The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-02-19 00:00:00

.K~

. •

..,. ~ ...

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KIWI'S BENCH, F. 18.
HALL V. PICKARD.

This was an action upon the case, brought bythe
Plaintiff, who is a stable-keeper, against the Defeat.;
ant, *be is a fishmonger at oolwich, for so asi=
gl4eutly driving his cart as to run its shale:tee the
body of the Plaintiff's horse, which he had let to job
In the carriage of the Rev. Dr. Carey, Head Master
of Wasteslooter School, by which accident the • aid-
mal died, and-the Plaintiff lost the profit hi taught
derlie from letting the hdrse' to hire, &c. On the ,
part of the Plaintiff, it was proved by ,the Rev. Dr.
Carey, and by his coachman and fobtasan, neither
of whom had any liability in the cause, that the
Doctor's carriers was driving quietly ,along the
Greenwich-road, making towards the bridge over
the Surrey Canal, the Doctor, Mrs. Carey, and a
yottng lady, being inside 'the carriage, and thel
coachman and footman in their usual places ; and
that they bad just overtaken a single-horse dirt, and
were recoVering their situation on the left side of the
road, when, in consequence-Of the ebliqhe direction
of the carriagef Hte,Doctor saw the, art. of the
De-
fendant, and 'god Greenwich di Woolwich sine.
coaches, drivitie l'ahriusly twelfth dein down the,
big, the Ifefeed appearing to be racing with the
stage-coaches, mid looking beck towards th* to
see whether they gained upon hint or dot. :The•
Doctor was apprehensive of some accident,' and al-
thouch the'Defendant had the reins' hartin Ms hand,
be had not time to pull op hie cart before one of Its.
shafts was in the body .of one of the Plaintiff's
horses. The road was 40 feet wide, and the Doc-
tor's carriage was eight feet from his left side of the
roati ; it was,lo feet by admeasurement to the left
side of the road, from the ploughed-up ground which
was occasioned by tare shock and repulse of the De-
fendeet's cart. The Doctor considered it providen-
tial that his carriage bad not made a nearer approach
to that side of the road ; otherwise the Defendant's
cart must have come against the carriage and not the
horse, and the lives of the passengers themselves
might have been endangered. As soon as the acci-
den.. happened, the Doctor alighted, and the De-
fendant at first behaved-very well upon, the occasicn,
saying that he knew he must pay the damage; but
he afterwards justified himself by first attributing the
concussion to the unavcidable consequence of Ms
being driven on' by the stage-coaches, and secondly
to the fright of his horse; shewing the fracture of
the front of his cart, against *Mai his feet caw, as
a proof of his ineffectual efforts to step him. In the
Doctor's opinion both these excuses were without
foundation. He gave the Defendant the option of
taking the horse to a farrier's at New Cress; ihr of
returning him to town for proper treatment : the De-
fendant preferred the latter, and the horse was gent-
ly walled home, the Defendant ;ad the ladies walk-
ing too, to li;hten the animal's burthen. The wound
was d-essed at the Doctor's stables, and the horse
was afterwards removed to the Plaintiff's, where be
died, in consequence of a mortification. The De-
fendant accompanied the carriage to town. Dr..
Carey asked the by.etanders for their addremell, be:
come forward as witnesses, bat could not prochite
their testimony.
Mr. Pena, for the Defendant, first insisted, hi
point of law, that this action should have been tres-
pass, and not case, since the Plaintiff had proved
the a.-cident to have been wilful on the part of the
Defendan_ He did this on the authority of the
cases of Lean* v. Bray (5 Espinasse's Reports, 18),
and Lotan v. Cross (2 Campbell, 464), which were
both actions of trespass; and in the latter of which
Lord Ellenhorough expressly held that the injury to
the Plaintiff being immediate from the act (lobe by
the Defendant, it was settled in the former case that
trespass was the proper remedy, and that the Defend-
ant's imiocent, bat negligent, intentions were imma-
terial.

Lord ELlA:newton/An desired to be shown an in-
stance, tu treoich case was brought Land it was decided
that it might to hare been trespasa. In the case of
Loom v. Crow, the owner of the chattel gratuitously
permitted *nether to use itv without any hire. The
chattel was, therefore, still in the owner's pos3es-
sloe.
Mr. Asearr (for the Plaintiff) added, that here
the actual possession was in Dr. Carey, as lessee
under the Plaintiff ; and a reversioner could not even '
maintain trover.
Lord EiLiNSOUOVGll.—Evidently note as he has
nal the possession ; but the objection would only
hav,, envie to a release from the witness (Dr. Carey);
and the time for that is gone by.
The Defendant's Counsel then called Mr. W.
Westall, theinadsdipe.pakitee, who was a spectator
of the acrldegitt; and to whotb it appeared that the
Defendant's horse Lad run away withiffest_anti that
he could not have avoided the weld*, .alage-
coaChes were racing and hallooing: 'tile witness
being asked, why he refried Dr. Carerittsffddress,
said. that be told him he did net think Ids evidence
would be of much use to the Doctor, as he pitied the
Defendant, and thought Lim not to blame. 'll4
Doctor replied, that he only wanted him to stale tbit I
fact as he saw it : and then, if the Doctorbad press-
ed it, Mr. Westall said he would have given him his
card. The Defendant also called two -more by-
standers, one a school-fellow of his, and the other
the driver of the cart which' the Doctor's carriage
passed, and who was also the Defendant's acquaint-
ance. These witnesses thought the Defendant's
horse kad run away witit Mai. The former observ-
ed, ss There's a bore rin,allay;" and the latter said
he thought the Doctoes ennetouia' very much to
blame for not driving * do Defendant's way. ,
All the Witnesses. mballOted ,tbat the Defendant's_
horse stood very quietly -after* accident happened,
aid that the Defendant always afteiivaitis could stop
him with ease.
Lord ELIMISOILOUGS charged the Jury- upon this
evidence, that if they thought the Defendant had at
any time joined the race of the stage-coachmen? ale
though he might have wished to stop himself
vrirds2 be would be liable to make good this in,
which the Plaintiff had sustained: but' the Deft.
daut's holding hard his horse was not incenilaten
with Ms rating, as racers always endeavouiektp
keep the perfect command of their, animal. Why!,
did not the Defendant call the stage-coachmen-to
prove the fright of his horse, end his anxiety not to
join their race?—The value of the horse had been

lh