Star.
London, England, 1828-01-29 00:00:00

GOODMAN V. KENNEL

The plaintiff in this action sought to recover com•
pensation for an injury he had stestained in having been
thrown down by the furious riding of the defendant's
servant. The case was tried at Guildhall, t wring the Sit-
tings after last Term, before Nit... Justice Pa' k,is hen it was
proved that a man named Cocking, wliss, it was alleged,
was the defendant's se' vant,was the per .611 who rode over
the plaintiff, who is a labouring man, in poor circum-
ranee: Proof was also given of the extent of the injury
and leagth of confinement. Fur the defendant, wit-
nesses Mere called, who stated, that the horse did not
belong to him, and th.st Cocking was not regularly in
his service, but was only employ eJ by him occasionally.
It was airmitted, however, that on this particular
occasion he was employed by the defendant ; but
then, again, it was proved, that he had no autho.
ety to take the horse, which he bad done without
the consent of either the defendant or Mr. Fresh&eld,
to whom the animal belonged. Cocking himself was
called, and accounted for the accident by stating, that
the horse was -frightened by a dog, and started with
him at full speed, when, in consequence of the violence
of his exertions to stop him, the bit broke, and having by
that means lost all control over the beast, he could not
prevent its running over the plaintiff. lie stated also, that
the horse was Mr. Fieshfields, who had desired him to
ride it whenever it wanted exercise, and having been
employed by the defendant on the day in question,
to take a book to town, he thought it wculd be a good
opportunity to exercise the horse, and had therefore
taken it. This witness, however, having been directly
contradicted in his account of the accidi nt was disbe-
lieved by the Jury, who returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, 601.
Mr. Sergeant 'PADDY now moved for a role to show
cause why that verdict should not be set aside, and a
new trial granted, on the ground that Cocking had
taken the horse, which was not the defendant's, without
his authority, and that therefore he was not liable for
the consequences of any accident that might bare
happened.
'rite LORD CHM Jusetce said, that undoubtedly no
man could be liable for the consequences of the act
of a servant which had not baen authorized by him.
The question, therefore, in cases of this kind, was—
whether the act was or was not authorized by' the
master? In the present case, evidence had certainly
been given to skew that the hone had been taken with-
out the consent of the defendant, but the value of that i
evidence depended solely upon the credit which the Jury
thought proper to attach to it, and it appeared the person
who had given this evidence, had so contradicted him-
self in several points, that they did not feel themselves
j 'stifled in acting upon any part of it, and it was im.
possible, trader all tire circumstances, to say that they
had done wrong in rejecting it. It was clearly proved
tut the man was for the time the servant of the defend-
ant ; and, taking all the circumstances sof the case into
consideration, his Lordship saw -not reason for disturbing
the verdict.

The rest of the Court were of the same opinion.—
Rake refused.

ARCHES' COURT, MONDAY, Sax. 28.
am I. Shia.

This was a suit, for divorce, by reason of cruelty,
promoted by Mrs. Bray against her husband, The Key.'
Bidlake Bray. The libel had been adasitted:i but ad.
ditional articles of allegation were now offered on the
part of the wife, setting forth certain declarations of the
husband, and certain admissions by him on oath, in a
late trial against parties connected with this suit; for
conspiring to institute it. On the part'of thelusband,
dime articles were opposed; the first as being a re.