Court Of Common Pleas, Fr...
(SittiUgs tiftcr Term.-Bceore Lord Cidef Justice' BEST, and a London Joru.l This was an action for a breachi of contract. The platintiff, in the year 1822, entered into a contract with a broker acting ford~.efend. ant, to purchiase: from 40 to 50 tons of cane-wood, to be brought from the coast of Atrica by the Ship .I-eftty thien about to) saili. The price to be paid was 121t. p' ton. Before the return of the HlleU from Africa, cane-wood roc to11 per ton. Tnterlett brought a quan. sity of wood (somiewvhat less than that stipulated.) The plaintiffof- feredl to take it on the terms of the contract, but the defe-ndant re- fXtscd to deliver it. as haviiugmade no contfract with him. For this the action was broughit. SIr. Hlooper, a brokcr, proved hiavinag made the conitract withi the plaintiff for defendant. Thec Captain of the Hefty proved that lie brought home only 19 tois of cane-wood. He could have brought home agreater quantity it he hiad p aid a higher price. The defence 8et opi was, that thiis, if a contract at all, was one with Hooper and not with the plaintiff, and tchat tite pilaintiff could nDt recover undter it. The memorandum of thie contract wag, "Bougt frm -~ells ront40 t 50 onsrfane-wood," and signed " Hoper" bu th nam ofGaledidnotappear in it.' It was then proed hatthecanwoo soci or 61.perton, but that this was less thanthegenralmarei.ric, i, cnsequence of being a little The oitDCisia' usTiE hed tat ithere was evidence to prove a contract. It was a fair presumpition that the defendant knew he was dealittg with a broker; and if he v' as, it was quit ecomneion in such case to conceal the name of the principal. If the Jury eivdafadi the transactioni, they would of course find fo he deena t; but he mnust say that no evidence of that kind was before themn. If' thev should findi for the plaintiff, he thought they oughit to give damnages, for the difference betweeni the contract and market-price of 40 tons. The Jury founid a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 11101. ACTION; FOR 179. 6d.-SEWEL.L V. COitiPE. Thlis was an action to recover the cost of' sunidry drugs and mne- dicines" adminisatered by plaintiff to a "sick horse" belonging to the defendant, anid also some compensation for his attenidance and his skill and trouble in adminiistering those medicines. The whole timount sought by the plaintiff in the firsie, instance wat 21. 10e. ; of this s,uni the defend ant patid 11. 12s. 6t1. into Court. The plaintiff took it out, aiid issue was joined upon the question whether the plaintiff had a legal cla6im to the remaining balance of 17s. 11d. for his atttendance. Mtr. C. r. WILLiAMSi openedI the case. Silr. Sergeaiit PELL Stated it to the jury. The plainfiff, he ob. Served, was a veterinary surgeon living at Brighton. The defend. ant was a gentlemnan residing. also in that town. The learnedI Ser- geant then, after detatiling the circumnstances out of which the actior cerost, stated that it would be proved that the medicines administered were of the value of 11. 14s. The question would then bE whether Sir. Sewell was entitled to the remaining small sum for his attendance on thle liorse. It might appear, perhaps, oppressive. at first, thiat an actioni should be brought for so small a sium ;but it should be recollected, that it. was brouight not so mnuch for thie valuE of the sum sought, but to assrrt that w'hich was his right-a fee foi hiis advice and attendance, besidcs tie value of his miedicines. 1i wouldl be proved, that.such was the general practice wvithi persona who practised tke veterinary art. Witnesses werte called to prove that plainitiff had attended the horse for seven or eight days, and sent his servant to see hiim two oi three times a day, and also went himself twice a-day for that time. and also sent him somie medicines-three two-quart anodyru draughts, and five fever balls. Mlr. Colem-an, a pro' cssor in thie Veterinary College, was called, A certificate or diploima from the college was handed to him, for th( purpose of showing tiiat the plaintiff was a mnember of that body, om hadl pasesedl the necessary examinations before it in orcher to qualif3 him to practice as a Yeterinary surgeon, but the Chief J1tistice re. fused to receive it as evidlence :it was not from a public body recog. nizedt by lawv. He had admitted that the public had derived ronal. derable benefit fioma the skill of the perons who constitutedI thai bodyv; but sitting thiere, lie could not receive a certificate from their