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

? uii wars an action Dy n2r. mIoneypenny, an atcrilleCE, 5g51U" 4U' committee for managing the erection of a bridge across the Severn at flythe-hill, near Trewksbury, to recover compensation lor his sla- bour In makinrplans, specification;, and an estimate. At the trial before the Lord Chief Justice at Westmizister, it appeared that the plaintiff had not made sufficient inquiries respecting the bed of the- river, and accordingly his estimate, being formed on errfii2us pre- mises, proved inaddequate to the expense. There were alsimvo tech- nical objections tO his claia to recovery-first, that the committee were nOt liable, as the bridge wras built by act of arliament; and secondly, that the plaintia could not sue as hte vi3s hlmsdlf a aub. scriber to the bridge. The Lord Chief J}ustice thought the action couid not be sustained, and the pl3aintiff wvas nonsuited. The ATTOlRN i:Y-dEItE2, now moved for a rule to show cauoe why the nonsuit should not be set aside, and a new tial had, It was true that the estimate maade by i4r. Djonevpenny hzad turned out erroneous, in consequence of a single mistaje; but it did not follow that he was to receive no csmpensation for his jourDies, hi5 plans, and.his Jaborious servicea on the spot, which he leribrf edat the request of the CDomnittee. The bridge had been butilt in the P0- sition which he recommended; and though the plan was afterwards changed by the recommendation of lUr. Telford, the dLvil cngineer, he was not thereby deprived of his claim toxecnwmpense. The COURT, though inclining to think the technieal objectione good, refused the rule on the point raksed on the merits, It was. highly important to the publie, that-gentlcmen of Mr. Moneypennyvs profession should Itnow, that whens they are employed to lakean estimate, they mnust use reasonable diligence to ascertain the real amount of expense to' be incurred, or they wil be precluded froto recovering any damges in a court of law. 'They were not to Select particular parts of their work and insist on compeugation for those, when; in the general result, their exertions were mischieVOus or fruitdess. In tlis in5tance,ifthe Attorney-General had dediredit,the question would have been submitted to the jury, but there could be little doubt of their answer. The nonsuit, therefore, which was better for the plaintiHF than an adverse vcrdict, was right. MORs2ETON v. HARDERX A2D OTHERS. This was an action on the case, against the proprietors of a stsg coach, for so negligently conducling it, that a cart of the plaintiff " was orerturnecl, an hisleg broken. At the trio, wich took pla at Chester, it ap'peated that one of the proprietors was on the box, and that the achman had delivered the reins into h houd Under these circumstances, the leirned Jedges thought the ils count, which allegea that the coach was under the mnagement f a servant, disproved, and that the acion ought to beintrespes,ar accordingly nonsltted the Plaintiff. ffgr J. 'WipJAxs moved forartile tS zB u se whythe nor. Au'taliould not be aet aside, and a new trial had, on the ground that Ite second count of the declaraton was sustatined, and that the action 'Wan rightly brought. Trhe COURT granted, the rule, observing, " We shall see what the other side say to it." HARVEY V. IRUSSEL-. This was an action for verbal slander, tried before Mr.Baron Hul- lock, at Larncater, when the plaintifi' had a verdict with 201. davtags. The words proved were-" You area rascal-a scamp. I bave taken from you niv work myself, and have prevented you from having msany bundred h: arps to size froim other nianufacturers,which you would have 'hadlbtfrryprudnthm otoe- ploy you." ,btlruyprudn hmntt m r Sergeant Unoss now moved ror arile to show cause wly the judgrnent should not be arrested, on the -round that the-wordsywere not sufficient to sustain the action.