Star. — 1812-03-12 (London, England)

UFZELL V. MOTT. Mr. CVRIVOOD stated; that this was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for 'iding over his sun, breaking his thigh, mid otherwise much bruising him, by which the plaintiff lost his son's strvicc.  Mr. Serjeant Besr then detailed the circumstances of the case as follows The defendant ' was a farmer, residing at Wo 'dford, and the plaintiff was but a very poor man. On the 18tfrof April last, the defendant was, lie supposed, returning from London ;• but it would he proved that he was riding most fu= riously along the road, and kept whipping his horse all the time. The son of the plaintiff was unfortun dossing the road at the same moment, when the 11,.rse dlove over him and broke his thigh. But this was not the most serious injury be sustained; he was also so much bruised in the belly, that he had within these few days been taken with a spitting of bloOd, which a most respectable surgeon would state, he had no doubt, arose from the injury sustained by the lad from the defendant riding over him, and he should also ptove, that the manner in which the de. fendant urged his horse to proceed was so furious, that it was a mercy he had not killed some one ; and if he had, he certainly would have had to answer for it on an indictment for murder. The present action only sought a compensation in damages for the injury his carelessness and wantonness had inflicted on the poor boy. Mr. R. Burford stated, that he resided at Stratford, and was coming home in his gig, do the ISth of April last, about six. in the evening, he s,w the defendant Mott behind him, who came galloping most furicuslv, whipping his horse all the time. His gig horse took fright from the manner in which Mott had passed him, and it was some time before he could regain the command of him. About twenty-yards" beyond the Stratford turnpike, a little boy was crossing the toad with a paper in his hand ; the defendant same directly upon him, and, as it were, smashed him down. He did net pull up after the accident, but rode en as bald as ever. He was pursued by several persons, himself with others. He then rode into a coal-wharf ; when the witness came up and asked, who he was ? he at first refused to give his name, but the clerk at the wharf said his name was Mott, and that he was a farmer at Woodford. He was then persuaded by some persons present to go back, and see the child he had rode over.  This statement was confirmed by another witness, when Mr. GARROW, for the defendant, after a conference with the Counsel for the plaintiff, said .he felt this to be a case where the defendant ought to make a compensation fir the mischief he had unfortunately occasioned. He had always felt so, but there was a difivience as to amount; they had now agreed that a verdict shouli be taken for £.50. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff kr; consent for £5O. On the Crown side the cases were very trivial. Jaws Harvey, a coachman to William Chinnery, Esq. was indicted for forging a receipt, or acquittance fc.r Money, with intent to defraud W. Thompson, jun. of Waltham Abbey. It appeared by the evidence, that Mr. Chinnery dealt with the prosecutor for small articles, and the coachman was instructed to pay him. He produced a receipt as evidence that he had paid him £B, when, in fact, he-had not paid him ; but the paper was merely this, it paid Mr. Thompson JeB," without any signature, but a receipt stamp. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty ; but the Lem) CIIIRF BARON said, he d übted if it amounted td a forgery, and he should save the point for the opinion of the Judges.  Bow-