. 1828, between four and five o'clock in the after-
noon ; he saw the detendant'v servant driving furiously out of the Half
Moon-yard, with a coach and three horses ; it was a Clapham stage-
coach ; the plaintiff and his son were driving along at the time, at a mo-
derate pace, in a pony cart, near the mouth of the yard. The defend.
ant's coach was driven against the cart, and the plaintiff was thrown out
and seriously injured. The WHIM, went to him and lifted him up, and
saw that his hands and face were very much cut; the coachman drove
out of the yard et such a furious rate that he could not have pulled in
his horses in time to prevent the accident. He stopped for an instant
after the accident, and asked whether the plaintiff was hurt, and then
drove on at a furious rate towards diaachurch-street.
This evidence was corroborated by the plaintiff's son.
A surgeon was called, to prove gut the injury done to the plaintiff
was very serious. His hands and face were much cut and bruised—the
tendons of the hands were cut to the bone. The witness attended the
plaintiff for two months, and during that time he had not the use of his
right hand ; he saw him lately, and the hand still bore the marks of
the injury, and could never be completely cured; as the plaintiff
was a poor man, he had charged him only thirty shillings for his
attendance.
Mr. BUSBY said that this was the plaintiff's case. The reason
for not bringing the action sooner was, that the most material wit.
ness had gone to India soon after the accident, and had only lately
returned.
The defence set up wee, that the accident was owing entirely to the
negligence of the plaintiff himself.
To make out that we, the coachman (released by the defendant)
was called, and he positively contradicted the evidence for the plaintiff.
He drove out of the yard at a moderate pace, when the plaintiff drove
up at a rapid rate, and ran his cart against the leading horse, and was
thrown out. The horses were old, and could not go at a furious rate;
there was a boy with a truck before him as he drove out of the yard, so
that he could not drive fast.
The boy who had been wheeling the truck, and the ostler of the
Half Moon Inn, corroborated this testimony, and added, that the
plaintiff, at the time when the accident happened, was looking at a
row on the opposite side of the street, instead of attending to his
horse.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE recapitulated the evidence to the Jury,
and observed that it was very contradictory; but it was the province of
the Jury to decide on which side the balance preponderated.
The Jury, after consulting together for about a quarter of an hour,
found their verdict for the defendant.
Several undefended causes were disposed of.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 1.
(Before the CHIEF JUSTICE and a London Jury.)
HARRIS T. SMITE.
The parties in this case are neighoubrs, raiding on the banks of the
Thames. near the Temple Gardens, and occupying two whatts.--
The action, it was stated by Mr. Serjeant WILDE, was brought
to try the right of the defendant to moor his barges be-
fore the plaintiff's premises, in such a way as to occasion
considerable damage to the piles which were plead before the premises
to protect them from the blows given by the barges. In the course of
the cause, however, it was contended by the Counsel for the defendant
(Mr. Serjeant Teddy and Mr. Serjeant Jones,) that he had no right to
moor the barge in front of the plaintiffs wharf. The question which
then remained was, what damage had accrued to a pile before the
plaintiff's wharf by the striking of one of the defendant's barges against
it ? On this point some contradictory evidence was given, but it ap-
peared that the defendant's barge had on several occasions struck against
the pile when it was raised by the tide.
The Jury stopped the Chief Justice as he was summing up, and said
they had made up their minds upon the evidence. They then returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, One Shilling.

