Star.
London, England, 1828-03-05 00:00:00

LAW .INT.4I,IAerENCE.

COURT Of KING'S BENCll;lllmtcsi 4.
Special Jurles.
►EST V. DAY AND HORN[.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
1,6581. 10s. the balance of the price of 142 bags of hops,
sold, as a factor, by the plaintiff to the dtfendant, in
1825, at seven guineas per cwt. The price of hops de-
clined soon alter the purchase, and the defendants then
complained that the plaintiffhad charged 7s. a hundred
weight..more than he could account for to Mr. Arundell,
.thaselleri. who had boiight them a short time before of
Mr.,Alderman Wood, at .51. 10s. per hundred. How.
ever, the defendants, who had paid 9601. in part of the,
purchase, gave an order for the hops to be delivered to
Mr. Alderman Wood, on that•G'entleman's paying the
rest of the purchase money. 'Mr. Alderman Wood re-
fused to accept the hops on that condition, on account
of the fall that had taken plactia the value of the article,
and the Alderman still holds the.hops on account of
Mr. Arundell.

-
It was now contended that the conduct of the plain-
tiff, in representing to bfr: Arundell that he had sold
for only 71. per hundred was a fraucl,_and that, there-
fare, be was not entitled to recover the value.
It was suggested, but not proved, on the pin of the.
'plaintiff, that there .might have been an internitediitei
poichAser, and that, at all events, the defeadant 'had
admitted the money to be due from-thetd, thbligh the.
plaintir hitble *Oto.'aemitittt T?ither;to
M Th
undell-for e •• '-• .c
Tlx Jetttetutned dle defentliititt.bttt
the Lord.Onief Justice **tie4e.douriakEfortite 1)1.4:
titlesivelo move tVietlisidefthis finding, Old to enter.
a serdsct.foi ifthe'Vourt thvith):4:-Of opi7
nion that he was entitled to it id. Oa of lati:* •

• BRADLEE •. WATERHOUSE AND BRIGGS.
The plaintiff in this Action is a grocer and banker at

i

• .
A shbutptiei ii`-Derbj Wei; 'aid the deferctdie well
known coach proprietors.
A parcel was sent id July, 1826, by the Defiance
coach to the plaintiff, cent .ining rounds of tea and
two hunched sovereigns, wrapped up in a canvas bag.
The parcel steles. arrived at its desonation.and a man
in the strvice of the defendants, nausea. Nlaslin, was
afterwards convicted at Leicester of stealing this pare, I,
and was sentenced to seven sears' transportation for
the offence. This action was now brought to recover
the value of the parcel.
It was admiued that the plaintiff had notice that the
defendants would not be accountable for any parcel
above the value of five pounds, unless insured ;. but it
was contended, on the part of the plaintiff,.that such a
notice could not protect the carrier, unless ordinary cart
was used ; nor from any act of misfeasance or Misma-
nagement., such as had taken place here.
It was proved that Mr. Briggs; one of the defendants,
had said that he would call on. Mr. Bradley, and settle
for the loss, and that he hoped that Mr. Bradley Would
bear part of it, and he would take care that the guards
should be mulcted for their negligence, for they had no
business to leave the coach, as they did at LeiCester,
(where the parcel was stolen), and to leave the potters
to help themselves to any of the parcels that were Ro go
Fby the coach.

On the other hand, it was proved that the defendants
give the plaintiff notice that they would 'net Wee-
'countable for any of his Nis t parcels stolen.

Lord TEN TERDEN left it for the Jury to say, whether
they considered This a case of gross negligence on the
part of the defendants, or whether, they thought that the
plaintiff had contributed to cause the dishonesty of the
defendants' servant, by the careless way in which he had
sent parcels of such a value.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants:..

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. •
REltys4ll4lt—RittiDlNG.
TRIAL 0/ Poacusas.—:George EdMeads, . Samuel
Whitc,George Baker, H. Burnet; Wm. Watter,'Thos.
Field, 'I homes Hunt, and Samuel Cope, were indicted
for maliciously shooting at one James Miniey, in the
Park of G. H. Crutchley, Esq. of Suuning-hill, near
Windsor, on the 6th of January last, 44 with, intent to
do him some grievous bodily harm."
The trial occupied the,greater past of the dal,.but
the particulars have already been fully given in this
Paper. The plachers, finding themserves ‘Oliposfcl,
formed regularly in line, one of them knotkirig avin
'a man named Mancey with the butt•end of the foil,-
ling-piece, and while he was reeling about Eremitic
effect of the blow,another fired at him and shot him-in the
'hip. They then attacked Mr. Crutchley's bailiff; a
man named Glasscock breaking a gun over his•-head,
which was laid completely open, and then. robbing
him of his boots) • handkerchief, &c. They left Shim
almost lifeless on the pound. * Only three • Men
could be identified by Mr. • Crutchley's seriants,
viz. White, Burnett, and Field, and therefore receune
was had to Turner, the accomplice, to identify the
remainining five; but the Jury did not believe Win,
and returned verdicts of Guilty against White, •But-
nett, and Field only.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN immediately passed sentence
of death on the wretched men, hotting out not the
slightefA hope of mercy, and they ate ordered for
CULiOgi on Saturday, fortnight. The miserable convicts
fell on their knees in the dock whilst sentence was
passing upon them, and appeared quite resigned to
their inevitable fate.

