~. I 334 i L.lll' INTELLI;;ENCE: cou:cr OF KING'S BENCII. T 1 OCT. 11.1. H:CIIMAN V. CRARBE. .. ~~'~. I d • 1 • . _'~;. . Sit:in . :it boyar. Mir's°,boas Term. Tho adjourned vi:,ttiv%s briars Ttrat commencer! this 41ny is the Court of CllllllllOll Pleas, 1.80111 Juttice Ableutt gnu common jw). fir*SLEY V. DePft. This case. which has hero already mints than once before the peblic, was brought on n "ter some undefeuded cattsea had IL'eu Cone through. It was an antiou against Cie defendran, wan is a goardian of the poor in the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, to recover. 1 penalties of Well. for se mitre! •Ileged vieletloas of the stat4te 36tle of George ICI., which enacts, that no orers,•er, guardian, tinslce, or other person ja il-Hite I with the care ail management of perennial poor, shall rva!y the workhouse by contract or for money with any pro s i oasis tried by the paupers, ender a penally of !OIL for each eilentx. The Jury found for the plaintilf and the Court gave the defendant leave to move in term to ha% anaturiettit entered. 11,1.."1.EY V. PROUGII. This was an aelioa to recover damages for an assault, cons witted try the defemlant upon the Mr. Seirlett stated the ease to the Jory. The plaintiff is an auctioneer, living in I.4.ti.l..zes•irtreet, Latent-garden. The de fendant is the occupier of Mie Swan !muse, corner of Mary tared, St. Jaaies's. It appeared from the es idence of Mr. Weaver, that on a Sunday evening in April last, be was return:ng reran Chelsea in company with the plaintiff. They were overta k en by a hasty shoo ar, and took shelter ia the de fendant's house. On etifering the top-room they called for a pit of porter. and Mr. Wenver proceeded to stir the lire with the putter. The lant.luid just then ent.red, sad abused both parties for takini , so great a liberty in his house ; hinted that they were no b etter Ono pickpockets ; refused to let them have any Ithesinuent ; and eventually laid his hands on the pl drain', and turned him into the Street. It was not pretended I.a. any bodily harm had accraeeldo the phiintilf, but the action It as ft:onlAt to teach 31r. (Trough (said Mr. Scarlet) that lie had no authority to turn costumers oat..cf douts, because they stirred pus lire. 'I his was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Gurney, l'or the defendant, said he was instructed to give quite • different account of Cie transaction. fi he were rightly informed, the defendant was fully justified in what he bad dune by the condue; of the plaintilland his friend. To prove this, be called T•omas Salter, • yoanz hut, who is now an apprentice to a shaesiaker, bat who was living as servant with the defendant at the time adds traosaction. Ile stated that one of the ;en teman who Caine in lieean to stir the lire ; witness told him his in.ister would not allow any person to stir the fire but himself. One of the gentlemen swore at him, upon which his master ca.o.• in aid romonstrated. One gentlemen then said the house wa. oat his (the lanillsrd'a); that it tics public-house, and every person had a ri;lit to come in, and also to stir the lire if ire wished. (Mier angry words were used, and at last Mr.' )trough, after tolling the plaintiff to leave the house (without elferd), put his baud to his collar and put Lilo gently out of thaws. Tins waa the der...ndanes ease ; nn3 after Learinq jlr. Searicit in reply. and hut Lords:l4) . a suisimin4 up, ue J..ry se tus..ed a as:edict fur the drklitlagit. Wt:IINESDAY, OCT. 111. TrMWT.I.I. AGAINST WE,T. This was an action brought to recover the value of a bill o e.ehange for 2:;l. ;r. Ahrsthana °pencil the cnae. blr.S.mrlett shortly stated the circnntstanees mit of which the action vase. 