334 LAW INTELLIGENCE. S . -,-.- COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TUESDAY. OCT. 15. Sitting, before Mit/umlauts Tons. Tim atkiuraud sitmags before Term commenced ibis day is .• the Court of Common Pleas, Westminster, before the Lord MUM( Jas►iee Abbott sad a common jury. STANLEY S. DODD. This case, which has been .Iready more than pace heroes the +algae, was brought ea alter some eadefeuded cases bad beta gust through, it wu an action against the defendato, who is a geardiau of the poor in the parish of Si. Matthew, Metkaal-green, to recover sewersl penalties of 1031. for several alleged violatloas of the statute both of George 111., which saute, that uu overseer, guardiau, trustee, or other person in tre..ted with the csrr and wecagemeot of parochial poor, rhAll supply the workhouse by contract ur for money with any pro visos:sus used by the paupers, seder a penalty of 11101. for each vacua The Jury foetid for the plosiutilL and the Court gave Ike defeadant I move in terse to have summit catered. IIOWLIT s. 11100011. This wu an action to returner damage* for an assault, coot , minted by the defendant upon the plaintiff. Mr. Scarlett stated the case to the Jary. The plaintiff is an aactioaeer, living in Brydges-street, Covent-garden. The de fendant is the occupier of the Swan public house, corner of Bery.atreet. St. James's. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Weaver, that on a Sunday evening in April last, be was fretnruieg from Chelsea in company with ,the plaintiff. They . were overtakes by a heavy shower, and took shellar in the de fendasee house. On entering the tapiroom they called for a pot of porter, and Mr. W proceeded to stir the bre with Abe poker. The landlord jest then entered, and abased both parties for taking so great a liberty its his house ;hinted that *bey wen Aio better time pickpockets ; refused to let them Lave any refreshment; and eventually ie.*: his bands on the plaintiff, and turned him.iato the street. It was not pretended • that any:bodily harm bad accrued to the plaintiff, but the action was brought to teach Mr. Brougb (said Mr. Scarlet) that be bad no authority to tura customers out of doors. because they nursed his Ire. Tins was the plaintiff's cue. Mr. Gurney, for the defeadaet, said he was Marveled to the quite • dilrereut amount of the transaction. If he were rightly informed, themlefendant was fully justified in what he bad douse by the eo•dect of the plaintiff aad his kited. To 'ee 'bib be called provi names Salter, a young lad, who is now an apprentice to a Ahoomaker, but who was living as servant with the defend..nt .at the rime of this transaction. H. stated that Dee of the gee :Memo who came iniiegae to stir the fire ; oi sssss told blat his 'Master Arorld not allow any person to stir the fire bet himself. Oa. of the gentlemen swore at him, upon which his master OM* in and remonstrated. One gentleman thee said the house was sot his (the lamilord'e); that it was a public-house, and evert penes had a right to come in, aid also to stir the fire if be wished. Other .angry words were used, and at last Ks. &oath, after telling the plaietilf to leave the house Fwitbust effect), put hie baud to his collar and put him „gently oat a doors. This was the defended's ease ; and after hearing Mr. Searle* in reply, and his Lordship's suessoiag up, the Jury returneda vertLst for the defends t. .11111DNINSALY, 011 T. 164 FOILWELL AGAINST WA ST: The IRS as action brought to recover the okra ■ IA 0 ,crib age for 201. Mr. Abraham °posed the ease. Mr. Siadat sherd, stated the cireentstasoes tiara galda att'actiee arose. Tbe bill was drama by Mr.l. Ina, dated .Dorkieg, 29th of April. ad at two imuttlis Me. as IL Barclay. Esqr an hal -pay Wiser, maident at the owe platy; by whom it was accepted. At maturity It witaellmariered • And the plaietir, as be was legally simoplemi to de. be ll; ehoseo to proceed agaiast Mr. Wert oe lbs ilaswer. Tb ,parsoe. boo/seer, had resiWed payment as dm puma IMM eutice of the dishonest bad sot base given to blastula it lota too late fur the bolder to modem of bile 'alai,. halt k Waal be shown, that in point of feet, Mr. West resided is laullea although nominally in this nese resided et Dorking ; and Owl the very earliest notice possible was given to Mr. West. by letters addressed by the holder to him, both at Dorking sod a ;bade. Several witnesses were called am WWI of the phial,. when