South Eastern Gazette, 18 September, 1860.

DARTFORD. County Court.

This court was held on Monday, before James Espinasse, Esq., Judge. There were 108 causes entered for hearing, 3 of which were adjourned causes, and 17 unsatisfied judgments. Several of the cases were, however, struck out or settled before the court sat, and the remainder were chiefly for very small amounts. The only one possessing any features of interest was that of Hendon v. Bray, the plaintiff being the landlord of the "One Bell," and the defendant proprietor of the "Bull Hotel." The action was brought to recover damages which plaintiff alleged had been sustained by a carriage belonging to him, in consequence of one of the defendant’s servants negligently driving against it whilst standing at the station. It was expected that a question as to the right of the plaintiff to place his vehicle in front of the station would have been raised, but as the plaintiffs witness said that Mr. Bray’s man purposely drove against his carriage, and committed the damage in question, namely the breaking of one of the wheels, his Honour stopped the case, holding that though an employer was liable for any damage committed through the negligence of his servant, that was not the case where the damage was wilfully done. The plaintiff was therefore non-suited, the expenses of several witnesses subpoenaed by the defendant being allowed.

South Eastern Gazette, 25 September, 1860.

Petty sessions, Saturday. (Before Oswald Smith, Esq., chairman., T. H. Fleet, Esq., and Sir P. H. Dykes.)

Although the summonses for the day were returnable for half past 12 o'clock, no magistrates were present until an hour later, when the proceedings commenced.

Hendon v. Bourman

The plaintiff is in this case is the proprietor of the "One Bell" public house, and also keeps flys; defendant is a driver in the employee of Mr. Bray, of the "Bull Hotel." The information was for the recovery of £1 14s. for wilful damage done to a fly. The action in the first instant was brought in the County Court against Mr. Bray, when a nonsuit was entered in consequence of it being stated that the damage was caused through the wilful act of his driver.

Bodkin, the driver of the complainants fly, stated that on the 6th July he was ordered by his master to go to the station, and while there in the afternoon the defendant, who was on one of Mr. Bray's flys, drove up to him, and although he called to him he continued until he broke the wheel off.

Mr. Clarke, of Bedford-row, London, appeared for the defendant, and denied that the injury to the complaints fly was caused by the defendant, but that it was the fault of the defendants driver. He further contended that the defendants fly had no right on the stand, as Mr. Bray and another proprietor were the only persons who relayed on the stand by the company.

Boorman, the defendant, said that as he was starting with a passenger Bodkin drew out from where he was standing, and there wheels came in contact.

A driver named Mace, and Mr. Haynes, of the "Railway Hotel," stated that the complaints driver was to blame. The latter said that the accident on the part of the defendant was unavoidable, as Bodkin drew right across the road. The station-master at Dartford stated that the complainant's driver had no right on the ground, and he had been repeatedly warned off.

Case dismissed; costs allowed.