Court Of Common Pleas, We...
AIr. CoovFm opened thepleadings. The declaration stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiWff in the sum of 401. for the sale bf a horse. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Mir. Sergeast PAUGHCAN stated the plaintiff's cse. Re appeared for one of the parties in this cause,whose names were familiar to the public eat. The action was brought to recover the value of a horse sold by the plaintifr to the defendant. The facts which he would have to prove in evidence wete shortly these:-On the 11th of Sep- tember, 1822,- the plaintiff called on Mr.Cobbett,with whom hewas on terms of intimacy. - The plaintiff was on borseback, and was -at- tended by a groom. Air. Cobbett came to the doorof his house, and seemed to be struck with the appearance of Al r. Parkima's horse and asked whether Air. Parkins wam incEned to part with It. -lr. Par- kins having no particular attacbment to {he horse, agreed to let air. Cobbett have it for 40 guineas. The(horse, he understood, wvas a very excellent one, and fully capable of carrying Ar. Cob- bett or any person of equdl distinction. It appeared that about thi, period Mtr. Cobbett was about to take an excursion to the countru, for wthich he required the assistance of a horse. He (Mr. Vaughan) did not read that individual's publcations, and therefore did not profess to knov ntch of his proceedings. But he ws informed that Mr. Cobbett twished to take a journey, which he shortly afterwards performed, and a descripton of -hich he had pub- lished, under the title of " A Ritral Ride." slc. Cobbett,itscemed, had great objection, perhaps on constitutional grounds. to turn- pike-bars. It doubtless must be very unpleasant to Mr. Cobbett, when he was riding gently along, meditating upon some matter for the press, to be irterrupted in his reverie by some turnpike-man de- muandiosa two-penny toll. Ar. Cobbett therefore resolved to have a horse whicb would be able to leap hedges and ditches, and avoid the turnpike-bars by crossing over the country. One of IlMr. Cob, bett's publications for October, 1822, had been pointed out to him, in which the writer had given an account of the manner ill which he had avoided. the toll.lars. Mr. Cobbett kept the horse from September 11, 18Y22, till April, 1823, on what he had since been pla trial, andhe now averred that it was never sold to hi gthe period thatMr. Cobbett had the horse in his pos- session, he rodehim great distances, reduced him to a skeleton, and broke his k-nees. The horse was ultimately sold to pav for his keep in the stables in which he was left by Mr. Cobbett. He believed that the only rewson why air. Cobbet ventured to defend this action was, that no third person was present when the horse was sold to him bi the plaintb1 He (Alr.Vaughani) believed, however, that it wold appearfrom the defendnnt's own actions, that he considered the horse to have been sold to him, and not lent on tr}al. The learn- ed counsel then cadled the following evidence :- John Thorne stated that he was groom to lr. Parkins in Sep- tember, 1822. On the 11th of that month the witness took a horse belonging to MIr. Parkins to the Red Hart Livery-stables, Fetter- lane, and delivered it to Wm. Clark, the ostler there. He did not see the horse again until about three months afterwards, at Kensing- ton, in the detendantes stable. The horse was then in a different state from that in which it was in September. The near knee was broken, and in a very bad state. He saw the horse again in about three months afterwards, in the Red Hart stables,where Mr.Parkins kept his horses. Air. Cobbett and his eldest son brought the horse into the stables. Air. Cobbett said that he had brought the horse back. The witnems asked Mr. Cobbett whether he had seen his (witnesa's) master? He replied no; but that he was going to call uponhim. The witness saidthathe couldrot receive thehorseuntil he had&seen his raster. Ar.Cobbett then told the ostler to take the saddleand bridleoff thehorse, which was done and Ahr Cobbett wentaway,leaving thehorse loose in the yard. the horse remained in the stables about three months, and wras then sold by auction to pay tbr his keep. The witness had known the horse for four yeaTs; it was a verv good horse; a good hunter and roadster. At the time it went into Cobbett's hands it was worth between 40and 50 guineas. He was a good leaper. Cross-examined by Mfr. Sergeant PELL.-The horse had leaped on a flint stone, and that had strained him a little in the near -.foreleg. Re-exanined.