it appeared that the bill, *WO wee made payable a Messrs. Woodbead and Co.'s in the Staid, sad bad bees am denied by West to Messes. Hickson, wastlabeattared as as hid of Jely. It was sent back on the 3d to the bositere at Tv* hairy, through whom it had been paid to SirJamos'lliedaile sifil Co. in limed..: and having been regularly and wide:set delay tfirensinitted .throagh the several bands into which itprevioasly awed, was at length returned to the , plaintiff. Tint Lord Chief 'natio, held that sefiicient notice had been given •, particularly as it took place on the Ith, for the 3d Wog Sunday, time law would pr e sume that the earliest legal isetio• bed beam transmitted subsequently to the disbosiouriaq of tine bill The defence was not gone into, and the jury immediately heed a verdict for t►e plaiatilf—Damages 211. ifis. (including die interest), and 40e. costa. titdaviaa •. CRAPS,. This was as *Mine to reco►er a compensation for loss of hire a cart and horse, belonging to the plaintiff, and which had ►ees seised with a quantity of quicksilver, the property of the defendant, by whom the cart bad been hired. Mr. Gurney,in openieg the ease, obser►ed, as it appeared that the quicksilver bad been wrongfully seised, the duties ►aving been duly paid, the oily question was, whether the plaintiff must seek his remedy of the defeedant, or of the parties ►y whom seiaere had been made. M. Hickman, the son of the plaintiff, proved that, in Sep .tomber last, defendant hired the horse and cart belonging to his father to go to East Smithfield. He put into the can a greet •umber of bottles, cantaininK, as it afterwards appeared, ■ .qesatity of quicksilver. When witness bed arrived at the books, an officer of the •seise came up and desired to see the eettessary doeuments to show that the duties were paid.— Mr. Crabbe told him that bra could soon satisfy him of that fact, sad taking a paper out of hispocket accompanied the of into • wonting-house, from which the► soon afterwards came out together, the nicer o►serving, that that would not do;" and r,itecesded immediately to arise the horse, the cart, and the quieksilver. %Vitriessesked the defendant what he was to do ? The defendant bade him go home and ',eve the matter to him ; far ha would see that ►is father's horse and cart should be drives back is less than an hour. This was not dose ; but Mr. Gribbe sailed es witoess's father tbatevoninz, lied assured him tat ha would tekesere that the hire of horse and cart for the erbe "-- I:p;;;;;ielibeie &modes abeelel be regally'' , paid. This promb;ele fed set bow %WM , meg the present erten was ter -. Oidnol.a....amiMr. THE NATIONAL JIEG ISTEIt the loss of 88 ddys' hire, that period having elapsed between seizure and the release which was afterwards made. Mr. Comp', for the defendant, had two objections to submit in bar of the present setae'. The first, that it wu improperly brought , forasmuch as it should rather hare been an scums to repairer in the way of debt : —the set end, that it should is any ease ha►e bees as agaissi the excise °Meer by whom the seizure bad bees made; the words spokes by the defendant, accord ing to tke evidence of the last witness, set bean buliainat to sustain the preemie action. The Lord Chief Justice wu of opinion that the words ware solheieet to sustain it. The defeodaat might hare told the plaintiff, had he tbos A lit proper, that be amid see him paid, and then have brought his action against the ollicer, which would have ambled him to do so. As it vas, he had made • promise explicitly enough to the plaintiff, who, in consequence of that promise, might have been prevented trout pioceeuing at the titue (as be perhaps would otherwise have done), by me morialising the Board of Faciae for the release of his horse and cut The same witaae•, oroes•rxamined by Mr. Congo, mid tha► the defenda•t had bees charged 12s. a day for the biro of the horse and cart. This was a very moderate charge. The Jury lotted a verdict fur the plaiutitf—Damages 221. 18s.