Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-11-10T00:00:00

.Lfnls was an action ny a orotter, wvlo had purchased for ttle dlefendl- ant a number of shares In the Equitable Loan Society, w12ich he af- ferwards reftised to receive. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Littledale at Onildhall, when the main question subnitted to the jury was, whether the plaintiff liad used due diligence in calling for the certificates as soon ns they were ready. The jury found a ver- dic:t for the plaintiff, but the learned Judge reserved an objectioni talen by the counsel for the defendant, that the Society itself was illegal, as proposing to lend money at 3 higher rate than the legal rate of interest, without legislative sanction. Mlr. GUax'EY now,s on this point, moved for a rule to show cause whly a nonsuit shouldl not be enteretl. The Cou tr granted the rule. 5HELDO} V. COX. This was an action founded on a contract, whereby the defendaFnt ergaged to give the plaintiffa mare and fortyguineas, in exchange for a horse. The case was tried be?6re Alr. Justice Bayley, at I,an- c.lAter, when it appeared that the mare had been delivered, but the forty geuineas was wsithheld on the ground of a brealch of warranty, wvhich had been given as to three of thc legs ouly of the plaintiff's hlorse. The contract was not proved as laid in either of the sue- cial cosnts of the declaration, but the plaintiff resorted to ihe count for goods sold, and upon this count obtvined a verdict for lbrty guineas. Mt. SCAULETT IIow moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict sbould not be set aside, and a nonstit entered in its stead. After noticing, that though the plaintiff had only warranted the horse soiund in three legs. his witnesses deposed to the soundness of all four, he rested his motion on the technical ground, that as the bargaini was a contract,not of sale merely, but of exchange, the plaintift'could not recover on the count for goods sold. The COURT, however, held, that where a patty has contracted to bar T.tmoney and something else, and the article is delivered, he ntay,.Z!en truly be sai(d to stand indebted in the remaining money for goTssold an ddelivered. They therefore refused the rule. DASTEIr V. CAREW AXD ANOTHElR Phis was an action of trespass against two magistrates of Somer. ectshire which was tried before the LArd Chief Justice at the last rtisizei for that county. The plaintiff was a farmer, of whose farm and house theilefen(lants had given possession to the landlord, under 237 George 11. c. 32, on the ground thrat six months' rent was in n rear, anti the premises were deserted. On the productioti of the record of the adjutdication, it aMpeared that the magistrates did nst act on *n forniation on oath; and a question tvas therefore raised, whether their proceeHingS,on the fac'e of this instrument,appeared to be legal. Thl Lord Chief Justice reserved the point; and the case went to the jury, wvho fotind a verdict for the defendants. Mr. Sereant WILDE now rmoved for a, rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial-first, on the ooint reserved; and secondiv, on the ground of misdirection of the learned Judge. The plaintiff was the occupier of a ffirm, at a rent of rnore than 2001. y.year, and claimed certain allowances to be deducted from the rent, which the landlord refused to sanction. 'When the first half-year's r.-nt became due, he distrained, antl sold the crops, part of which -were purchased by the tenant. In erder, no tloubt, to induce the landlord to make the allowanceN, the plaintiffquitted the farm-house as a residence, and removedl with hIis family to a cottage near, leavJ nRg one, if not two servants, to aleep in the house, and continuing to c,altivate the farm. In the winter, of course, there was not much on the land: but lie continued to Spread manure, and to sell his turnips, when the defendants authorized the landlord to take pos. stission un.ler the statute. The Lord Chief Justice in summing up directed the jury to consi(ler whether the acts done were bona ,#ne, or were merely with a view of pieventing the operation of the statute. Thle l.ORD ClIrEr JIUSTICE said he thouRht he directed the jury to consider whether the tenant really interuded to cultivate tie f=rrn, or only used shifts and contrivanecs to defeat the remedy of his landlord; Mfr. Sergeant WILDE regretted that he had no note of the charge, bat believed the learned Chief Juscice left the jury to consider the ,).olive with which possession was retained, instead of the mere fiact whether ho had possession or not. The ircumstance of his removal was, no doubt3 calculated to nake a great Impression on a special jury of lantdlords but still tlie qtuestion was-whether'the premises were or were not deserted. The CO UT granted the rule to show cause, observing that the counsel for the defendants, on the argument, would bc at liberty to