Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page




MONDAY, MAltCH 5. The case of GIBBON V. WARREN was resumed this morning. After some further examination of witnesses, Mr. Grove addressed the jury, after which Mr. Chilton addressed the jury on the whole case. His lordship summed up very minutely, after which he took the verdict separately. The verdict was for Z43, in addition to the E41 paid into Court. llouxEr, v. RENOUF.—In this action the parties were French- men—one being the master of a vessel, and the other a merchant residing at Swansea. Mr. Grove and Mr. Benson were counsel for the plaintiff; attorney, Mr. J. R. Tripp. Mr. Evans, Q.C., and Mr. Richards appeared for the defendant; attorney, Mr. R. W. Beor. The action was brought by the plaintiff, who is master of a vessel called the Rose, to recover from the defendant the sum of iC44 odd, being the amount of the freight of a cargo of potatoes from St. Malo, in France, to Cardiff, and extra freight from thence to Swansea. The defendant denied that, he was indebted. The vessel arrived at Cardiff in October, and by an endorsement on the charter party, the defendant's agent at Cardiff agreed to pay 3s. a ton additional on the vessel proceeding to Swansea.-Verdict ac- cordingly for plaintiff for the amount claimed. GLASSBROOK and RICHARDS v. REDHEAD.—Mr. Grove and Mr. A. Jenkin appeared on the part of the plaintiffs; uttornev, Mr. J. T. Jenkin. Mr. Evans, Q.C., and Mr. Benson for the defen- dant attorneys, Messrs. Watkins and Hooper. The plaintiffs sought to recover from Mr. Septimus Redhead, the representative of the Worcester Colliery Company, about the sum of £ 191 for work and labour done. The defendant pleaded payment, also non assumpsit, excepting as to 190 odd, which had been paid into court. From the opening of the learned counsel, it appeared that in June, 1847, plaintiffs entered into a contract with defendant to work a level for draining from a point near the Beaufort Arms, three miles from Swansea, to the four-feet vein of coal on the estate of the Duke of Beaufort, in a straight line. to wall and arch wherever arching was required; and to do the whole work in a good and workmanlike manner, at the rate of iC2 10s. per yard. After several witnesses had been examined, the court adjourned at about seven o'clock. TUESDAY. This morning the business of the court commenced at the usual hour. Additional witnesses having been examined for the defendants, Mr. Evans, Q.C., addressed the jury on the part of the defend- ant, contending that the evidence adduced on the- part of the plaintiffs had failed in making out the good case opened by his learned friend. His lordship then recapitulated, and commented upon the lead- ing features of the evidence, after which the jury retired. After an hour's absence they returned with a verdict for plain- tiff on both questions, but deducting £ 24 for fifteen yards, at iCi 12s. a yard, which they found to be required, in addition to that constructed by the pliintiff. This was equivalent to a ver- dict in favour of plaintiff for £ 77. DUKE OF BEAUFORT V. G. BYNQ MORRIS. (Before a special jur3r-) This was an action in which the plaintiff declared for injuries to his several collieries caused by the overflowing of water owing to the defendant, working his collieries in an improper manner. The defendant pleaded the general issue, also, that the plaintiff was not possessed of the collieries, and likewise a justification. In his re- plication the plaintiff denied the truth of these pleas. Mr. W. M. James, Mr. Brown, and Mr. A. Jenkins, appeared for the plaintiff; attorneys, Messrs. Watkins and Ho >per. Mr. Chilton, Q.C., and Mr. Benson appeared for the defendant; at- ttorneys, Messrs. Roumieu and Co. Mr. James, in opening the case to the jury on the the part of the plaintiff, said that the Duke of Beaufort complained of extensive injuries sustained by his Landore, Pentre, and other collieries, is consequence of the manner in which the defendant worked his ad. joining colliery, and this case arose from certain proceedings in reference to the question, pending in the Court of Chancery, the Lord Chancellor having imposed upon the plaintiff the necessity, before his lordship would pronounce his decision in the matter, of bringing before a jury an issue with the view of getting their opi- nion, whether the effect of the defendant's mode of working was such as to amount to a legal injury. Several witnesses were examined for both plaintiff and defend- ant, after which the verdict was given for the plaintiff, This concluded the business of the Assizes.






I y I, I f