-The CbU RT granted the rule. T 1ULLtL5 V. SPRtI.NOS'ELLOW AND WIFE. This action was brought to recover damages for malicious tmichief to a Picture. The case was tried before Mlr. Justice Burrough, at Cleiroisford, when the jury foundI a verdici for the defendanit. Al . AnoLr. us now rnoved for a new trial,on thegtound that the 'verdlet was contrary to evidence, and the direction of the leatntdCt tJudge. enhe ewe was lroved by a rervant qf the plaintiffs who left the defendants in the room where the pieture was and who found it defaced shortly atter their departare. The learneA Judge told the jury, that if they believed this wit ness, oni whom- there was no im- putation, they mnust find a verdict for the plaintifwf, and ought not to cOnfine their damages to the cost price of the picture, as it probably was rated at a 0hger v_alue bVy itf owners. Notwithstanding this direetlbo, -the jU6urj fuid a verdlcet for the defendanto. The Uorn.T, understanding that the value of the picture was tsnae f0l., said the case came writhin their general rule, and refused ~k distuirb the Iveraict. The rulte waa founL-d in mermy to parties *110, V7uld haVe to pay the costs of the first trial, and thtus wouild Pav verydearly for the chiance ed a tecondl, in which they mnight also f'al'. They could not, tbolefore, interfere with the verdict of the jury. TIlE KIVG v. PusqrMLt.L A5D OTIERS. TbhI was an itP, I ttment for a nuisance in buihlingvair.s in the e-,.Ae case rernoved from nNorthumberland to York. ; he, 0rs a <ioggestion that a fair and impartial trial could not be had ihe?Rner con4ty. At the trial It appeared that the defentdants who ofipied Oxtensive coal.wharfs on the side eS' the river, had e .ield two gears on its bed for shooting coals into the ves- et 'a a mare advantageous manner. The gears were build- IOk5 'of Wood and iron, 36 feet in breadth, about the 'marre height, and pro3ectng 191 feet into the river-about one. elghth of its bed. Sevcral witnesses proved that inconveniences to craft navigating tihe river arose from these buildings. The learned Judge, rr. Justice Bayley, however, left the case to the jurv on the questions whether a pubiic benefit was derived from the node of shooting the coal ? and whether a public benerit outweighed the pub- lic inconvenience proved ? The jury found a verdict for the deten- dants upon an agreement, that if the direction of the learned Judge shoull 'be ftsund erroneous in paint of law, a verdict shiould be en. teredfor the Orownl. Mr. BRourrtAR moved for a rule to show cause whiy the verdict should not be entered for the Crown, chiefly on the mround that the Inproved mode of shooting the coals was not a public, but a private trene-t. and consequently could not be set against the inconvenience suffer b the public. The defendants, by this means, were enabledl coals better; but it ras more probable they would sell thent deelinn chneaper, ated thus the direct advantage would be en- .the; tiel ow n T .ey were not hound to sell at all, and might fix y tprece. aqow, suppose a paeblic.house built actoss a public 5my, 'e at WOI d he rnuch more r. public benefit, because the inn- Iteeper wo.u^ bc obliged to entertain all who applied at reasonable hours, ant yet surely that would be a public nuisance. Th 'oustv &ranted a rule to showv cause. Tsrg T XIN V. THOMTAS HITrOES. I'hs as an indictment against the defendant for perjury, whici was tried before MIr. Justice Burrough at the last assizes for Guild- fwrrd The defendant, in 1822, prosecuted two persons named Chan- .dler and Daiford, for stealing lead from a house which he occupied, .,n the vicinity of Guildford. On that trial he swore that he saw the 'two prisoners at his house on the ni-bt of the robbery, when they 'were observed by a watchman, namedSugar,and cursed him for dis- covering them. The men were acquitted, and afterwards preferred the present indictment, in which perjurv was assigned on the de- fent?ant's testimony at the preceding trial. The case for the prose. -aution was principally sustained by the evidence of the two men and Chandler s uncle, and was met by the evidence of the watchman, hrbo swore the men were on the premises. The jury returned a ver. diet of guilty. Mr. BRaODarcr now nmoved for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be had, on the Krotnd that the verdict was contrary to the weight of evidencc. The learned Judge told the jury, if they be!ieved the watchman, the defendant was entitled to an aequittaf. f*e had also affidavits,tending to show that the case ought to undergo : second inquiry.-The CouJ RT granted a rule to show cause. I COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, Nov. 10. 3&ONEYPEXNY V. HARTLAND AND OTHERSL