Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-02-24T00:00:00

LAW REPORT. This was ain action by a clergyman near Canterbury against a coachnmaker of that city, for negligently constructing the shafts of a carriage, so that they broke, and one of the horses drawing the car- riage was killed. It was proved that the shafts were not pronerly secuted by an ap- paratus sufflcient for thie purpose, and usually employed in building carriages. Mr. SCARLETT addressed the jury for the defendant, and ex. pressed his hope that he should be able to show that the 'machinery was complete, and that the accident arose from improper driving. The LORD CinlEF JUSTICE suggested that the case, as sustain- ed by the appearance of the iron instruments produced in Court, coulu scarcely be answered by the evidence rwhich the learned cotn. sel proposed to call. Mlr. ScArtLETT submitted, and The L,OBn Cs;sss JUSTrCE advised the iary to find a verdict for theplaintift' with damages 351., the price of the horse. TheJaryaccordingly foundaverdictfor tbheplai)ntiff-Damages,361. VARNiHA3C v. VW5tATOW. This action was brought to recover damages against Messrs. Wharton and Son, land-survevors, for making an imuroper estimate of certain land in the Commercial-road, whereby tfie plaintiff was induced to let it for a term of sixty-one years at a rent inferior to its value. Mr. PLATT stated thecase on behalf of the plaintiff, and imputed to Mr. Wharton, sen., either gross inattention or fra3dulent design; for either of which the defendauts were liable. It would be shown that AIr. Wharton had estimated the plaintiff's estate at the yearly value of 1001., when it was fully r double that Gum, and thus induiced him to IPe it for sixty-one years at 801. per annum. The testimony of respectable surveyors would clearly show a he sum fixed by Mlr. Wlharton was whollyinadequate; some of the evidence would perhaps indue a suspicion thathe was influeced by a sinis- ter motive ; but whether he acted from design, or was misied for want of due-caution, the plaintiff wascntitledtocompensationfor the injury which he had sustained. To prove this case, -Mr. Burn, the attorney for the plaintiff, was called. He said that a person of the name of Nunn had of- fered 40L a year for the ground, on which the carcassesof new houses were standing. In consequence of this proposal, he wrote to Mr. W'harton, and requested him to make a plan and estimate of the yearly value of the land. Upon this, Mfr. Wharton came, brought a plan, and entered into conversation rerpecting the value. lrI Wh barton said 401. was much too little; and he would gire 501. him-' self: to which the w.itness replied,he could not treat with him or anv one, till he kcnew the value of the land. Mr. Wharton then too out his pencil and made calculations, the result of which was, that the land would be fairly worth 1001. a year. The plaintiff wishing- ytsther to treat with Air. Wharton than with a stranger, asked what he would give ? He ffiered 601.; to which' Mr.Parnhamt replied, that if hla would bid something nearer his own estimate, he would treat with him; but Mlr. Wharton declined to advance any thing ftrther. Mr. Parnham afterwards inquired whether he mnigbt let off a snall part of the prerrises to Mr. Brunton for 10 guineas a year? He was informed that he nmighbt and be did so; but afterwards .Mlr. Wharton, jUn., info~rrnd him that he had injured the rest of the property by such a bargainl. !Ur. Parnhamn afte-rwards let the w:hole of the property to Mlr. Brmnton for one rent of 801. for 61 years, that being the highest offer made him. It. appeared that hir. WVhar- tOn-s plan was not originally accurate as to the number ot' feet, and that he at one time csti nated the annual valuc at 1391., though lie afterwards corrected that estimate, and reduced it again to 1001. Three surveyorb, Air. lunting, Mr. Spyrinig, and Mr. May, were then called to givetheiropinionasto the value ofthepremises. iMlr. Lunting fixed it at 3361. if let in lots of S4 tenements, and reduced it toe2001.for the expense of collecting; Mr. Spyzing fixed it at 2711., and reduced it in liae manner to I001.; and Mr. May thought the rent, if divided, wMould be 2151., and 180L if in one entire suw. I Mfr. BnouGort.3. addressed the jury for the defendants, whom he described as men well Irnown in their profession, and olf unblemilhed character. It was singular that the threce surveyors who -had beca called for the plaintiff gradually reduced the value; astd had he called a witness or two more, he would probably have shown that the 'survey of Mr. Wharton was most accurate. That gentleman had no .notivewhatever to give a false estimate, for, so far was he from de- siring to take advantage of his own survey, that he declined himself to take the premises at 701. a-vear. Here he might safely'rest the wase; but Mr. Wharton's ankiety to vindicate hls character'would induce him to call several emfient surveyors, who would prove not only that the estimate was honest, but-true. Mr. George Susitli, surveyor to the Mercers' Company, and three other surveyors, acquainted with the value of land in the neighbour- hood, gave a decisive ep:nion that the plaintiff's estimate was equal to the value. Mfr. Smith thought 100i. a very high estimate. M\r. PLATT replied. The LORD CseIxs' JusrTCE took occasion to regret thte -wide differences of opinion which, in this and in similar causes, was ob. served among surveyors. If the case had rested on their testimony, he wouzd advise the jury, as the safer course to find a verdict for the defeiidant; but it was for them to say wbether Mr. Wharton had not himnself furnished some evidence to impeachhi own esti. matc. If they found for the plaintiff, the proper measure of damages would be the difference in.early value for which the land mighthave been let, and which might be calculated atl&-yeratpur. chase. ' The jury retired for some time, and on their return into Court found a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 1601. COURT OF KING'S BE.NLC, WESTMINSTER. FEB. 23. SIMosS V. SMITH.