Court Of Common Pleas, Gu...
This was an action brought by a lady, residing In Kent, against the defendant, to recover the svm of two pounds, which he had ob- tained from her through misrepresentation. In the year 1823, the plai'ntiff received a letter-from the defendant, who kept an office at I,iverpool, stating that qpon her enclosidg himn 21., he would inform her where she would find certaiii property belonging to her. She accordingly rernitted him the 21., and received a letter in reply, acquainting her that there were twenty-five dividends due to her in the ;unclairned dividend-office, t7hich he would undertake to recover for her at a commisuton of 101. -per cent. The lady directed a propei search to be made, and the state- ment of the defendant turned out to be atterly t'alse. She therefore I directed her-solicitor to apply to the defendant to return the21. forth;; with; bat the latter, conteuting himeelf with talking big about his character and honout, inatead of returning the- money, the present action Was brought- both au a punishment-to him- and a warning to others. No doefnce was attempted. The learred Judge (PARxs) approved of the good spirit which dictated this proceeding; and under his Lordship's direction, the jury returned a verdiet for the plalntlff'-Damages 21. - '. ARW v JOIx S. 'rhis s/as oi action to recover daniages:for a wilful trespas, com- mitted by the defendant In driving his: gig against that e' tbe1llaln tiff, whereby the horAe of the latter was -severely injured.' ft -a peared in evidence,that the plalntiffi-wh it' aerc'ant of the Jewish persuasion, was going out fromt iown, wiirthwo-friends in a gig,-' boat eight or nine otc1ock in the -evening, -in September last. Wien dnvin; along the new North road-, lie -eameiivtblert contact with the de endant?a gig, the shaft *if -which- -eiatered the' chest of thc plaintif's hore (a valuable animal, - worth 90L), aHd inflicted a wound -nine inches deep -The defendant and a friend -were thro-vn out of their gig, the shafts of -which were brolten; an4 hinself -con- siderably- hurt. Thelinjttry sustained by tlte plaintiff'was confined to the wound inflicted ttpon his horse, w7hich it took g montlh to careb and tfo which the farrier's - bill was jive guineas. He calledl several witnesses, -who -swore that when the accident occurred, he wag driving on the left,hand sldW of the 'toad, and the derendantotn-the wrong. A nambetof witdesses-on theother side swore that the-reverse was the l'aCt. Amidst thlsconflicting' testimony the following points appeared in favout of'the plainaiff: first, It was he alone who asked for the other par 's 'adilrexs; secondly, the other party gave a falge name'and-addresi* thir'dlv an appleman, called by the deitrdunt, corroboratel the plain tif"s witnesses ; and lastly, ttot only h2A the defendant,` notwithstandinig thte fnjury himself and his gig had sustained, not brought an action against the plaintif', who, if the defence now set UD were true, was the trespasser, but he even ofrered in- court to pay the farrier'd bill. ITq; hee Jury, under these circumstances, returh'ed a verdict for the The Court, at its rising, ad journed to the 20h of January. COURT Or CO^MM iON PLEAS, GUTLDHAI, DEC.23. IryVAPTMN, V. RAuTv-