as of itself a legal proof of sk-ill. Air. Colemnan was then examinee as to the skill of the plaintiff: He considered him fully qualified te practice as a veterinary surgeon; It was, hie uddled, te general usage for veterinary surgeons tochiarge somethingfor their attendanice, in cases where muich medicine was not required. Mlr. Sergeant PELL said he was quire satisfied to go upon the quaniiitm flsCrieit. Mlr. Sergeant VAU GAITA., for the defendant, contended that thiu was a new prnceiple, to charge for attendance where niedicinen were supplied. He did not see why veterinary surgeons shouldl be al. lowed to make a charge for advice and attendance, whilch apotheca. risa were-not allowed by law to do. In this case, medlicines were g,iven ; and he submitted thiat the profit on them was quite sufficient. wihout an extra charge for attendance. Mlr. Coleman was re-called, and asked by the Court what might be the cost of the medicines whiicla he had heard described at hsavlnp been given to the horse ? lie said that thie whole might have beer made up for about 11a. 6d., and thie bleeding would by somne vete. rinary surgeon-s be chiarged Is., and by otliers 2s. 6d. Te CHIEF JLsrTICE left it to) the jury to Say wh ether, undet all the circmstances of the case, the plaintiff svasi sufficiently com- pensated for his trouble by the difference between the value of the medichies and the mnoney paid into Court. If they should be of that oapiNion, they would find for the defendlant. If; oni the othei hand, they thiought that thie wliole demanid was not woo great, they wouldl find for the plaintiff. Tue juty, after conseilting together for a few minutes, found a verdict fonr the plaintiff-Damnages 17s. 6d., and costs. ASSAULT..I5owEN V. PARtRY, RIYAN, AND CON-NOR. This was an action for ani assault committed by the defendatit Parry, aidled by hiq apprentice Ryan, and his servant Conner, upor the plaintiff, rite defendants pleiaded, first, thie general issue; and next, a special plea of'justification was entered oni the record. AIlr. F. -POLLtOCK opened the case. M r. Sergeant PELL stated it to thie jtry. Th'le elainitiff, he oh. served, is a suirgeon, residing in UInion-streect, Hackney-road ; thE def'endanit Parry is a puhlican, and also a paper-stainer, living in the samie nieighibourhood. The learned Sergeaiit then detailed the factu of the case, as proived by the following evidence: Thoa Dilon, journieymTan carpenter, anld also a penslonet from the corps of 'Sappers and Aliners, stated, that on the day in questioni he went into the house of the def'endant to getsapint of beer. lie saw plaintiff at. the bar, with a young child by the hand. Soinle altercation was going on, and wliness hieard defendlant say chat he would send plaiatiff to prison for debt. Plaintiff itplied, that he wouild get out with honouir, and that tie defendaent hiiimself wa~ "1guilty of tile ctinie of' going to prison for debt." Upon this, defendaii.t struck the plaintiff a blow on the nose, aiid cut hiim. Thle blow knocked himi- back from tIme bar. They fought then bade towards the parlour. Connor cam.eup),.and defendant said to Ihim. "Serve thlat rascal out." On this, Connor strucek hlim. Ryar. pulle d. hi y t he coat, b tit dli d not stri ke h im. PlIai ntiff was kn oclce~ don everaltinmes, and " kicked for falling." Witness saw de. fendauit kick himi more tItan onice. fie was at lengthi thrown out of the house, fie had at this time" two black eyeeand a bloody nose." Trhe witness, who gave liia evidence with great apparent precision. but witlh a van's' stro'ng Irish brogue, Was cross-examined by afr, Sergeant VAUGHAN : You are an Irishman. I believe ?-Yes, Sir. You said the plainitiff' was stupified. 'Are you somectimes that way yoursel f?_4 am somnetimes so, but I dlon 's'expect that I amn at nowy. (A laugh.) Is niot plaintiff a bit of a cottintryinan of Yours ?-No ; but he is an enemy of a countryman of mine. Wthat dto you mnean by that ?-Whmy, I m(Ane a man that dloes not like an Irisfimian. That's svhat I sudine. (A laugh.) I never knew that man (the plaintiff) before that day in my life. As witness Was leaviag the box, he wasi called back by Air. Ser. geant VAUGHfAN, whio asked whethier he had ever beeni bail for the plaintiff. Vlitnessl.-Bail do you nianie I can't be bail for myself. ,Mr. Sergeant VAUrGIAN..-Have you been bail for Rooney ?_. I offcred myself ball far Rooeiey in a little riot I stune a I-ow. Mr. Sergeant VAUGeIAm.