Star.
London, England, 1821-11-13 00:00:00

. _

for the defendant, and the Court now refused to in-
terfere, saying, that as-the purchaser was to buy
" with all defects," he was bound to exercise due cau-
tion in the transaction.

SHEPHERD V. BROGDICH.
This was an inquiry held before the Secondary of
the Sheriff of London, to assess damages for an as-
sault committed on the plaintiff by the defendant.—
The Jury found £BOO damages.
Mr. ScAftLETT now applied to have those damages
reduced, on the ground that they were eicessive ;
that the plaintiff's Counsel had overstated the case,
and that the high colouring of his statement, although
cot borne out by evidence, had misled the Jury.
The Court observed the damages were large, and,
therefore, they would grant a Rule to skew cause.

WILLETT D. HASKETT.
This was an action brought to recover the value of
a horse which belonged to the .plaintiff, and which
was charged to have been killed by the negligent
driving of the defendant. The defendant, who is a
coach proprietor, was driving his carriage through
the town of Litchfield, when he met the plaintiff's
servant, leading a horse that he had been taking to
the farrier's. The plaintiff's horse, being young and
high bred, was alarmed at the rattling caused by the
defendant's approach, and began to plunge violently.
The defendant perceived the restiveness of the ani-
mal, and the inability of the servant to hold him : he
drove, however, straight forward ; and the horse
throwing himself suddenly round, came in contact
with the pole of the coach, which entered his
flank,
and injured him so much as to occasion his death.
The cause was tried before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
at the last Assizes for the County of Stafford. The
Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. TAUNTON now applied that the verdict should
be set aside, and a new trial granted. The Lord
Chief Justice would recollect, that at the time of the
trial he had told the Jury that he thought the defen-
dant ought to have pulled up his carriage, when he
saw the plaintiff's horse approachip,, t and that he
had directed the Jury, if they were of the same opi-
nion, to find a verdict accordingly. Ile (Mr. Taun-
ton) now humbly submitted, that his Lordship's di-
rection had been wrong ; and that such a doctrine, if
adopted, would be attended with great public in-
convenience, from the delay is would occasion to tra-
vellers and casual passengers.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICF..-..." I remember, MT.
Taunton, that I told the Jury that I thought the
coachman ought to have pulled up. I have since
considered the case, and I feel that 1 was wrong. 1
ought to have told the Jury positively that the coach-
man was bound to pull up."
Mr. Justice Ilayr,ey and*Mr. Justice HOLROYD
concurred.—ltule refused.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 12.
SF.VVIZS

This was an insurance cause, which had been tried
before the CHIEF JUSTICE at Guildhall, when the
plaintiff obtained a verdict against the defendant,
who represents the Imperial Insurance Company.—
There had been two actions brought by the plaintiff
against the Imperial Itv.urance Company, and also
two against the Pheenix Insurance Company—all
arising out of the loss sustained by the same fire, and to
be determined by the same evidence. After the plain.
tiff had obtained a verdict against the present defen-
dant, he was allowed to take verdicts in the other
c ruses, without any defence being made.
Serjeant lieta.ocK,on behalf of the present defen-
dant, had since obtained a Rule for the plaintiff to
show cause why the Prothonotary should-not review
his taxation of the bill of costs, for the purpose of
disallowing the costs incurted by the plaintiff's wit-
nesses in making certain experiments to enable them
to form an opinion as to the probable cause of the
fire; and also for the purpose df disallowing the
charge made for the time of the plaintiff's witnesses
while making those experiments, and while attend.
lug to give evidence on the tiled. It appeared in the
course of the pleadings, that the sum insured was
£70,000, and the plaintiff's affiJavit stated, that the
chemical experiments cost upwards of 1.:3,000.
Serjeants LENS, VAUGHAN, and TADDY, shewed
cause against the Rule.
Serjeant LENS said, the main question on the trial
was, What was the cause of the fire ? To answer
this question satisfactorily, several expensive experi.
silents were necessary, as the fi:c, it was supposed on
one side, had al isen from the adoption of a new pro-
tess of refining sugar by means of heated oil, which
the experiments made proved not to have been the
case. It was the first time a question of costs was
made on the nature of the evidence given, whether
facts or °Pinions. He could see no reason why the
costs in this case should not follow the ordinary rule,
and fall on the person losing the cause. With re-
spect to the payment for time, Dr. Thompson, Pro.
fessor of Chemistry in the University of Glasgow, who
was the person for whom that charge was principally
made, was most valuably employed for the cause; as
while he was in London he made the experiments
which had a material effect in deciding the cause.
Serjeant Hut.Loca said it had been decided in the
Court of King's Bench, that loss of time should be
allowed in the case of attornies and surgeons.
Justice PARK said in the case of Moore and Adams,
in the King's Bench,' though witnesses came from
Spain, and their loss of time was immense, yet com-
Fensation was refused.
The Cuter JUSTICE asked the Prothonotary how
much he had allowed for experiments, and how much
for loss of time?
The Prothonotary replied, they were so mixed up
that he could not separate them.
Cuter Justice.—The evidence of scientific persons
le paid for because it is given from knowledge pre-
viously acquired, but they are not to learn science at
the expense of the parties.
• Serjeant VAUCIIA s stated that, in the case of Lopez
so. De Tastet, a Spanish Captain spas allowed glOOO for
his expenses, which must include loss of time. .
CHIRP JUSTICE.—In a late proceeding, of great
public interest, paying a-Captain for the loss of time,
was by some called bribery.
SerjeantVaunnaw argued) against the-rule, that the
case wholly justified making experiments, which was
not done for the purpose of general information, but
solely for the purpose of this cause.
Serjeant TADDT argued on the same side.
Serjeant Hum.ocx, for the Rule, contended that
thes.osts of making experiments, or for loss of time
shoulit not tie allowed. The plaintiffs might as well