'The bi.l was drawn by Mr. J. NVest, d•ded Do.king, TJth of Apia, and at two moat's after doe, ou S. liriclay, Esq. sit hal -pay officer. resident at the saa.e pace, by whom it "AS accepted. At maturity it w•as dishonoured ; nit the plainta, ■s he was I pally competent to du, had eimsen to prozeed against W est us the drawer. .cis person, however, had resisted payment on the ground that aiotie: of the dishonour Lad not been given to him until it was too late for Vie holder to recut•er of hint at law. But it would tie shown, that in point of fret. 3.1 r. West resided in London, althintAh nominally In this case resident at Dorking ; apti tat the very earliest entire poosihle wait given to Mr. West, by lettere addressed by the holder to hint, both at Dorking and in Loudon Several witnesses were called on behrlf of the plaintiff', wham it appeared that the hill, which was mace pay able at ‘Vondheall and Co.'s in the Strand, and had been en drts, d by West to Illoo , rs. Hickson, was ibsbonoured on the 2d of Jnly. It was sent back on the 3d to the bankers at Tet hary, through whom it had been p. id to Sir James Esdaile au Co. in London : and having b, en regularly and witlvnit delay transmitted through the several bands into which it pre iously passed, was at length returned to the plaintiff. The Lard Chief Justke held that siulli.:ient notice bad been given ; particularly as it took place ua the 4th, for the 3d h. in.; landay, the law would presume that the earlie,t legal ian'ic.2 had been trans:a:tied sobseveutly to the dishonouring of tte bill. _ . The defence was not gone into; and the jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff--Da.uages 212. Ills. (ioulatting the interest), nod 40s. casts. This was an *Minn to recover a eutniteintaline for loss of hire of a cart and borse,leborging to the plaiatid, and wliteb Lein been *Mimi with a iittantity of quicksilver, the ;novelly of the defendant, by whom the coat had been hired. Mr. Gurney. in opening the ram.. observed, as it appeared that the goicksilver Lad been arosigielly sziami, the duties list. i. , g• been duly paid, the tidily go, mishit was. whether the plaintiff most seek his remedy of the dcitudaut, or of the parties by whom seizure had hcen made. M. Hickman, the son of the plaintifT, proved that, in Sep tember last, defendant !deed the horse and col belor.,;iug to leis rather to go to East Smithfield. lie put into thu mat a gre4 uaiiiher of bottles, contaiiiin., as it aro:ewer a api.eared, a quantity of qttik,i!ver. When witness hail arrived at the GaAs, an ()liner of the ev.ise came up and desired to see the steersury &moments to show that the ditties were paid.- 31r. Cralibe told him that he could Soma satisfy Min of that tact, sod laksng a p: per out of Lis pocket aocompantid the ohicer into a cooatiorimuse, fitsin which they soon afterwiods (sale out together, the ',Meer observing. that that would not do ;" and ;raceeded i.ante.!i4tely to stilts the horse, the s trt, and the ota;cksiltvr. itnessasked it, feadai.t wind be was to 'the (la end at bade him hu home and I e t.w noeter to him ; r he vi,ald see that his Li'ter's 11 , 11110 and cart should lie • ttr.ev• hank in less rise an lion:. This was not slime ; but Mr. *rinse ratted on wit ness's father that evenin4, and assured liiio ho auuld teltasearo Hatt the hire of Lora and curt fur the liele stasii , ;:leteAko, should be regularly paid. 1.1,1 s r 0u..44 hoktiA, iroismik r 2::d the present iteiou was fur • ~_.. V THE NATIONAL LEG ,STEIt the loss of 38 thy , ' hire, that period braving elapsed between seienre and the release which was afterwards made. Ar. Cuaty u, IVr the defendant, had two objections to snbadt iu Ina of to, precut action. The lirst, That at was improperly brou,;ht , lora.mut It as it should rather have been an actioa to recover in the way ui debt : the second, that it should in soy case 'Mee brew us ngititisl the elicibe ()Stela' by tshoa , tLe .cradle had been wade; etc winds spoken by the derendsut, seep, d. big to the evidence of the bast triunes, acct u.iiig aullizieut to sustain the present action. Cue Lord C7.iefJustico was of rpinion thst the words were sufbcient to sustain it. The defendant might have told the pisintilf, bad he that Id proper, that he would. see Lint paid, altt then have broti. 