The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-11-30 00:00:00

COURT OF KIN('S BEM:R.—Nov. 49.

WASTE I'. LADY CARR, WIDOW.
This was an action on the case against the defendant, to
Teener). a compensation in damages for the negligence of
bee servant, in upsetting a chaise in which the plaintiff
and Isis mire were riding.
Sir. Grunav and Mr. Wren:smut were for the plain-
tiff; and Mr.SCARLZTT and Mr. ANDREWS fur the de-
fendant. .
•It appeared from the evidence of several witnesses,
that on the 27th of May bd', the plaintiff and his wife
were proceeding in a one horse chaise through the Re-
gent Circus, Piccadilly, on their own proper side of the
road, when the defendant's carriage was driven by the
coachman between a hankney coach and the plaintiff's
chaise, and the space tieing insufficient, the chaise was
apart, and the plaintiff and I is wife were thrown upon
the pavement with considerable violence. No less than
six aitnessee deposed to the facts of the case, and they
ail imputed the accident to the carelessness of the de-
fendant's coachman, who was stated to have been
driving at a furious rate. S lof them swore that
.e defendant's carriage had been stopping for a consi-
ders ie time at the shop of Messrs. Swan and Edgar,
before Vie accident happened. Mr. Fader, a surgeon,
deposed, that Lis bill for curing the plaintiff and hie wife
of the injuries they had sustained, unwanted to 31. 19s.
Mr. Blanchard, the coach-maker, said, that his hill fur
repairing she plaintiff's chaise, which was broken to
pieces, amounted to 221. 16s.
Mr. SCARLET?, for the defendant, le his address to
the Jury, said, that the case which 4se had to lay before
than was of a very differeat complexion from that de.
posed to by the witnesses called for the plaintiff. He
by no means imputed to them any disposition to state
that which was not true ; hut they had evidently laboured
boiler a mistake in Imputing negligence and misconduct
to the defendant's coachman. In the first place, he
should- prove by satisfactory evident', that the defend•
ant's coach bad not stopped at any place from the time
ef its setting out front Lady Carr 's dwelling at Ealing
until the accidint in question happened ; and, in the se-
cond place, be should prove that the injury complained
of arose from the unekilful driving of the plaintiff
self, aho, ilt endeavourieg to pass a hackney coach in
*tont Circus, Caine in contact with the defendant's
emsch before. the coachman could avoid the collision,
Whereby the mischief happened. He should further
prove that the moment the tnisfortane occurred the de-
feedant's coachman stopped, and informed the plaintiff
s.f site mono of his mistress, and did every thing a man
could do in a ease a here lie himself was Dot to blame.
Mr. J. T. Perceval, the defendant's son, Richard Sid-
tey, and William Sloper, her ladyship's coachman and
footman, were then called to prove the case thus opened.)
They stated that the defendant's carriage had set out la
the morning from Ealing, and had
.not stopped by the)
way until this accident happened. The carriage was
drivenat the rate of six miles an hour. There were MOS
young ladles inside, and Mr. Perceval rode on the bon
with the coachman. On coming near the Regent Circlel
a hackney coach was seen turning, and at that moment
the plaintiff's chaise was not visible, but when the dt.,
folant's carriage was paasing the hackney-coach, the'
plaintiff drove right across the road in front of the
hopes; the coachman pulled up as hard as he could to
avoid mischief, but was too late, and the coach pole
Coming in contact with the body of the chaise, It was
, 'apart. The catriege immediately stopped, and Mr.
Perceval told the plaintiff to whom it belonged, aid OP'
pressed his regret, for the misfortune. All these wit-
messes attribeted the occident to the plaintiff in eaten
louring to pass the the backneyemsach on the wraist
side, bet it seemed to be admitted that the defendant**
carriage was also on the wrong side in passing the
Eacknepcoach. On their cross-examination. the
wit-
TOSS denied that the defendant's carriage was 'to=
lly coutpuhion, after the accident happened. but
cu the contrary, the coachman immediately moppet,,
and the plainiiff was instantly informed that the catu
riage belonged to Lady Carr, ash that the plaiati
seemed satisfied.
Mr. Guitozr, in reply, contended that at all events
ILe plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, inasmuch
_as the
defendant's carriage was confessedly on the wrong aide
of the way at the time the accident happened.
The LORD Calla JUSTICR summed up the MO on
bells sides fur the Jury, and left it to them to lay
to which party the blame of the accident was im-
putable.
The Jury retired for about an hour, and found a ver-
dict for the' defendant.
11%RlIETTO V. THE INHABITANTS Or TITS lIIINDRED Or
05.11141T0NE.
Thia was an action to recover a compensation in da-
mages for an injury done to the plaintiff's house, by a
tiotows mob en the night of the 6th of Jane, 1820.
'the plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. OURNBT, and
r. CARTER; and the defendant's by Mr. Paritso:v.
The plaintiff resides in Upper Portland•place, and
c: the night of the 6th of June, a riotous snob of re-
ams visiNd that neighbourhood to compel the inha-
bitants to illuminate their houses. The Plaintiffs
family bad retired to rest, and were awakened by the
smashing of windows, and the cry of "light up, lighter."
Before they could comply with this request, windows
to the amount of W. I Is. 7d, were broken in the house
fur which sum the present action was brought.
The plaintiff's butler and glazier were called to prove
the amount of damage done, and the circumstances under
which it Ives committed.
No substantial defence *as offered, and the Jury,
under the Learned Judge's direction. found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 61. ils. 7d,