-It made no difference in his going. He was a safe home, and never stumbled. W. Clarke, the ostler at the Red Hart stables, stated, that on the afteroon of the lithof September the defendant and his eldest son came to the stables to try the horse wlich had been brought there on the forenooni of that day by the plaintiff's servant. The defendant too} the horse out for abotit two hour. lhen he brought him back, the witness asked whom he was to book the horse to. The de- fendant replied thtat it waS to be booked to him, and added, that he had bought it for 40 guineas. He asked the witness his opi- nion of the horse and the witness replied that it was a good one, and worth between 0 and 50 guiineas. Thomas Greenwood, a gentleman's groom, saw the horse before it was in MUr. Cobbett's possession for some months, and he observed that there was a great crack hi hi3 near fore knee. This was the plaintiff's case. Mlr. Sergeant PELL. addrcssed the 3juiy in behalf of the defend- ant. Se was sorr that the public characters of the plaintiff and defendanlt in this suit had been more particularly alluded to than if the partiesv were George Smith and John Brown, or any other in- different individuals. The question in the cause being merely whether the defen4ant had bought t.be plaintiff's horse, he thought it would have been the visest eourse for counsel, in deference to pub. lie opinion and private justice, to have refrained from making allu- sions to circumstances totally unconnected with the case. He was sorry that his learned friend (Mr. Sergeant Vaughan) had net en- tertained siitllar opinions. Ie could scarcely have believed it pos- sible, that in a case of this kind, his learned friend would have condescended to introduce the name of r.Cobbett, as connected with a transaction which had been described in every public print in the kingdom. It was well known that Mr. Cobbett had on variouus occasions endeavoured to correct what he (Air. Cobbett) believed to be certain abuses with respect to some turnpike trusts. WVas it fair in his learned friend to intimate, that ir. Cobbett wanted a horse which would enable him to cut across the country, anid save the money which he would otherwise be obliged to pay for turn pike tolls ? But that wos not all: his learned friend had alluded to one of Air. Cobbett sp-ublications- The LoRDCCHiEF JUsTIcE.-LetuS onfine ourselves to the case. Mr. Sergeant PELL said, tiat he had not introduced the subject, but he would not tamely Sitby and hear such rentarks as his brother Vaughan had made in his opening speech, without cmmenting updoi tietnS: If, indeed, bis Lordship should say that he shouldnot proceed, he would be silent. The LoRit C}iFs' JUtSTICE.-I am sorry thatldid notstop my brother Vaughan when he made the observations which you have alluded to: they were very improper. I will take a lesson from what has occurred, and in future make counsel confine their observations to the case. Ir. Sergeant VAUGHAN Was sorry to find that what he had said had made the defendant so sore. The LoRD CHIIEF JUSTICE.VWhat my brother Vaughai said was said verv good humouredly. I am surethedefendant has no cause to be of'ended at it. Mlr. Sergeant PELL said, he would pursue a different course with respect to the plaintiff, from that wihich hislearned brother had aJopted towards the defendant lie would not say a word that could give pain to Mr. Parkins, except what neces- sarily arose out ofthe circumstancesor the case. He had not been instracted to do so by Mr. Cobbett and if he had,he would not have complied withl such instructions. Since, however, allusion had been made to IlIr. Cobbett's publications, he would beg leave to say-and he cared not whether he advanced himself by doing so-that those publicationscontained much useful information on agricultural mat- ters. (heconfined himself to that): with respect to Mlr. Cobbettes sentiments on other points, he would not give an opinion. Ne would say no more on this subject; but proceed to state what he was in- structed to say he could prove in evidence. He woald then caU evidence to prove that no conversation such as that which Clarke had stated (the only witness of importance on the other side), ever. took place between him and M r. Cobbett, and he would also prove facts which woula show how improbable it was that the conversation should occur. At the time the supposed transaction which formed the ground of the action took place, Mr. Cobbett and Mr. Parkins were great friends, aid were in the habit of conferring together about a man named Byrne, whose name was in some degree notorious. It happened-tbat not, long since, Byrne, for some reasons brought an action