Star.
London, England, 1827-12-01 00:00:00

7 — ,
,-
! .
1 4',. •
...: -...
by him, and that the horse, if not his, it any rate stood.
its his stable; and it would not reflect to bie'credit to
,--
attempt to set up a defence which mighthave.the effect'
.1 . of noaspiting the plaintiff, who, in addition to thasuf•
ferings he had already endured, would then be thrown
i t into * gaol for the non-payment of costs, which it could
Ii . not be expected he was in a situation to defray. He
e
triosuld,lowever, that such a defence would not be at-.
r tempted. - The Learned Sergeant haeingdaelt for some
• time as the injury sustained, callet witnesses to prove
the facts.' -
.
• fillet isinnpsOn, an appraiser, residing. in Oakley-
street, witnessed the whole of the transaction, and was
! the person who called on the defendant to ascertain it
the horse was his, and from- his conduct he supposed
that it wits. He subsequently attended the Queen-street
police office, and there thedefendent spoke of the horse
• as his property, and described it as a very. vicious ani-
• mal, and one that he could not ride himself. The man's
patties who rode the horse was Cocking, and when he
• ran over the plaintiff, ha was galloping at the rate of
Mom 16 miles an hour: This witness also proved, that
r Wllatohe called do the defendant, at his house in Ken,
.•
I ] singino•lame, be went into his stable and there saw
ICocirsow who was cleaning some harness. He then
said to 'awaking, in the presence of the defendant, that
he had very much coMmitted himself, for it appeared
1 impossiislo that the man could recover. He replied,
0 I did not ride over you, and you have nothing to do
With it,r
In cross•examination be said positively that he bad
never heard the defendant say that the horse was a Mr.
Freshfidd's.
Chitties bustled and 41 named Co;, confirmed
thwatidementof this * ' 117 ho former said that
when any persoos -idial,pthe horse, Cocking
ialechaatbeht. ' " • • •
lidy Sandford, the surgeon, to Anse hotise the plain-
tiff iree tam, stated that. he was insensible for about
ball ai hour, and on exaritioatioithe found that he had
a lacerated wound on the forehead, and that the elev.
trusts of the shoulder was dislocated. These were the
walyteatesions that were at, first visible, but after be
bad been conveyed home, it was found that he had re-
ceived i'verY severe blow in the side, from the effects
of which his life was placed in such jeopardy, that he
(the Witness) conceived it necessary to call in the as-
sistance of an eminent surgdoo, named White. The
. *mown' of his hill, including a guinea paid to Mr.
White, was 61.85. This was paid by Goodman. - •
This was the plaintiff's rise,
Mr. Sergeant TADDY addressed the jar', 'for the de-
• (cadent. He war convinced there could be no person
who had heard this case but must feel extreme regret
at the accident and sofferieg to which the plaintiff had
been sobj vied, but in theadministration 'of justice the
104 billit 'net allow themselves to be Cart ied away by
that. fatthsity of feeliag from What n as the real question
in.the"cause, which was—not what the plaintiff had
. auffesed, but whether the animal which bad caused the
Offing was the propetty of the defendant? The facts
Willa case, as be was instructed, were these:--Cocking
wee a person who obtained occasional employment
froth %resift' persons In the neighbourhOod, and among
others, from the defendant. On the day in question he
disiittdbirn to go to. kereival'Onn with a book. At
. this tithe Mr. Kennell had no horse, but when occasion
• tweaked, he borrowed one. It appears that Cocking,
notfeellnt inclined to walk to Holborn, took the horse
of a Mr. Frostifield, who resides with the defendant,
and proeieded with% and having fulfilled his•errand,
was returning home whet the accident complained of
(wearied, ; That the horse was not -the defendant's
property would be proved in evidence, and the question
• then wnidd fie, twhettiet the circumstance of Cocking's
.... baying 'taken the horse withOdt the order or consent of
' the defendept could render bim liable for any accident
i i
that mieseirise ? The Learned Sergeant hawing made
1 ' 1 •A„ a'few obset,ations on the testimony of the plaintiff's
..w, witisesses, proceeded at once to'prove his case.
