Star.
London, England, 1826-01-25 00:00:00

COOKE V. ;ANVIL

This was an action of treipass, to try the parochial
liabil•ty of the S&ciety of Lincoln's Inn. In last Term,
the case had been part heard upon the question whether
a new trial should be granted? The ground of the
motion was, that Mr. Lane's (the steward) publication
respecting the rights. privileges, and immunities of the
Society had been properly received in evidence.—After
hearing Mr. MEanEwartran and Mr. COLERIDGB in
continuation of the argument,
The Couar thought the book in question had been
improperly received; but under the circum%tancer of
the case, they were of opinion that a new trial ought only
to be granted on payment of costs.—Rule absolute on
payment of costs.

THE THAMES TUNNEL COMPANY.

Mr. C. CRES'sWELL m ored, on behalf of a Member
of the Thames Tunnel Company, for a Rule to skew
cause, why an order, which he had himself obtained, to
stay two several actions brought against him, upon
payment of debt and costs, should not be rescinded, on
the ground that the question of the liability of members
of the Company had been reserved, on a special case in
another action lately tried at Guildhall; but,
Tile COURT said, that after the order had been made
at his own suggestion, thereby confessing his liability,
it was too much to expect that it should be rescinded
on the ground sriggesteJ, and therefore refused the Rule.

CRIMINAL INFORMATI.)N.

Mr. PARICX mowed for a rule calling on a Magistrate•
of the West Riding of Yorkshire, to skew cause why a
criminal information should not be exhibited against
him. Informations were laid before him against two,
persons for sporting without a qualification on his own
land, which was at a considerable distance from his
residence. He summoned them before him, when they
urged, by way of defence, that they were in company
with a qualified person, and reference was made in their
behalf, to a case in which it was decided that persons'
thus beating for game were pro:ected. He, however,
refused to attend to the case, convicted them in penalties,
and committed them for default of payment. As there
was no appeal given, the partici were without remedy,
un es: by the interposition of the Court.
The Count, af er inquiring whether notice of the
motion had been giv n to the Magistrate, and receiving
answer in the affil motive, granted a rule to skew cause.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, -T ANUART 24.
ARNOTT V. REDFERN AND ANOTHER.

The Court this m Pining gave judgment in this code.
The plaintiff bad acted as agent for the defendants, in
Scotland, arid brought his action to redover the balance
of money due to him, in coupe of their' transactions.
The question, however, was, 'whether interest could be
sought on the principal, as the business was sand. to
have taken place In Scotland, the lairs of which Aid not
allow interest? The plaintiff contended that as the
house was an English one, the transaction was therefore
English, and carried interest.
The Coonr were decidedly of opinion that the transaction was
wheily English, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.

SNItTH V. PIGEON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr,
Smith, who is a barrister, residing in Eaton-street, Gros-
venor-place, against the defendant, who is-a hackney-
coach-diver aid proprietor, to recover compensation
for the injury he sustained in cons. qnence of being
thrown out of a cabriolet through the misconduct of the
latter. It appeared, that on the 15th of June, Mr.
Smith was passing along Piccadilly, in a hired cabriolet,
and when in that part of the street which is near the
Circus, he was met by the defendant, driving one of his
own chariots. The cabriolet and the chariot were each
on its proper side of the way at first, but the driver of
the latter (from no other motive, it would seem, than
Ithe spirit of hostility which the backney-coachmm feel
towards the cabriolet drivers), immeJiately inclined his
horses to the opposite side, and thei eby brought the
wheel of his vehicle in contact with that of the cabri.ilet,
by which it Mas lifted up, and the plaintiff thrown
upon his head on the stones. The defendant, although
called after to stop, merely turned his head over his
shoulder and drove on. Mr. Smith was conveyed in a
state of stupor to the house of a surgeon in the neigh-
bout hood, whence he was removed CO his own house,
where it was found necessary to procure the attendance
of another surgeon, and subsequently a physician, from
whose testimony it appeared that Mr. Smith had re-
ceived a severe concussion of the brain, which confined
him for eleven days to his room, and which is likely to
be attended with injurious consequences to his health
for the remainder of his life. In the meantime, a- friend
of his had the defendant taken before the Magistrates
at Bow-street, after which be called on the plaintiff,
declared he had no intention of doing any mischief,
aad expressing a hope that he-might not be prosecuted,
he offered to pay the expenses incidental to the accident.
Mr. Smith, although then in a very precarious state,
accepted his offer, but the defend ant, on being informed
that the expenses amounted to 27/. retracted his offer,
declaring that was too much for him so pay. This
action was therefore instituted. Mr. Smith had paid
151. to the surgeons, and five guineas to the physician.
Mr. Serjeant VAUOMAX having called witnesses who proved the
foregoing facts,

S-erjeani WILDS, for the defendant addressed the Jury in
mitigation of damages.
The Loan Cuter JUSTICE, in summing up, told the
Jury that a clear case of gross misconduct had been
preyed against the defendant, t4o which there was too
much ground for stisptcting that he had been instigated
by the spirit of animosity, which had been alluded to
as subsisting between hackney-coichmen and drivers of
cabriolet,, but which spirit, if indulged in, would s on
be repressed by the law. It was not, however, the
province of this Court to cuntroul that spirit, if it
existed ; that duty more properly belonged to Courts of
criminal jurisdiction. All the Jury had to de here
was, to consider w hat was the amount of compensation
to which the plaintiff was entitled for the very serious
injury he had susta'ned at the hands of the defendant?
With respect w his having accepted the offer of the
defendant' to pay the expeoses to which .he had been
subjected by use accident, th it offer having been re_
tracted by the defendant, the plaintiff was no longe,

bound by his accepithice of it, anstwas our,'► entitled
the same compensation for the Hit, r be had .tist,rined,
in addition tl the expen,ei he had incurred,- as if r-o
such offer had ever been mate.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned is verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 201. and costs.