—costa 40s. "IGHTINGALE e. THE CHURCHWARDEN' OP WHITECHAPEL. Mr. Gurney, on opening this case, said, that it was au actiou brought dodost the defendants for having made • false return to • wandeasur, which had issued from this court, directing • tree rehire to be made of the proceedings which had lobes ?Moe in the election of • sexton for the pariah of St. Mary, Whilechapel. By me let passed in the 58th of Geo. 111. ithe Soloed Vestry Act), it was provided ■nd declared that all per saes paying an manual rent of more than 501. should be entitled to more than one vote in parochial vestries ; mid so on, accord ing to a scale therein set forward. The plaintiffs conceived, that excluding the votes of such as were privileged to trader more than one rote each, a Mr. Wildman had been duly elected to the office in question ; for the genileinee of Whitt:chapel had on • former occasion come to a resolution that this est of Par liament did not apply to them. The Jury would Sod, however, tbst in terms it did apply, and it was not the vote of • vestry which could set it aside. The plaintiff, however, who had must votes incladilig the plural ones, was nut accepted as the re• weed candidate ; and • Mr. 'Wildman, who bad more single votes than himself, had been declared sesta°. These were the circumstances under which the plaintiff Dow sought his remedy John Smith, the Vestry Clerk of the perish of St. Nary, Whitechapel, said, the of of sexton being vacant, an election of a candidate to 611 it was held on the 11th and 12th of De cember, 1821, in the Vestry-room. Mr. Nightingale was one of die earididates, and had 639 votes; Mr. Wildman, the other, had 63!. The number of votes gives by persons entitled to more than one vote each wee 16f. Nose of Mr. Wilduian's Isioads tendered more than one vote each. Mr. Scarlett admitted that thereJaela have been a majority for the plaintiff. if the plant rules tendered for his had been accepted. The Lord Chief Jostire understood Mr Scarlet to wish the Court to retosider (tale; the various books of rates. &0., pro dared in this mese as read), whether the act, which gave a plurality of votes is emelt eases was or was net operative is this instanoe—whether the parish was or was sot to be go verned by the art? Mr. Scarlett (hat was his meaniag. The witness mid that Wildman was considered to have been remlected aecordieg to the meal cast, of lb* parish. Wit less was examined at considerable leagth. by Mt. Gutsily sad Mr. Scarlett as to the priooiple on which it bad bean usual to levy the thitrreat pariah is Whiteekapil. Willia the dis oas►ies took piece as to the applioetioe of the Select Vestry Art to the clectioa of the sectoe, (which was inucediately before that election was held,) it was decided by tke vestry Miming, that as literal votes 'Wald be accepted. A Mr. Smith (chars/. warden) proteated agaiast the decision, as witness believed : certaiely be modes-ad his balances at the dose of the electioo, vibes the plural voles were rejected. The resolotion of the vestry was then read, which grounded ita dismat from the application of the net of Parliament (elf Ceo. III.) on t h e Bth metina. which 'spread, exempla all parishes from its operative that are governed by former sots of Peri lament. • The bird Chief Justine said this was e►ideally illegal. The parish was bored by the wt, of course, ifiutended by the terms of the act. The next resolution was to the effect that the ebarcliwardeus should be hides... Hied for all expendes (bat might be incurred by reason of tie election of 'mamma being tattooed to proceed after the old foes and custom or Whitechapel. The Loral Claiefiustice held this to be also clearly illegal : it was a proposal to iideionify parties for resistiug an act of Fathoming. ♦ resolution was glop cited regarding the 'course to be pur sued in the them amain' election. Toss was declared to be '• usanimons." The Lord Chief Justice said this was mere aonseuse. The " unanimous" resolution just read was followed by the pro test of T. Smith, Ens. " against it. Mr. Seerlett then contended, that though the questioa of the application of the statute in the city and liberties of hoodoo, one or both of them, must for the present be considered as reversed; it was west to him to show that the vestries of Whiteehapel were held by custom. The custom was to allow one vote fluty to each inhabitant householder. Now the bib section of the Select Vestry Act excepted those pa rishes to %Lich any former statute, or re. rived peculiar cus tom, applied. Severe/ acts bad regulated, in fact, the levy ing of certain rates is Whiterliapel ; and this fact, together wills the custom be spoke of, would, be thought, sustain the exemption. The Lord Chief Justice thought that this argument was important ; bin perhaps the better way would be to make a case of it. His Lordship told the Jury that souse doubt did exist as to the application of the last act ; and The Jury, tinder his Lordship's direction, honed a verdict— Damages Is.; costs 40e.