Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
LAW REPOR2. .hCe iiORD UHIF. JUsTIci sat at Nisik'nus,and tried 'UmmOn T7fU ..ytiQ This was an a'ftion to recover the valne or a horse, which was killed by a stroke from the shafts of a cart belonging to (he plaintifl; aud which it was alleged his servant had improperly driven. It apfeaed, that in December last, as the plaintiff's horse was standink niesr the curb-stone in Afile.End-road, a cartbelonging to the defendant was furiou.lv driven against him bv a bor, who proved to be deaf aLd dumb. The horse was taken to it neighbouring far. rier,,and there died in about half' an hour after the accident. A person who was p,ssing at the time afterwzards went, bv the desire of the plairirifrs attorney, ta the def'rdanes in order to identify the carriage,.and to him the defendant admitted that he bad trasted the boy wvith the chai9e. Twro witnesses who knlew thehorse exipressed annoinion that he was worth 401. Ailr. toUG5HAiA, forthe defendant, did not deny that the acci- dent occurred in the marnner desersbed but expressed his hop ethat he should be able to show that the deafand dumb lad got into the chaise without the Imowledge of his client, and while he was wait- ing in the hbotte of his father. _To prove tbis ease, the learned counrel called hbe father of the boy, named Cousins, who stated that Alir. Burgess came to call on him,and left his cart at the door, but did not give it in charge to hit soit, nor did he ever authorize him to hold the horse. On cross-ex- amination, the witness said his sott, though deafand dumb, was in. telligent, and could vwrite answers to written questions. A witness was called who thought the horse not worth more than 101. nlfr. SCARLERTT in reply, argued that if the defendante casee were true, he would have called the lad to prove it, since, notwithstanding hisc infirmitv, he would lie a competent witness. The LoTiin CHIEF JIUSTICE left the jtiry to decide on the con- flicting evidence, wvhether the lad was left in charge of the chaise. Thejury found a verdict for the plaintif-fDamages 301. nUGeY.V CHANDIDLER AN) WIFE. this was an action for an assault and battery committe4 mo the plaintiff by the female defendant. To this there was a plea of not g(iltp, and also a plea that hrs. Bugin committed the first assault on M2rs.Chandler. nMr. BRouGfrA.M stated the case for the plaintiff, whom he de- scribed as a poor vidow whn had seen better days, and who now was reduced to seek a livelihood for herself and only child by her needle. She lodged in the house of Mr. Chandler, who, as she omitted to nay her little rent exactly when it was due, distrained on her ap- tarel , and in so doing flls. Chandler used some violence to AMts. Bugin's child. The mother went to her assistance, when she was strimck several times by Mrs. Chandler, and fainted. For this in. jurv sbe now sought a fair and moderate compensation in drmages. This statement was proved Sy Tripheng Bugin, the daughter, an intelligent child of 11 years of age. She was cross-examined as to some subsequent appearance of'her mother at a police-office, but the inquiry was stopped by the Lord Chief Justice. Ir. POLarOCx, for the defendants, called Mr. Hutchings, alodger in the house, who stated. that after the affray, Airs. Cltandler ac- cuxed Mirs. Bugin of striking her, which she did not deny: but beeged they would not esecute their threat of sending for an officer. Air. GiUNEY repliedfor Mlr. Brougham, who had been obliged to leave.the Court. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintifF-Damages 201. COURT OF KING'S 1SENUR. GuitDnu-4.T.. -t-WE 2. 3o1!NSO V. 3IURGESg.