• DURHAM. • •
John Carripllell stood indgcred for felOnionsil Ellen' it
and slaying John Thompson, at BishopwearmaiK' in
this county. = :
Kalph
Kirkley deposed, that he is foreman to Nli-srs.
Gates, ship builders, at Bishopwearmouth.; the priieneir
and the deceased were ship carpenters, and were fellow
workmen in the yard. Oa the 15th of o.:tober last they
quarrelled whilst at work, and in the evening the, pri-
soner asked him (witness) what he was to do wsgth
Thompson (meaning the deceased)? sir irness said, let hies
alone, and say no more to him; and he said he would
if he would let him be. After they had done work, the
deceased left the yard first to g 6. home. and in about
five minutes after the prisoner followed. Shortly after
witness heard that they had had a combat, in which
Thompson had fallen. ;.,
:tr .
_ _

Cross-examined by Mr. ARCHBOLD-Campbell u5.u3,117
left the yard first; but on this evening he remained.—
In the afternoon the deceased challenged the prisoner
to fight, but he refused, at least during his masier's
hours. All the other workmen urged him to the combat,.
but he refused; and went to his work immediately. -He
had 'known the prisoner nineteen or twenty.years,. and.
during that time he was always quiet and peaceatslc.;.•. .
/Ralph Haswell—Heard the prisoner say to the del,
teased, ,4 Do you want to fight?" Thompson said AR
did ; the prisoner then told him to prepare, or somb;e*
thing to that effect. The deceased then pulled off lint
things, but Campbell did not ; they then began to fight,
. . •
but he did not go near them.
The JUDGR—If Lam not mistaken' the father of tiatt
• 3
deceased encouraged his son to fight?
Mr. ARCHBOLD—He did, my Lord, I understand,

The witness, in his cross-examination, said, titai the
prisoi:er had to pass Thompson's house ou his way home
Tile pi isoner in his .defence said, that he-did all in
hip power to avoid the deceased, who repeatedly-alai-
lenged Lim to fight during that day ; and, after he had
left woi k, he was going home quietly pastThomPson's
house; he was standing at the door with several others,
and as he passed, the deceased struck him a heavy blow
upon the side of the head—and he then struck again
in "is own defence.

d Many witnesses proved that the prisoner had re-
ceived many insults from the deceased; and that, al-
though irritated• by Lim, he refused to meet him, and
seemed to wish to avoid him. A numbet;of -per.ons
of the highest respectability gave him an unexcep-
tiocable character, as being a quiet inoffensive man,
and a most obedient workman—all of them had known
him upwards of twenty years.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up the evidence to the
Jury, and remai ked, that allowing the deceased had
struck the prisoner, he had acted wrong in returning the
blow : it was his duty to have avoided it, unless his
self-pieservition required him to do so. If they should
be of opinion that toe prisoner, had not done all in his
power to avoid fighting, hemoilld be just as criaiinal,aa
if he had.proposed it.
The Jury consulted for about kve minutes, and then
*renounced the prisiabere.ciiike,,-;,but, strongly recom,
thentliedhisild mercy; tOraccotitiedf his previous ex-
emplary character.
Mr. Justice il4itt4r7-,JOhn Camplt you have been
.
fOind guilty • the:.'Jury could not .pr uce any other
verdict; but.thrreare.circomitonces m your "lisedif•
terent,tA= ciiitiae, and faVottiable. to
,yosi,:ll;tesifilte•rthali not „sentenie.yoiito any imprison,
otirerybu to be discharged upon paying
a ihe of
The fine was instantly paid, and the prisoner was set
at liberty.

Ml

Off'

J, r
r

~t

s
~~ .
I:

I

it

(71

I.

qr.

,i~
I
•

-

~r~

I

.

•.

~-~

1,11