—subject to a case. DISORDERLY HOEISR.—REX a. BLADES. Wr.Gerney stated, that this wee an indictment preferred by several respectable inhabitants of the parish of Marylebont, against the defendant, for keeping a common brothel, in Cu.m berkuld-street, near the New-road. The individuals who sup ported the provecutioe bad set about pnrityng their neighbobr hood, but still the sink of iniquity kept by the defendant rosined. The defendant, during a considerable time, had 'at it oat to women of the town, who made an indecent eapor re of their persons at the windows, inviting gentlemen to go in. The house having been conducted in that way a considerable lime, the defendant was applied to by parsons who remote sleeted with him, ore which he said, " lrb, I cannot pay my •eat without letting my house le such persons." It was redly diagrattefel to the pariah, and a man bed hotter give up house koeping this emu us each a OBROOIia. The foots would he 'reeved i• 'videos*, and the Jury would. eis desk abate the athasee by finding the defendant guilty. Mt. George Matthews said, he lived at Ns. 66, Camber lead-street, Now-road. is the pariah of Marylelione. Mr. Blades was the roaster of No. 1. Comberlaad-street. lie bed sees women at the windows pointing tomes, and inciting tbent in. They were young kaiaks not very modest. After the prommatioa commenced, Blade* called on the wiles's. nod salted what offence be bad given Will The witness said he bad given so °Aimee to hiss, but the people opposite his boom, Here Mr. Caney consulted with Use defendant's Counsel. and mated to the Judge that the defendant bad ()unseated te let a verdict go against lien, promising, at the same time, that he would remove the nuisance. •• If (said Use learned counsel) he bonefish gives up the buese, be wiU Not be brought ap for judguieul." - - WESTMINSTER, OCT. 17. WEST S. WADI. 'Mk was an action by the plaintif, a toiler. against filo de fondest, winos/ of the late Lieat.-Colonel Wade, to recover a demand for deaths fornithed as mourning on the death of bee busbasd. The single question was, whether the moorniag was furnish ed by the plaintiff, upon a specific agreement that the amount of the bill sboutd be applied ►o the demand the plaintiff had upon Col. Wade during Ms life. If such an agreement existed and the widow did out make herself liable, the plaintiff could not recover. It appeared that the Colonel had kept a paint manufactory, and when the mourning was ordered the plaintiff seat the widow an order for &quantity of paint. The value of the goods so obtained was set 4,11 against the old debt, and the plaintiff arrested the defendant for the amount of the mourning. The defence was, that the arrest bad been suede in violation of the express agreement, and that the plaintiff had aide so excessive chas;e, fur the purpose of making the hill amount le 151. The whole transaction was described by Mr. Gurney, the defendant's counsel, to be armee of hardship and oppression. The Common Sergeant, who was for the plaintiff, in his reply answered the case of hardship, by stating that the defendant was preparing to leave the country with her children at the time the plaintiff arrested her. The Lord Chief Jastice, in his charge to the Jury, consider ed the coiriuct of the plaintiff reprehensible, but left them to decide whether an agreement had been wade to add the charge for mourning to the Colonel's account. The Jun found a verdict for We defendant. LWIMITUN V. PAMILINS. The plaintiff brought his action against the defeadant, oat if the late Sheriff'', for Middlesex, to recover a compensative fur loss, occasioned by the improper conduct of the Sherid"e officers, in taking an incorrect bail bond. Mr. Gurney stated the oane. It appears that the plaintiff was the indor.er of a bill of •xcliange for 101. He sued oat a writ against Jolts White, the acceptor, who was arrested, and his attorney pot ia bail for him. Neiiher kite nor hie attorney kitew into whose hands the bill had fallen, but White having bees arrested, on a writ issued by Mr. Ewington, by some blunder on the part of Hopwood and Nei‘blioer, the Sheriff's officer., a bail bead was prepared is the same of Wingrave. It was sent to the plaintiff's attorney to be cas eated in the name