Court Of Common Pleas, Tu...
The Times, 1824-06-02T00:00:00

(,Mzddtme3.W lT?l9 "J'-' . .../ - r- ri r.#h'. Ri:r.T auzda COwlmo Jtirg This was an actiou to recover uauj'ujys .- - - . * -t. is tiff in the destruction of his horse, which was killed by tb gence or unskilfilldrivinig of the defendant.' gr. Sergeant PEdL, in stating the case to the jury, detailed the following ircumstances :-The plaintiffis thbowner .nd'occasiolal diriver of a CainbereladCah cah h dnt'is clerk' in a barnking-house ir; the cty. On the crent af the ith of last' December, plaintf' conaidb a,fin, wsrdn onl the Camberwell road, gigtwrsLno.Dfnatwsdvn in a gig in the conitraydrcin n ihrtruhcrlsas want of kiUlin the management of tFc horse, drove agamst thc plaintiff's horse, pierced his aide with tle near shaft of his'gg, and inllicted so violens a wound, that the animal died in afew hours. The 'urv, continued the learned sergeant, wouMd he told how this matter occusrred, and then theyvould judge whether the defence set up could ke sustained. That defence was, that the accidentwas entire- l7 owing to the conduct of the nlaintig Idimself, who was drunk at the tinse, and who rode negligeritly agaist the defendant's ig. Thls defence, if he wrere instructed rightly, would altoget er.6fa and the plaintiff wouldhe enltitledl to a verdicl. The onlvy qucs~it'h0ntli would beethc amount of damages, and t would be distinctlypred, that the horse WaS worth frol 60 to 60 guineas, but this would be entirely for the considieradon of the jtry. Mr. Bloxam was called, and proved that he was riding in com- pany with the plaintiff on'the nightin question. It was a very dark night. Plaintiff was riding at a moderate pace. They saw the de- fendant driving his gig in the contrary direction. He was going at the rate of neirly nine miles an hour. Plaintiffand witness werc on their proper side of the road: thc3 gig was on the wrong side. Wit. ness passed between tbe gig and the path.way, but there was not room for both horses. Plaintiffs horse wae startled y the gig, anti sprung off, but before lie could get away, the shaft os the gig pene. trated his side. This was between six and sevea, in the evening. Plaintiff was at that time lperfectly sober. He and witnesshad. drunk " little or nothing" before they came out. When the accident oc. curred, plaintiff askcd defendant for his name and address, which he refusedl. In his cross-examination, witness admittea' that be mlight havc said that plaintiff was at the time "1 rather the worsc for liquor," bul he denied h.ying said that ie was drunk. The night was dark; de. fendar.t had no lamps to his gig. In bis re-examination,witiies ssaid lie was positive tLat theaccideni was to be attributed entirely to the fault of defendant being drivinD too quickly, at his wrong side. The ostleratthe" Fox, llerne-hill, proved hathesaw deendanI in his gig on that night. There was blood and a pieee of flesh ot one of the shafts. Beard plaintifft(who hak followed defendant thi. ther) ask his narne and address. iefendant said he lived at Nor. wood, but he refused to tell his name. Plaintiff was quite sober. George Blackford, a coachmen, proved that he saw .plaintiff or that occasion, lie was perfectly sober. Had known thehorse, anc thought him well worthl 60 guineas. The night wasdark; but a per. son couldl be seen 10 or 12 yards off.h Slr. Closeby, aCeterinarysurgeon at CRapham, proved that tbi plaintiff' was sober on the night in question, and that the horse wa" well worth 50 guineas at least. ' '.1 his was the plaintiff's ease. MAlr. Sergee.nt VAUc.UGIAF, foe. the 4eJendant, said, that unless i could be proved satisfactorily to the jury that the accident was octa. -Bf nahXfi$ SPfigqnesrj.sukl tulness of defendant, the plEintif tiff himself. If the ,lury 'should be of that epinion after hearin1 his case, they \votld ol coarse give their verdict accordingly. 3H. then called dlr. Sharpe, wbo was in the gig with defendant on the night ir question. He stated that the defendant, on seeing the two men or horaeback coming towards hiin, called out that they were on 'the wrong side. Soon after witness felt a shock. Defendant got out, and stopped for a short time, to examine whether his sorse had re- ceived any injury. Some angry words passed between them and the plaintiff, and his friend went on. Othler witnesses provecd, that when they saw the plaintiff'at the Fox, on Herne.ill, he w as " the worse for liouor." They also stated, tlat when defendant wvas asked for hss address, he, said'he would give no otbcr address than that he lived at Norwood, for that the fault lav with the plaintiff himself. 31r. Sergeant RELL replied to this evidence, and the jury, after hearing the summing up of his Lordship, returned a verdict for the plailtiff'-Damages 451. and costs. SpoONER V. GAanIDErt. This was an action on a bill of exchange for 3001., drawn by the defendant, accepted by the Earl of Oxford, and endorsed over to de- fendant. The proof of the defendant's lhand.writing, and the acceptance of the Earl of Oxcford, were given. The E;arl of Oxford was then called. Ilis lordship stated, that being ils some pecuniary dlifficulties, lie was introduced to the de- Fendant Gardner, for the purpose of raising money.. Gardner gave hins some bills, which he got discounted, 'but they were never paid, and lie was at the present moment liable for some of themii. He had received no consideration whatever' for the present bill of 3001., and had no moneY'of Gardner's in his hands. On his cross-examination, his lordship stated, that at tthe time of eetepring this bill for Gardner, there were some acceptances of Gardner's for his accemmodation, out and unpaid. L The defenee set up to this action was, that . tbc bill got 'into ipooner's hands for the purpose ot having it discounted, and that tc had never given any consideration for it. rThe plaintiff, in answer to thii, was allowed to call evidence to wove that goods had been delivered to Gardner for the hill. From he evidence ofseveral persons, and the 'reading' of several letters tnt in, it ippeared that there was a great variety of money transac- ions hetween the plaintiff andtdefendant; that the plaintifi had sold; tim goods from time to time,' and thatatlenigtih defendant complain- d of the exorbitant prices which1 were charged for them.. The CHIEF JUSTICE summcd up, and the jury returned a ver. Liet Cor deiandanot. TIhe (Court did not rise till half.past five o'clock. COURT OF COMIMON Pl,EAS, T'UESDAV, JUNE 1. FitATAlE, V. GOUGO.