against Mlr. Parkins, in 'which action Mr. CoUbett was caUed upons to give evidence against the defendant. He would not say that .this circumstance created any ill-will in the mind-of Mr.. Par. kdnsagainst AIr. Cobbett, but it certainly put an erd to the friendship which had previously subsiste between them. It was very extraordinary, tbat if thepldaintif story were true, 'be had not bronght his actdon at an earlier period. The horse was returned irn Mjarch, 1823 and the action Mwas now beinfg tried in Jun.e, 18s24. The horse itself had never been pronerly described to the jury. T'hey would find that the horne w hose praisecs had been sio trumpeted was the veriest wretch that ever went along a road. It was in the habit of swaying in every direction, and certainly in one of those oselUatory motions it eid come down and crack its knee. In short, it wag a horse which seenied to be destined to break theneck of every body whin bestrode it, except that of its late master, AMr. Parkia.t (A laugh.) He was mosthappy that in the latter part of the 'horse's life, Mr. Parkins had never crossed his. back, or that sad event might have occurred, which he should have deplored as much as' most men in the kingdom. In February, 1824, Mlr. Parkins wrote a letter to Air. Cobbeat, conipliining of breaking of theh'borse's. knees.. Tbis conduct vas pertectly natural in aperson who had lent the horse, but it was extraordinary in a person who had sold the animal, and parted with allinterest in it. If, as Mir. Parkins alleged, he had sold the horse, what bad he to do with the breaking of his kIese ?- What vas th2t to bim?- - Mr. Parkine's lettercould not be found y the plaintiff~, although due diligence had beean used to discover it; and-he should therefore applv presently to the Court to'be-allowed to give the substance-of it in evidence. A copy of the answer whEich the defendant's son wrote to Mr., Parkint's letter was, however, preserved, and as he intended to put it i evidence, he would read it at that time. The'earned Sergeantread a lettery dated'the 5th of February, 1823, written by th defendant'o eldeke son, wh5ch was in nearly the following term:-" Slr, my fatber has received a letter from you, long_nough to fill a column ofa news. paper, concernng your horse. What it mcans, it is impossible to divine, since it containsnoproposition or conclusion. I am theper. sod most imterestedin thesubject of'your letter, having just estaped breaking my neck in consequence of vour horse fasing, and there. foretake upon miyself the trouble of replying to it. The horse which you lent to my fatlier, and-which you dignify by the appellation oef ' noble and dignified animnal," and which you say was the great.' est favourite- you ever_ had, my father, luckily for him, never thoughtproper to mount, except in the stable-yard, on the day oa which you lent it to him. I wish- I had found the horse as sure- footed as you resresented him,, for the other day he was within nrr ace po' breaking my neck, and he tlid break one of his ovn knees by fallingiwth me, when I was goingscarcely offa walk,andonaroate free from stones. The hofse you lent on trial. and yoa pressed on my father to keep it aslong as he liked; and as to price, you said it was so little. that if -my father ssxouldlkeep the horse altogether, you never 6culd be prevailed upon to mention it, and now in your letter you say that you havp refused 42 gaineas for it. You have acknowledgeedit to be 12-years 'old; and it has only three legs to stand upon, for the near fore leg is a mere crutch. My father never had anyidea of'buying the horse at the price you mention; but haring no-hopes of-agreeing with you on the subject, and to avoid bootless dispates, my' father is villing to 'agree that two per- sons shall examine the horse, and to give whatever they shall deter- mine it to have been wortb previous to the breaking of the knee." The next day; continued the leamed coun=el,. Dr, Ccjbbett received another leiter, whichistated. that the writer w.as by rno mneans zatis- flied with the answer which had been given to his former epistle, but contained nod1eciarztion that thehorsehad been sold, and 3odemnand for pavrnent. After some further observatibns, the learnedSergeant proce-eiWto call the following witnesses:- Alr. WVi. Cobbeat, jun., stated, that he remembered Mlr. Par- kins cailing on his fatheratbhis bouseinFleet-street. Some convcr- 'satioil occurred, in the course of which the witness's father stated that he was going iito the country, and believing Air. Parkins to be a judge of horses, asked him where he coald get a good one. hlr. Parkips