Star.
London, England, 1827-08-20 00:00:00

CIVIL SICK.

BARTLETT V. SOUVILLBe

This was an action fur negligence. Plea, Not Guilty.
Mr. Guntmt and Mr. LAW conducted the plaintiff's
cace. and Mr. Mallet/LT and Mr. PLATT the defendant's.
Tne plaintiff was a needle manufacturer in Worcester•
shirr, and the defendant was the Captain of the French
steam pactekthe Dnc de Bourdeaus, running between
Darer and );alai'._ In October, 182.5, the plaintiff

forwarded to Mr. Morris, a merchant at Dover, a case,
• containing about a million and a half of needles, with
some bodkins • and knitting pins, and weighing about
400 weight, to be sent to Calais. Mr. Morris had the
case taken down to the Quay, alongside of which the
defendant's packet was lying, for the purpose of its being
put on board. The defendant was not on board, but
his Mate agreed to put the case on board at his own
risk ; and it was proved to be the universal custom at
Dover for goods to be shipped on board vessels of all
descriptions, by the labour and at the risk of the ship.
owners. The Mate was informed of the weight, the
value, and contents of the case. The crew, under the
directions of the Mate, slung the case in a rope, and
were hoistinglit on board when the rope broke, and the
case was precipitated into the sea. The value of the
case and its contents was 40N. and the amount of the
damage done by the sea water, together with the ex-
pense of repolishing the needles, was 270 i. This sum
was demanded of the defendant, and he refusing to pay
it, the present action was brought. This was the case
proved on the part of the plaintiff. For the defendant,
three of the clew of the Duc de B iurdeaux, all French-
men. were examined (through the medium of an in-
terpreter), and swore, in substance, that the Mate
expressly refused to take any pirt in shipping the case,
except on the responsibility of Mr. Morris; that it was
attempted to be shipped by them at the desire of that
Gentleman, and after an explicit declaration by him
that he would be responsible for any accident that
might occur ; that they wished the shipment to be
made in a different mode, but that the slinging the
case in a rope was the method insisted upon by Mr.
Morris; and that it never was the habit, in ca'es of steam
packets, for the shipowner to have any thing to do with
shipping the goods, or to be responsible for them until
they were actually placed upon the deck. A witness
was also called, who stated, that after the accident bad
happened, he heard Mr. Morris say that the French
sailors were not to blame, for that the accident was en-
tirely owing to himself.
The case went to the Jury upon this contradictory
evidence, and they, after a few minutes' deliberation,
found their verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1 tug
Euudred and Seventy Pound,.
CROWN BfDC.

Edward Banks and James Rogers were indicted, the
former for stealing, and Coe latter for receiving, knowinit
it to be stolen, a mare mule, the property of William
Dimming, Esq. on the lit of August last, at Sandridge.
The prosecutor, Mr. Manning, was a Gentleman of for-
tune, well known in London as one of the Directors of
the Bank of 4ngland, and having a country residence
at Sandridge, in this county. The prisoner Banks was
in his employment.
The loss of the mule from the prosecutor's premises
was clearly proved, and she was some days afterwards
found in the possession of Mr. Scambler, the livery
stable-keeper, in Bishopsgate-street, London, to whom
it appeared the prisoner Rogers had sold her, in the
presence of Banks, they both stating at the time that she
had been purchased by lingers of a Mr. Clarke, at
Cambridge.—The prisoners offered no defence.
The Jury found Banks Guilty, and acquitted Rogers.
aHREWSBURY.
stoma V. DAVINS AND Wilt.

This was an issue directed by the Court of Chancery,
to try, whether the plaintiff was the legitimate son of
William and Mary Morris, and as such entitled to snc-
cced Ulf at law to estates in Wales, worth about

14001. per annum ? 'the trial lasted three days, and ''
vast number of witnesses was called on both sides. It.
appealed that Mr. and Mrs. Morris lived apart, but umd
to visit—yet it was evident that Mrs. Morris was ac-
quainted with a Mr. Austin,and it was Jlegerl that the,
plaintiff had been treated throughout as the latter's snn.l
The question, therefore, was, whether Mr. Morris, the,
lawful husband, had free access or intercourse as a
married man, the law presuming where that is esta-
blished that the child is legitimate? The Jury returned
a verdict for the defendants, thereby negativing the
legitimacy.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, Auo. 17.

CIVIL 51DE....-.7EWSTER V. BELL.

Mr. TomuNscor opened the pleadings, and stated
that this was an action for trespass.
Mr. BROUGHAM, in stating the case, said, that the
plaintiff and defendant were near n-ighbours, and both
Ladies far advanced in life. They lived at Allendale,
but it would seem, that neither their years nor vicinity
had produced that feeling that should exist amongst
neighbours, for the venerable defendant did every thing
she could to annoy and vex the plaintiff, who was at last
obliged to resort to these proceedings to preserve her
rights. The plaintiff and defendant occupy premises
which abut each other, and a part of the plaintiff's land
is formed into a lane, and over this lane the defendant
was permittedto pass on foot, but she thought proper
to claim a cart way, to which she, most undoubtedly,
was not entitled, and to which she had laid no claim in
her plea.
Betty Ross stated, that she lived servant to the plain-
tiff, who used to bait her horse in the lane which was
hers. She had placed a small gate at the end of the
lane, but not sufficiently ss ide for a cart to pass through ;
yet the defendant's servants had drove through, by take'
ing away the stones to which the gate shut.
Cross-examined.—The lane is about twelve yards
long, and not three yards wide. The defendant is a
very elderly Lady, and has ceased managing her farm
' her self.

By the JUDGE.—The road leads to Peggy Bell's field.
—Her horse would sometimes go out of the fold into
the lane.

Several other witnesses were examined, who preyed
that the lane belonged to the plaintiff's father, and that
it was never used as a carriage way.
Mr. CRESWELL said, if the cavalc tile of the defend-I
ant's carts, which went along this lane, had been half to
long as the suing of the plaintiff's witnesses, the deE
fendant might have pleaded a justification ; but the
expense of the plea, and of the witnesses to support it,
would amount to much more than the matter was
worth. The plaintiff had failed iii giving sufficient
evidence of the lane being her property, neither had
she proved that she had sustained one farthing damages.
It was difficult to account for the ill will that subsisted
between two persons who had lived as neighbours for
nearly 40 years. There must have been some sinister
advice, for if the plaintiff obtained a verdict, it was
quite clear she could not profit by it.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, the only question was,
whether the lane belonged to the plaintiff? if so, she
was entitled to a verdict.

Verdict for the plaintiff—damages Is.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that as the tight of Ise lane
came in question, he had na discre:ion, but must certify
for the plaintiff, although he %%ished he could help it.