Salisbury, Monday, Aug. 9...
X1." 'as an action to recover damages for loss sustained by the ntiff' in consequence of the Mialicious setting on fire of two houses, lired to be hiiE Property. he fact of the houses being set on fire about one o'clock on a night, was fully establishedl; but a question atose as to the lo the noble plaintiff to bring his actioni, he being admitted to e only a reversioniary interest in the premises. A verdict was n for plaintiff, silbject to a case on the point of law. BROWN V. DALLY MlORE AND OTHERS. Ir. Se.geant PELL sait] that this was an action brought by his nt, who was a man in the humble walks of life, his occupation g that of a gardener, to recover compensation in damages for an ry Inflicted upon him in congequence of the negligence of the de- aiat's servants, and which disabled the poor man from pur- g his emoloymnent. The witnesses would inform the jury, on the ?3d of December last, the plaintiff was proceeding 'ha cart towards LAvington, on the Bath road, when he rd a van, which belonged to the defendants, and which ran be- en London and Bath, co-ming behind him. He took care to place cart on the gide of the road, as far from the mi(ddle as it was in judgement necessary to remove it, in order to allow the van full m to pass. H9owever, the triver of the van not taking adlvantage h sace that was left him, th'oxght proper to approach so near Intif 's cart, as to render their coatact absolutely unavoidable. e consequence was, that the wheel of the van 8truck the off-wheel e cart, and so violent was the concuqsion, that the farweaker body instantv overturned, and the pFor man who was sitting in it tumbled out, rnd bisleg brolen. The conduct of the defendant's vants wvaswhollyinexcusable; the road was perfectly well able connodatethe atwo vehicls, and therefore there was not the pretence for the driver of the van to coine near the catt at The only excuse, indeed, which could be offered for misconduct was one which could be of rio avail in that n_-namely, the intoxication of the driver. On the contrary, if driver was prore,l, as he had reason to believe he would be, to ibeen n a state of drunkenness at the time, it would behove the to visit negligence arising from such a cause with the greater erity, as they wonld see that there might be no calculating tbe chiefs which might be produced fromr allowing persons who had care of nuch vehicles to lose that power over themselves, and capability of guiding their ho-ses, which even in the open day, under the most favourable circumstances, must be kept in con- t exercise,l in order to guard against danger. Application was d to the detendants for redress, but the answer was that they did care about damages, as there was a society of proprietors who Id bear the expense of such actions. he facts stated by the learned counsel having been proved bv the nesses for the prosecution, Mr. Sergeatit XVILDE, on the part of defendant8, called the guard and othier wimesses, who gave testi- ny of a contradictory nature. he Jury, howeyer, after a shiort consultation, returned a verdict t)ie plaintiff_Damsgez 2001. Ir. Baron GARtow.-I think it right to observe, and the pre- case furnishes an example of the truth of the observation, that formation of societies or bodies of coach proprietors. for the.pur. e of resisting, at the common expense, such actions a8 the present, highly to be reprehended, as being calculated to do a great deal of nchief to the publir. The security of persons who are obliged to themselves to the skill and attention of coachmen and guards necessarily an important objct of public policy; and whoever eatens to diminish the means of continuing that security, as btless suech combination does, must be viewed with the greatest kIOUSY. I SALISBURY. AfoxnAY. Atn. kj1IE DUTXE OF SOMTE1SE v. Tv V IA - _-