256 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



her case upon those answers. 

 But an affidavit is now brought 

 in which states, that his lordship 

 is reduced to absohite pauperism. 

 The allotment is always made 

 upon the ansivers which are sup- 

 posed to contain all the allowances 

 and deductions which can be 

 claimed, and no case has been 

 cited to show that those answers 

 have ever been controlled by an 

 affidavit. After regular proceed- 

 ings, the Court would be very 

 much distressed by the introduc- 

 tion of" affidavits, and it is a prac- 

 tice which I am under the neces- 

 sity of resisting. If, after a great 

 length of time, there should be a 

 great change of circumstances 

 from unforeseen calamities, the 

 party might be at liberty to bring 

 it before the Court ; but in this 

 case no time has elapsed, and the 

 faculties are not diminished by 

 misfortune. With respect to the 

 affidavit, it is difficult to persuade 

 oneself that it is possible to over- 

 look such sums as Lord Kirkwall 

 states to have escaped his atten- 

 tion, but the forms of the Court 

 fully justify me in not entering 

 into its merits. I shall, therefore, 

 adhere to the admissions con- 

 tained in the ansivers to the alle- 

 gation of faculties. In those, he 

 admits his income to be 3,10()/. 

 per annum, exclusive of the 400/. 

 per annum secured to Lady 

 Kirkwall as pin-money. If he 

 has reduced this by his extrava- 

 gance, his innocent wife is not to 

 be the sufferer. I cannot, with- 

 out further information, give 

 the whole sum allotted by the 

 referees in 1810, but I shall 

 give Lady Kirkwall 1,000/. per 

 annum, in addition to the 400/. 

 pin-money. 



Court of King's Bench, Wed- 

 nesday, March 4. 



Sittings for London, before Lord 

 Ellenborough. 



Bannister v. Spooner, Ball, 

 Walters, and Doviding. — The 

 defendants are proprietors of a 

 stage-coach between Brixton and 

 London, and the present action 

 was brought against them, to 

 recover damages for an injury, 

 the plaintiff (a partner in the 

 house of Richardson, Goodluck, 

 and Co.) had sustained by the 

 overturning of the coach, as was 

 alleged in the declaration, by the 

 negligence of Ball, one of the 

 defendants, who drove on the 

 day in question. 



It appeared by the statement 

 of Mr. Scarlett, that the plaintiff 

 resides in Neighbour's-lane, near 

 the Clapham-road, and was in 

 the habit of riding to town by 

 one of the stages of the defend- 

 ants. On the 1st of July last he 

 mounted the roof, and the coach 

 had proceeded as far as Stock- 

 well-place, when Ball, the driver, 

 recollected that he had forgotten 

 to take up two passengers who 

 had booked places for that morn- 

 ing ; he, in consequence attempted 

 to turn round, being at that mo- 

 ment on the crown of the road, 

 which was remarkably high, and 

 in so doing one of the wheels 

 was necessarily brought to the 

 lower part of the road, and the 

 declivity was so great that the 

 coach was upset ; had the coach- 

 man made a larger circuit the 

 accident would not have hap- 

 pened. The stage was at this 

 time filled with passengers, both 

 inside and outside; and when it 

 fell, a part of the iron-work came 



iu 



