Bedford, Friday, July 30.
The Times, 1824-08-02T00:00:00

The assizes for the county of lluckiiighatn con-clded vesterdav morning, and those for the county of Bedford commenced at Bed- ford this day. The calendar of prisoners is very light; it con- tains only ten names, and no very heavy offernces. SATURDAY, JULY 31. WILLTAMS V. MORRtIS. This was an action for the value of a horse belonging to the plain- tifY, which had been run down and killed (accidentally) by the de- fendant's gig. iUr. STORueS, who openedl the case, said, that the plaintiff was a respectable surgeon living at Dunstable; the defendant wvas the proprietor and occasionally the driver of a stage-coach. In driving this coach, which rvas an opposition ceach, and called the " Inde- pendent," the defendant had acquiretla habit of driving very fast ; and, unluckily, that habit did not slways forsake him when he de- scended from his professional elevation to the pursuits of private life. This inclination to active trottingthis organ of rapid loco- mntivencss-it. wia in Mr Morris whlich had endangered the life of Dfr. Williams, and laid the foundation of the present action. The circumstances under which the plaintiff"s horse had been destroyed on the night of the 29th of February last were these :-Dlr. Williams who had been visiting a patient in the neighbourhood of Dunstable, was ridlngslowly into that town on the 29th of February, about 1i o'clock at night, when Mlr. JAlorris, in his gig, came up at a great rate in the contrary direction. Mlr. Morris, being on the wrong side of the road, the parties met, with a dreadful concussion. IUrs. Dlorris was thrown out of the chaise and severely hurt; M1r. Williams escaped dleath almost by a miracle ; and in conclusion, the shaft of the gig penetrated hie. horse's shoulder, so deeply as to cause almost immediately the death of the anim7a. A variety of' evidence was gone into for the plaintiff-the quaeston (as usual in such cases) being " which of tie sarties was raZily on the wrong side of the road." The horse killed was stated to have been of the value of 231.; the plaintifF, some time before, having purchased him (in bad conlition) for 141. Edlward Aliller said-I live at Duristable, and know both the par. tics in the cause. On the 29th of February last-it was Sunday-I saw the plaintiff coming into town on horseback. I was at this time myself standing in the road, and the plaintiff was certainly on his own side. Aks he passed me, I heard a noise of a horse ard chaise coming in the contrary direction; that is, as if to meet him. The chaise appeared to be driving very fast, and a moment after, I heard an outcry and a scuffle in thc road. I turned back, and the first thing I .av, wras the deendant' horse and gig. He was then on the wrong side of the rnad, and coming towards me. As soon as he could, he turned round, and went back to the place of the accident. a saw the plaintiff's horse a few minutes after. It was wounded in the shoulder. It was the off-shouhler that was hurt. I could see to the very bone from an opening made by the wound; and the blood ran down into the road very fast. This affair happened about 10 o'clock. It was quite lark-star-light, butnot moon.light. The whole wns the business of a moment. I gave, generally, what as- sistance I could. Jeremiah Hickgon said-I am a farrier. I was called in to look at the olaintiff's horse on the 4th of Mlarsh. The horse was badly wounlded in the off.shoulder, and a mortification had taken place. I thi!3k the wound msat bave been mortal from the beginning. It was open when I saw it. I can't say whether it had been sewed up, a-id hardly whether it would have been better to have sewed it up. My advice was, that the horse should be killed, in the state in which I saw hin. i\lr. George Clerk proved the value of the horse. He had sold it hiimself for 141. to Air.Williams. Mr. II. CooiEn, for the defendant, contended tltat the whole statement of the plaintiff was grossly imorobable. His learned friend (Mlr. Storkt) had represented Alr. WlUiams as riding gently at the time ofthe transaction in question; and the defendant as a coachlman (which in fact he was not), accustomed to drive furiously, ant doing so when this accident had occurred. All these statements N%ere thTrown out to excite prejudice; but the jury woald not suffer itself to be Influenced, except by proof. The defendant was no coach. proprietor, although his father was one; but he was an extremely skdiful and experienced dtriver, and had been driving homewards at the time of the accilent with his wife. to whom hehad only been two years married, and whbsc life it was not very likely he would wilfuilly put in peril. The truth was, that the fault of the accidentbelonged en- tirely to the plaintiff,who was iond, like a good many other people, of doinig that, parpreference,which he did very ill. Ie was fond ofriding spirited hones, and had but a very bad hand at managing them ; and this fancy, it was, on his part, which hal led to all the mischief. .Mr. William`s, thejury would find (in fact), hlad been exereising himself and his Bucephlalus on the niglht in question, not in paying visits to hiS patients, but in visiting a young lady to whon he was paying his addresses. And being full of that excitation which Was apt to accrue to a man from sitting in the company of his mistress, and otherwise inspired hy a mistaken