-Were you a housekeeper at that time ? WVitnes.m.A houisekceeper ? Whiy, I tell you, Sir, I lived in a house, and paid my rent; and I thinK, with a pensioni of 221. 16n. a year for wotunds received in his Mtajesty's service, and 71. of it in mY pocket, I might lawfully go hail for a friend for 151. Sir. Sergeant. VAUGHAN.-..Bumt, Sir, were you a housekeeper at the time you offered yourself as bail ? Slir. Sergepnt PELL objected to the questionl. *Aftar some discussion, the question was allowed to be put, but witness was thld by the Court that he might answer it or not just as he liked. W5~itnes-,.-WXell, then, mty Lord, I dlon't choose to answer that question just at present. (A laugh.) Mir. Sergeant VAUGHAN....VerY well, Sir; that will do. You may now go down. Sir. Jese Griffin corroborated the statement of Dillon as to the violence offered to thie plaintiff. Other witnesses spoke also of the violence offered by the defend. ant, an I some of t=e,spoke of the state in which they saw the plaintiff after the asal. He was quiie disfiqcied in his face, and covered with blood. Ile was confined to his house two days, in consequence of the injuries he rieceived. In the course of the ex- amination it was adinitted runt ain indictment was pendling in the King's3 Bench at thie prosecutioo3 of the plaintiff, against the de- fendant, for this assault. Sir. Serge-ant VAUGHAN for the defendanlt, said lie shouild be able to sihow that the as,,,nIt was commenced by the plaintiff; that he had been told to quit the house of defendant, but that he refused ; and that it was not until after the first asssault was committed by plaintiff, thlat he (defendant) struck him. The evidence which he sihould call would, he was satisfied, more than counterbalance the evidence oF2 such a fellow as the witness Dillon, who basl refused to answer a question which no man wl,o was coniscious of having acted honstl wold avedecine anwerng.He then called Sirs May Cuncl, a elerl woan, who stated that sbe was presnt t ths tansatio Thre asgoine difference betweern the partes bou soic mncyattrs,in hich defendant had been bail fortheplantii'.Defndat akedforhismoney, to whicht plaintiff repiedby mafingoa a hsadfal" f oney, and sM b could pay, but fie would not, and defendant rnight aG; to ,iton ai;rot; and called him a d-d villain, ,and atany ot6er pSitp1s wbich sre would be ashamned to repeat. Defendant desired 'plaiztiff' to leave the place, but plaintifF refdsed, offeredt; to flghtiand then caught defendant round the neck and struckbhim.' Whieteheywefe scuffling, witness took awvay Mr. Bpwen': child and took it home, and.when Rhe cdune back, Mir Bowen was gone, and the'affray'all over. She tlhouight thle plainzift was not sober. On her cross.examisation, tlhis witness Said, she did not see Al r. Parry, or!sny: one else, strike Mr. Bowen she saw nothiing but what she stated. Mr. Dixon, an appraiser, was also presefit on this occasion, and heard some conversation betwteen plaintiff pnd defexdant, about a cognovit. Plaintif'refused to pay etr it, and called the defebtdadt several hardl na1mes, and used much bad language tomards him. Defendant told liinm he was drunk, and desired hlii to go,. horn. Plaintiffthen challenged bim to fight; defendanit et'tised, on which plaintiff made a rush at him. Tbey both went down; Patry called out to his men to take Bowen off, and the iwo other defendants canme in, and got hiold of him, and tried to pall him away. fie resisted, and struggled much, but was at length iut out by the two sne. He (plaintift) was drunk at tLte time. Witness was speaking to Bowemi this day In court, andi Bowen told j,im, *nat lie would never have brought the action if it wtre not for the attorney in the cause. On his cross-examination, he stated, that Parry was also much hurt he had a black eye, and his nose was bleeding. 'I?he hurts received by the plaintiffwere, he had no doubts principally occasion. ed by his falls. Mr. Sergeant PELt, in reply to this evidence, commented with considerable warmth on the utter improbability of the story told by the witness Dixon, respecting the alleged admission of the plain. tiff, about bringing the action. Ile then went on to the other parts of the case, and contenled, that the whole weight of evidence, in peint of consistency and probability, lay with the plaintifEw The LORD CIIIEF .JusTIcE Summed up the case, and khe jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the deftendant. The case occupied the Court from an early part of the day until five o'cloek. COURT OF COMMON PLEAR. FItrnAv. JUYtv 9. GALE V. WELLS.