urge that the record of adjudicationi unappealed against was a conclusive answer to the action. -FORD V. PtEtNITOSE. This was an action for slander on a veterinary surgeon, tried at the last Bury assizes. There were several coants in thc declaration, but only one of them was supported by thie evidence. This count alleged that the defendant, intenling to cause it to be believed that the plaintiff had committed murder or manslaughter, spoke these wordsa- I think the present business ougist to have the most rigid inquiry. He murdered his first wife-that is, he administered im- proper medicines to her for a certaini complaint, which was the cause of her death." On this count the jury found a verdict for the plain- tiff, with 201. damages. Dlr. STouRXs now moved for a rule to show cause why this ver- dict should not be set aside, on the ground that the words set forth were not the subject of action. In itself the term " murder" in- plied a most serious charge ; but its whole force was explained away by the subsequent werds, which might mcan.tliat the plaintiff inno- cently and benevelentlv administered medicines which, contrary to expectation, produced the death of his-wifc. I'he COURT held that there was no ground foir disturbing the 'verdict. Granting that the import of the words was doubtful, they nust con.sider it as aqcertained by tle jury who were to judge of the intention with which they were spoken. if they were incapable of the construction kiven to them in thie pleadings, the declaration would be bad, but if they were capable of such construction, the Jury were to judge if they bore it. They had so judged, and the Court could not hold that they had arrived at a wrong conclusion. They therefore refused the rule. PROSSER V. LEWIS. Mr. RUISSELLT moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict for the defendant, obtained at the great sessions for the county of Pem- broke, shotildt not be set aside, aRd a new trial grarted. This w..s the first case of motion for new trial under the rece4t act relative to actions tried in AVales. It was an action on the case for the diversion of a watercourse, whereby the plaintiff 's barn hatd been flooded, and his hay had sustained injury. Proof was given of such injury in one particular instance,to which the plaintiff was restricted by theform of the pleadings; but the learned Chief Justice told the jury lie did not know how they could estimate the dlamnages or if the plaintiff had sustained any damage * and also directed tihm to consider whether the water did not enter the barn through holes whichi the plaintiff should have mendled. Ile thierefore grounde(d his motion on these directions of the learned judge. The COUIRT granted a rule to show cause. SMtITH V. T11O0tAS. This was an action by an sttorney of the county of iMlonmouthi, ror words affecting him in his professional character. The defetldant suffered judgment by default, and a writ of inquiry was award- ed to asseis the damages. At the execution of the inquiry, the counsel for the plaintiffecalled no witnesses, but merely addressed theiury on the efect the he wordass they were confessed nn the re- corl. The counsel forthe defendant also addressed the jury, but calletd no witnesses. The.Under.Sherifl` read the declaration, and thejury returned a verdict for 401. Illr. LUDLOWV, for the defendant, now moved to set aside the in- quiry, on the ground that as, the laintiff adduced no evidence to show the circumstances under which the words were spoken he was entitled only to nominal damages. If he chose to rest ou tile mere legal confession apparent on the record, he ought only to claim the lowest damnae which a strict legal ground of action would confer. The COURT, however, refused to disturb the verdict. As no evidence was adduced, the case went to the jury unaggravatect by circumstances; and no doubt, all the inferenceq arising from the ab- sence of proof were urged by the defendant's counsel. It was im_ pos.ible, therefore, to say that they hail given excessive damages. THE KING V. DAVIES AND OTUtVRS. IT\. MAl),.UrE moved, in the case of seven defendants, wl1o were convicte-1 at the last. assiz2s for Hereford of a riot and assault in Wale8i that the personal appearance of the defendants to receive judgment shouldbe excused on their attorney undertaking to pay any fine imposed on them. They lived 180 miles from London, and therefore, ceuld not attend withoat great inconvenience and expense. The learned cotmsel was proceeding to state the circumstances of the case, when The COURT stopped him by granting a rule to show cause. The Lord Mayor, attended by the Recorder, and Aldermen Waithrean, Wood. and Thompson, came into Court at3 o'clock, and, after the niotion that the appointment of Mfr. Lc Blanc as their attorney shoald be recorded, invited the Judges to dinner, and re- COUIRT OF KING'S RFNIf l WrT'Crve'xiv Nov. -. JOSEr1as v. DEIBWJE.