confidence in his own equestrian faculties, he had attempted, in gatlopping home- warils, what was a ticklish feat always in 'horsemanship, viz. to ride between two pigs (laughter) which were before him on the road. Now the Jury might laugh, but the pigs were alive, and could swear it. In truth, their luck had been every way greater than that of MIr. Williams, for they had saved their bacon, (wlhich was the last thiny that persons in their sphere ever expected to save), while dlr. Williams had not been equally sucessfu1l in the protection of lia. Tbe thing was, however, just as he (.lr. Cooper) suted it. The plaintiff had attenpted to divide the pigs, and probably to outride them. The denizens of the stye, resenting this experiment u pon their comparative velocity, hadl run between thle legs of the plaintiff 's horsc_gruntiiig indignation. sari thrown both1 horse and rider dlown. (A laugh.) It was in con- scquence of this previaus rencontre that, being driven to the wrong sirie of the road, ilr. Williams had come into contact with the gig of the defendant; and had made over to him a large slhare of that mischief and danger, which (however much it was to be re-tretted) belonged, in justice, entirely 1o himself. The learned counsel for the defendant concluded by stating, that he should call several wit- nesses who would prove the plaintiff's own admission that lie (and not Mr. Morris) had been on the wrong side of the road when the accidlent happened. For the charge that the gig had no lamps, be thought the plaiutiff was as much bound to carry a light as the de- fendant. William D(ederaft then swore that he had come up to the parties in the cause on the nilht of the 29tlh of February, immediately after the mischief took p'lace. Hie found MKrs. Morris's muff and her reticule (she having been flung out of the gig) lying in the roast These tshings were on that side of the road which was the right side for the defendant. Mrs. Mlorris's bonnet had also been found in the same situat ion, bent double, as if the wheel had gone over it. Witness hadl assistedl plaintiff in taking care of his wounded horse; and plaintiff had admittedl to him that he was on the wrong aide of the road when the meeting took place. Harriott Hack said-I assisted Mrs. Morris into a house after her fall. She seemed very mtcli hurt. dir. Williams afterwards ad. mitted, in my presence, that he had been iin fault ; as, supwosing the gig was going to draw up at Mliss W'illoughby's (a house by the way side), he had not given to much of the road as he otherwise ahould have done. Mlr. James Cook proved an admission from the plaintifF, nearly to the same effect as that stated by the last witness. Several other witnesses declared, that the plaintiff had, in their hearing, acquitted Mr. Morris of blame in the transaction. Mir. ST0ostgS, in reply, commented upon the broad statement of thle defendant's counsel, and the verv narrow evidence by which it ha(l been supported. As to the story of the pigs it was a good amlusing fable. The C,ourt had laugbed at the joice and so far, c-ertainly, the ,esrncd gentlentap had' brought his pigs to a fine mar. keat." (haughlter.) But not one word of these pigs had been uttered -not a hairof their tails bad becn touched-by any of the witnesses called for the defendint. [jet the jurY, however, look at the probabilities of the case-at the habits and professions of both the parties. Why AIr. Mdrris was a coachman by pro. fession. The proprietor ohthe" Independent" and the '"Tallyho!" How could any man, whio eveni possessed vehicles with such deno- minations, be supposed to drive at less than 30 miles an hour ? For tie hurt that Mrs. .Nlorris had received, no person could regret it more than the plaintiff did; and on the spot he hail paid her every professional attentiop, his own loEs being entirely disregarded. Bpt then the qusestion still was.-who was in fault-? Re thought it clear that the defendant had been on the wrong side of the road. Thejury were tAld of the plaintiff's " horse-manship," and of his " excita- tion," but not a word pf evidence %as agiven as to either ; and as for the pursuit and engagenients of the two parties at the time of the ac- cident, the probabilities were every way in the fivour of Mr. Wil. liams, who (according to the account of'the defendant's counsel), being not yet a married m4n, had' at leant as much reason to take care of his life (if it were only that h6 might get married), as DIr. Morris cou1l( have. In the same wvay, what could be thought of such an observation, ai8 that the pl4intifl was it, mitch bound to carry a light as the defendatnt ? How c6ould a man oa horse- bascl carry a light_unless, like Bardolpl, hhehad it q in the nose" of him ? MWas he to be bound to smoke,; P-stch pipe fot tlia&gene- ral accommodation; or to carry a lantern hetween hhorse's ears ? Such fancies were p1easanJtenoqgh5 ind jocular, but thejury would recollect that they were jocular only. Upon *the whole, bp (Mr. Storks) w>as no way shgpiIn iuhis contiction, thr,t the bI ce,bof vi- deuce, e,g well; as of lilke4hso.od5 wvas eiuiraly' in fiva,ur of lhTsdient.-5 ;ad 8bo1ild sit & h i'n thefallest cohfIde1a of' YecelvIng a 7ehdct bywbich that opinion would be confirmed. The Loimn COrHE A BAao, left the case to the jury upon the evidence. The Jury, aftcr a few mom.ents' consideration, found for the dcfendanL BEDFORD. FRtDAT. JUT.V an.