said that he had got the very thing, meaning a horse, to suit Mlr. Cobbett. He added, that the near fore leg- of the horse was lanced, or staked in the fetlock, which prevented him from lcaping, bat that he was still a good roadster. Alr. Co'bbett askeT the price of the horse. iMlr. Parkins" said, " You shall try him first," because at that time Alr, Cobbett had not seen the horse. Alr.' Parkins pressed Air. Cobbett -to take a trial of the horse for as long a time as he liked, and declined mentioning any price, ever. if Air. Cobbett should keep him. In the evening the witness accon- panicd his father to-the Red Hart livety-stables to see the horse. Witness then contradicted the whole of the evidence which the witness Clarke had given respecting the conversation between him- self and the defendant. The witne5s remained with his father all the time the latter continued- in the stable-vard, and no conversation could have taken place that' he did not hear. His father did not take the horse ont of the yard; he 'merely rode him up the yard, and aever got on him afterwards. The witnes, rode the horse, and it fell with him on the IOth or Jantuary and broke his knee. The witness remembered that his father received a letter from the plaintifF on the 5th of February, 1823. The witness had looked for the letter, but had not been able to find it, He supposed it had been destroyed or-lost. The-witness's father ganve the letter t him, and he gave it to his sister, who kept hits father's papers. ulis sister had also looked for the letter -withoat discoveri2ng it. i\r. Sergeant VAUGHAN submitted that the evidence did not go far enough to entitle the defendant to state the substance of the letter. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that when it was proposed to receive the substanee of a letter as evidence, the most positive evidence must be produced that it could notbe found. If the letter had not been traced to the possession of' the sister, the Court would have allowed the substance to be stated, but that having been done, it could not be stated unless the sister should be called. The witness expressed a wish to explain lii5 last answer, and hay- ing obtained permission of the Court, proceeded .-" I have said, that I delivered the letter to my sister. I think I did not,for this reason s" The LORD CHIEp JuSTICE-StOp Sir. I cannot allow you to reason upon the evidence: it is a most dangerous practice. The Witness.-I wish to explain. I think more weight was given to rmy -woeds than I intended. Cross.examined.-The horse was rode by a brother of ritness, who accompanied his father in his Rural Ride." Thejourney occupied about a month. The witness never communicated thecir- cumstanceof the horse's knee being brokten to Air. Parkins, nordid any other member of his family do so. He continued to ride the horseai'cer the accident, but it wasonly'forbi-benefit,-togivehium exercise. A servant also sometimes rodc him, to execute orders. Air. Faithfal, the attorney for the defendant, saw fir. Par- kinA and Alr. Cobbett together subsequent to the 11th of September, 1822. Mr. Cobbett said he was going into the country, and thought: of taking Byrne with him, but he wanted a second horse. Mr. Par- kinsamtid '"Ta.kemine,itwillbe agoodopportunity foryou to try him." Mlr. Cobbett observed that he should be gone some time. Air. Parkins replied, " Never mind, I shall not want the horse all the winter." Mr. F. Reed saw the horse before the kiqee was broken, and would not have given a 101. note for it. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed un the evidence. He ob- served that this case was one of that description which too frequent- ly occurred, in which the evidence onone side and on the ether was completely contradictory. The jury must decide the case according to the creait which they attached to the evidence of the principat witnesses oD either side. If they believed that the witness Clarke had spoken the ttuth, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff; if, on thc other hand, they were of opinion that the evidence of the wit- ness Cobbett was correct, tley would come to an opposite conclusion. He felt it right to say, that Clarke appeared to be in no way in- terested in the cause. Cobbett, likewise, had no interest; but he might be biasske by ties of relationship. The jury instanty returned a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 401.. costs 40s. The COURT at its rising adjourbed its sittings here till Alonday se'nnight. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. WEDNESDAY, J1NE 2. PARICiAi V. COBBETT.