VitillialtaCaciciiii stated. thatbe had no regular etn-
. Fll ' eat, but had heck foe:the lint ten months cocci-
, i • Y employed by 'llardelenchints He generally
i 1 . ,
- • ' . anti the horse Whicfslie •tinte on the 'day m
nirt4troti'• il belonged 'to ilk 'resisbge, M. The witness
4-e •". fetli " the • 'lent •• Ili - -' '
~aecitip or aces in a felleates man-
.
irft7gpcintibeen to tottop'..hilivcs Proceed'ing hcinie
I,' ' at itge tort, wheel dog ran ranhisking at the beefs
i' i OrCelsifie, and set him ok .0 • gaVdp, willed tbecorb
aia 'becoming loose he lost aircon Vizi
limpod. Over .
defeittent did not order bin) to ride iiirbinee, but
r.- Fresr Trf 44 'deified:brae iligs tri•eieicise it
when he hiniself &Taal ride. • " ' • •
11r.. Fredirice F•edifield 'kited that, he lived with
y 4 derenaint, and that "the boise la ,question was his
POPI
314 vans, die defeudant's attorney, said,t that when
Ale Piii tirs'aildrrfey Celled On hiin to detireliai to
' ete.ae anderteiting, he (the witness) told bile that he
*as irrant,'—that tire horse did:riot belong to', Mr: lien-
, . . nelL . lie requested
.to A,,,, to Whom it ,did belong?
k% frAttfiri 44' it'that7l*i know ;to *h
caem it be-
tigs4; ' if tad. fie..efoarracit have told.
1 Mr_ Sergeant Hasse replied.
Mr. Justice 'Naas in summing up, observed. that he
i f: necee.reinembered to have beard a case of more gross
un'd, scandalous negligence. Hi cootisfered it perfectly
•
• clear that Corking was for that time the servant of the
• • defendant, aral he thought, under ail the cirnown•tances,
thativhad been proved the horse must also be coati-
! dered as his property for the time. Hawing commented
• il. 1 •on the evidence which had been adduced, his Lordship
l• 1 left it to the Jury twee +whether they did not think
that for the lime Wog -Cocking was the servant. and
[. 4 the horse the propeity, of the defendant? if they did
think chart° be so, the -or ly remaining question would
be the arnoOnt of damages; that was a question pecu-
I,
Dirty for theiscoadderation. He would not recommend
•;, • istflaused deli:Ages, but certainly such as would coin-
, route rho' plaintiff.
• '
' ,i- Si • ThesulThi*ing deliberated for a short time, returned
[i 1 -•
- a verdtt for the plaintiff—Damages 6W.
, • 'mums* v. areal
r. 13v9iT opened tile pleiglkii. .
' ..• r. Serkaht TiDDIf 'stated, that ' tj's was a ease in
, .
'which he'eettifttliteltsinneh inure* or his cheat, alfta
. . -:7-
.• i il;Ai 11 yOung latfy, the dangfiter of a getitleptait ten-
beet' in 'this,cOuairr. The action was to recover coot,
Pel'istlinVoe:the Wary saltines ibinry she had sustained
'froifs t*SiegleCt if the diskodaists,s ;seri
eatn. slue
defendant was Miami( a .chiritist abd d,14,g0ti,, in' i
C.e.ry:cv.s.,asi :..irriijorbitstneis, and kept a h4iie:'
q i'. . and,gsg. It . that on SuitdaY,,'llui 12ds of
I • I . x„...r...591e.jhet..42.,1 ilAtro7Sitrirsef!*±Oi
Ai • lied" tea .... , si4Bl-64.-ris,',
r'• : The del is weAlpt soap •alea• Orhing ail Sojeat
1 lqi'd Aifc**EMi.i#liiiesiettiis. . thistle townie
. ..._.......101 . 10. ;I;
%Co' Certbo.46*•!th•• omen •
asciateg,'altd IS, In aethpifie "Tie .jkliog",
Ore'vi.NO dotes; die shalt itsiking 14.:
.icrp....
I'l.
! I dOeial!!‘ Pitier;,... b - it n, brit for lir Pr,c4
i,„t• . , - °IP" ZionZ
' f tr i ''' '. -'%lts• irei Au iat''' •
.. - • .•