MILTON V. ELMORE.
This case, which was brought by the celebrated horse.dealer and
coach proprietor, and late occupier of tie premises in Piccadilly' , now in
the possession of the defendant, was called on at one o'clock • but it
being stated that it would occupy at least six hours, the Chief Justice
ordered it to be put off.
GEORGE T. PAGE.
This was an action brought upon an agreement made between the
parties, wherein the plaintiff, a ship-builder, stipulated to build a large
fishing smack for the sum of 6201. and to have it ready at a stated time.
An old smack, belonging to the defendant, was to be taken in exchange,
at the value of 3001. and the rest of the money was to be paid in instal-
ments. The ship was ready at the appointed time, which was about the
beginning of this year ; the smack was taken in excitange,and some of the
instalments were paid The defendant then wished to have the smack
given up to him, as it would be extremely useful, the fishing season
having come in ; but the plaintiff refused, and the consequence was,
that the remainder of the money. which amounted to one hundred and
eighty pounds, was left unpaid. For the recovery of this the present
action was brought, and the defence set up was, that the ship was
neither finished properly nor sea-worthy. On this point several wit-
nesses were called on the pan of the plaintiff, to show that the mate.
rids with which the ship was built were very good, and that it was per.
fectly sea-worthy as a smack.
On the part of the defendant two witnesses were called, who gave it
es their opinion that the ship was not seaworthy, the sap being left
in some of the planks, and the butts, or ends of the planks, out.
side the vessel, which met together, not being bolted, as was usually
done.
On this evidence being given, Mr. Sergeant WILDE called up the
plaintiff's Attorney, who staed that the first witness for the de-
fendant—a shipwright—had informed him, some time ago, that the
ship was perfectly seaworthy, and that it was finished in a workman-
like way.
Another witness for the plaintiff stated, in reply to the defendant's
evidence, that bolting the butts was not necessary, and was always con-
sidered an extra operation. The ship had lain without any cargo or
without use for a length of time, and that circumstance might have
caused it to have a different appearance to what it would if it had been
either aired or worked, as was usually the case.
Mr. Sergeant ADIDRBWR in replying to this evidence, contended that
a smack that would be obliged to meet all weathers should be built in
the best way possible, and that they must consider, even taking the
plaintiff's attorney's declaration about the defendant's first witness to be
true, that the attorney would ask such questions only as conduced to
strengthen his side of the caw, and would not inquire into minute par.
tieubui.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE, in his reply, said that no complaint had ever
been made of the ship during the time it was being built, and that the
defects mentioned by the defendant's witnesses were only such as might
arise In any ease.
The Jury stopped the Chief Justice In his summing up, and re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, One Hundred and Eighty
Pounds.

PRENOGATIVE COURT, Dsc. 1.
In theabsenee of Sir J. Nicnor.s., Dr. Jexyza presided.
IN TIM CASE OP ALFRED ROMEO ADMAN.

The following are the circumstances of the case :—The deceased, Al.
Fred Romeo Adrian, who held a situation in the Stamp-office, died on
the 20th of September, 1829, as was supposed without leaving hay
will. Letters of administration were granted to his toother,Alary Adrian,
us next of kin. On the 25th September, 1829, in the course of a search
made among the deceased's papers, a entail book was discovered, eon.l
tainining various memorandums respecting his properly, but it was
not supposed to contain any testamentary document. The letters of
administration were issued on the 20th of September last. Subic. 1
quently, on die 19th of October, Mrs. Adrian, in looking over the book
happened to see the words " turn over" written on what appeared to bel
the last page, and examining the book, more closely, she observed a
Ily.leaf attached to the cover by two wafers. The Adminlstratrix's
son, Thomas Adrian, detached the lly.leaf from the cover, and found
upon It a testamentary memorandum, written in pencil. This dom.,'

' mint, which, u well as the words " turn over," was in the hand.'
writing of the deceased, bore the date of the 26th of October, 1826,
and professed to contain a disposition of his property in the event of
testator dying without making a more formal will. It left the property
to the administratrix, constituting her sole executrix.
Dr. DODSON 11011 prayed the Court to revoke the know of adminis-
tration granted on the supposition of an intestacy, and decree probate of
the will to Mrs. Adrian. There were affidavits of the facts of finding
the will,--of the hand-writing ; and the will had been brought into
1. ours. It was not sought by this application to make any alteration in
the disposition of the property : the only change would be in the tide
under which it was to be held.
Prayer granted.