of Wiagrave, wrote opus an erasure, which bad beea the se.ne et Arabella. The hood with filled up and executed against Whit and Morgan, one of the bail in the name of Wingrave. The plaintiff's attorney suppoeisg, as it Game from the Sheriff, sod was regular, broegbt two aotiotia, is both of which be was nonaaitcd. The costs to the plaintiff amounted to 1461. besides the loss of the debt, which made the whole ISSI. That sum beimow sought to theevar es the greyed, that it had beta occasioned by the asiceedect of the Slaesiff 'a officers. Mr. Holt, for the defendants, represeeted the mistake to bo an ineoceol oversight, which produced se kaiak witabsyst to the Sheriff's officers. The Lord Chief Justin* could not coasider it a cue ti►iek admitted of palliation. After the error bad ovicarrod. isatead of a reamed, they coffered it to go to t►e plaintiff's astoraeyi ►oowiug it meet produce the less which ultimately MI au t►e The Jury fosud a •erdiot for the plaist W.—Dustin 11411. GORDON W. CAIIIIPSILLt. The plaintiff, who bad been as dicer is Me Portages** service, brought his action against Mr. Campbell, surviving partner of Mr. Stewart, an army agent, to recover 16.1. which the plaintiff alleged bad bee. transmitted to the said perteers, to be laid out in the Sper orig. salinities, and which bed Never been accounted for. The Comoros Sergeant, who Mated the case, said the plain tif was a British °dicer, wh , in 1816, and twelve years pre vines, had served in Portugal. About that time he was re• quested by Messrs. Campbell and Stewart, army *gents, U place his aleirs in their hands, and allow them, to become his agents. lie acceded to their request. and sent them 1501. the fruit of 12 years' service in the Peninsula, with iefltiltl/4111 purchase stock in the S percents. illr. Stewart received the 1501. which was paid to him by Messrs. Cos and Greenwood. Some time after the transaction Mr. Stewart died, sad in the accounts sent to Captain Gordon no notice was token of the 1501. The plaintiff left Portugal and came to England in 1821. and immediately called on Mr. Campbell, the survivisg partner, for payment of the money. Mr. Campbell said be knew nothing a►oet it. The transaction was a private concern with the late partner. Witnesses were called, sod letters read in support of the statement ; but there was ground to suppose the transaction was exclusively between Mr. Stewart and his friend Capita/I Gordon. Mr. Soulett for the defendant contended, that it wu a matter is which Mr. Campbell was not reaponailde. The Joni found • verdict for the defendant. BRANT a. PRACOCC. This was a• action for a malicious arreal. The plaintiff alleged is his declaratiou, that tho defendant falsely. malici ously, and without reasonable cause, sued out • writ agaiast bon, and held him to bail, knowing there was "otitis& due. It appeared that a person named Jones, who lived at Cam bridge, bad dealings with Peacock to a large asnoent. Lu Jae., Is2o, he gave him a bill col exchange, which had been accepted by Brant, the pleura, for Jones. The bill was dated 2dtti Jour, Ib2o, and was fur 501.; it became due on the 27th of October. Jones saw that Peacock had not paid the bill away. and he paid him • sum of 101. , 501. of which was to go in the payment of Brant's bill. Peacock at the same time said he could not give the hill op, as it was at some distance. Jona, however look • memorandum olthr z .ayinent to be applied to the bill. This happened in November, Ib2o, and eight months alter the defendant thought lit to sue Brant. The plaintiff arrested end token to • lock up house, where be incurred pence. The action was set down tor trial ; also one Jones; and both being related, it appeared.that the plesatif bill had been paid, and t►e defeatism paid the •••16 it WI satiate. over ea WO Waal of the Mita* to he wbaSsevit Ma ease whisk red. Mooed 'is *Kersey. y feu ea the ups 11411. Portuguese 11, surviving !cover 1601. to dm said and which id the plain- t years pre- he was re- agents, tat become his eat 1501. the Detraction te eceived the Greenwood. , sad in the 'ken of the sod in 1821. i lig partner, .new nothing with the late pport of the transactioa iced Capuia was a matter Jury knead rbe plaintiff tely. 1111111 Ci. writ apnea eg doe. wed at Coo- nt. In Jose, pea accepted doted 24th the 27th of e bill away. to go to the i.e said he ace. Jones. applied to eight montlo 'Amstar ee ocurred ea- Nuir e pi