The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-12-10 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dgc. 9.

BEESTON O. castrant.t.
This was an action against a surgeon, carrying on
bnsiness in pa►tner•hip in the Edgeware-road, for so
negligently conducting themselves respecting a disloca-
tion of the plaintiff's shoulder, that she was deprived of
the use of her arm.
The plaintifrs case was conducted by Mr. GURNEY
and Mr. CHITTY; the defendant's by Mr. ScaaLETT and
Mr. ROBERT Sc.stmerr.

It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, a dress-
maker by trade, and between MI and RI veers of age,
fell down and lend the misfortune to dislocate her
shoulder. This was not known at the time; but findini
it in pain, she consulted Mr. Campbell, and went
tittles to his house, when he advised with her, and gave
her lotions to apply. Aftersome time she went to another
rargeon,Mr. Ileadington,who discovered that her should-
er was dislocated,and that by the delay the reductionhad
become difficult and dangerous. She therefore did not
submit to an operation. but continued deprived of the
use of her arm. Mr. lleadington wrote to the defend-
ant Campbell, but received no answer. That gentle-
man, Mr. Chevalier, and Mr. Wood, gave their opinion
that the mode adopted by Mr. Campbell of discovering
whether there was dislocation was uncertain, and that
they would have adopted other means of inquiry.
Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Jury for the defendants,
urging that Mr. Campbell had no interest in mal-treating
the case, but strongly the reverse ; that his attention had
not been drawn to the case as one of dislocation, and
that, at last, the plaintiff might have recovered the use
of her arm by submitting to an operation which she did
not choose to encounter.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ■nmmed up the evidence,
end the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Dentagee
UV/.

VAZIE V. LOSE.
The plaintiff in this case is a civil engineer; the de-
fendant one of his Majesty's counsel practising in the
Court of Chancery. air. Agar pnrchased an estate near
the line of the Regret's Canal, and the Company having i
cut through his grounds, he commenced proceedings
against them for deviating from the line prescribed by
the *mune under which they acted. He recovered two
verdicts in the Exchequer against them, and opposed
them in Parliament. till all matters in difference were
compromised, and he received a very large sum as a com-
pensation for the injury done to his premises. In the
scars: of these proceedings, be employed Mr. Vasie to
detect fallacies in the plans of the engineers; and to
give evidence on the second trial. His bill for these
oreratious amounted to more than 2941., of which lOW.
l.ed been paid, and this action was brought to recover
tete Wince.
The work done by the plaintiff was generally proved.
Tt'e bills of caste taxed by concurrence of Mr. Agar's
attorney were shown, thus far admitting the hills. Mr.
Agar was proved to have requested the plaintiff, after
vending in one bill of the description now produced, to
Dead in another on the same principle. Mr. Millington
proved the general reasonableness of the charges, bat
admitted that the plane were highly chsrgeil—that be
atteld Nothing charged ao high as three guineas a day
for part of the work.
Mr. ficattierz, fur the defendant, after eornmenting
on the charges as they appeared in the bill,'stated that
he shonid be able to prove an express contract that Mr.
Vazie should have only a guinea a day in case hlr. Agar
should ultimately have to pay him ; but if he was to he
paid by the Company, be was at liberty to get as much
as he could, it was, therefore, the good nature of the
defendant which induced him to desire the plaintiff to
send in hie hill on the principle now contended for, in
order to give him a chance of getting it allowed as
against the Company. He called Mr. [limp., who
swore that he made the contract with the plaintiff in
these terms.
Mr. OURNIT, for the plaintiff, in reply, expressed his
great astonishment and sorrow that the defendant should
set up a contract so dishonourable as a defence to an ac-
tion—a contract giving to a witness a direct interest in
the result of a cause—offering him, in fact, a bribe for
his evidence. The party who said that he was the
agent in tech a bargain did not deserve a moment's cre-
dit. For the sake of the witness of the plaintiff, and of
the defendant himself, be implored them uttterly to re-
ject it.
The LORD Cuter 3i:reins left the Jury to consider
whether they believed the statement of Mr. Hinns; as,
if they did, however discreditable the contract might
be, both parties were bound by it, and Mr. Vazie was
already paid. At all events, he thought that they must
rake some deduction from the charges.
The Jury retired at a little before 5 o'clock. and at
half-past 5 they returned into Court with a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages 1371. Ga. 9d.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 9.
RCM/LET V. GOODMAN.

Mr. Serjeant Pam. stated, that this was an action I
brought to recover a sum of W. due to the plaintiff under
an agreement, and whi,ch he had paid to the defendant's
wife. The plaintiff • was the defendant's father-imlaw, 1
and the defendant having had some unfortunate differ-
vices
with his wife in the Litter part of last year, enter-
ed into an agreement, by which he undertook to pay
the plaintiff, as trustee for his wife, the sum of twelve
shillings per week, but which be had since discon-
tinued.
The agreement having been read, John Powell prov-
ed an acknowledgment of the defendant that be had
paid for a considerable time, but should not pay any
Wager.
Stringficld bad gone to the defendant in May
her. when he refined to continue his payment, and
advised him to pay to prevent further trouble and ex-
perce.
Cruse examined—The defendant said lie would pay the
money if he was certain his wife was living iu an ho-
w:livable .war. Witness did not know that Mn.s Good-
man was living in adultery with a man named Pitt.
Elizabeth Slades, knew the defendant, the wife, and
plaintiff. Witness knew Mr. Pitt, whose name had been
mentioned; be was, she believed, in the East India
Holmes a porter; lie now lived in Itegency-street.
•Mr. Serjeant Vet:GUAM, for the defendant, contended,
that under the circumstances of the case this agreement
was at an end, anal could not now be enforced. If the
Jury should be satisfied that the wife was living in
adultery!, there was an end of the action.
Richard Stewart had been long acquainted with Mr.
and Mrs.Mottilman. On the last twelfth night witness
was at Mr. Goodm:ttes house. Mrs. Goodman came in
during tlse. evening, anal behaved in every respect as she
had usually. done before the separation.
Elisabeth Goodman, the daughter of the defendant,
proved Gut her father and mother slept in the same
room on the evening in question.
Mrs. Elisabeth Moffatt bail known Mrs. Goodman he
fore The separatism After that event she visited Nies.
Goodman at Regency-street; this was about May last.
In the errnintt Pitt came in; Pitt called her his "dear
Jane," anal she called him "my love." Witness did nut
see any improper familiarities between the parties. Mrs.
Ilioodnean told wittiest' Ow was now happier than ever;
that she luVed Mr. Pitt's little finger better thin her
husband's whole body; she added, that her happiness
would be complete if she retail have a child by hint ;
they slept iu the same bed, there being but one in the
house. . .

L. Mrs. Cistle, sister to the last witness, remembered
M rs. Goode r.th an a Mr. Nut coining
ut cning to her bowie to-
yeller; did Ltd see ally thin;; partisdUar pass between

~i
~l

-
L:S •

s ,;

~:..

- .

VIU