4 l.l Lis action against the olliaer, which would bare enabled him to do so. A. it a as, be had untde a promise explicitly enough to th e pl a i a tia; wh o , to cons equence of o,at promise, Wight Lee been prevented crow ploceet:nig at the time (a. he perhaps would otherwise have dude), by me usuri,diria4 the iitiard of Excise fur the release ore his 1f1)4 de and c,:rt. The allllle witness, cross-examined by Mr. Co:Ilya, said that the defendant had hoeueliaNed 12s. a (lay for the hire of the horse and curt. This wits a very moderate charge. The Jary foind a verdict fur Cie plaiutitr —llamajes 221. 1614—costs 10n. SIG*I7INGALC o. TIIC rIONICHWARDENs OF witirmatiAru.. _ . . Mr. Gurney, on opening this case, mii4l, that it was au action Mooed a^ainsi the ricfaudants fur havin; made a false /t•turn to • marriamis, which had issued frem this court, directing a true r: turn to be made of the proceedings which had tat en plats in the election of a seston fur the parish of Si. Mary, hitechapi I. Ily an act passed in the 58th of Geo. 111. Ow Select Vestry Act ), it was provided and declared that all per. lions paying an annual rent of more than 301. should lie entitlrd to mole than one vote in parochial vestries; and so on, accord ing. to a scale therein set forward. The plaintilia conceived, that excluding the votes of such as were priiiieged to tender mure than one vote each, u Mr. Wildman bud been duly elected to the mute is c . oestiou ; fur the grail, men of 11 bits:shapel had on a former occasion come to a resolution that this sot of Par liament did nut aiptdy to them. The Jury would used, however, that in terms it did apply, and it was not the rote of a vestry which could set it abide. however, who had must vole, Mel adilig the Worn' mint, was nut acoepted as the re • turned candidate; end a Mr. %Viktor:in, who haft inure single antes than tiiinsele, had bete declared sexton. These were toe circumstances under whieti the plaintifloow sought his remedy . John Smitli, the Va.siry Clerk of the parish of Si. Mary, Whitec'apel, said, the (Alice of sexton beiug vacant, ao election of a candidate to 1.11 it was held ou the llth and 12th of De cember, 1821, iu the Vestry -room. Mr. Nightingale was one of the sandidutes, aid had 639 votes ; Mr. %I ildruau, the other, ha. 11.131. The number of votes given by - persona emitlcal to more than one vote each was 167. None of Mr. IA thliunn's frt.-Ws tendered more titan one vote each. Mr. Sandell admitted that there should pare been a majority for the plaiutiff, if the plural votes tendered fur tug bad been accepted. The Lord C:sief Justice understood Mr Searlett to wish the CO.lll to ronsider (taking the various bawls of retest &c., pro duced in this cause as reed), whether the mei, which gave a plurality of cotes in certain eases wee or was toot o iterative in this instance— whettier the parish was or wt.* not to loe go ctrncti the act 1. Mr. Scarlet% said that was his meaning. The witness said lust ilitaina was cussidered to have been re-elected accoriiing to the usual custom of the pariah. ‘V it pleas was examined at considerable length, by Mr. Gurney and .111.Scalcit us to the iniuciple on which it had been 'marl to levy Cite dafferimt patisli rates in NVhitecbapel. Vv lieu the dis cussion took place as to the sin:lit:46:m of the Select Vestry .Vet to the election of iLe sexton, (which was immediately before that election sits held.) it was decided by the vestry meeting, that n i plural votes should be accepted. A Mr. Salim kchurcii warden) protested against the derision, as witness I:thieved : earminly he tenured his balances at the close of the election, when the plural votes were rejected. 'the resolution of the vestry was then read, which grounded its dissent from the application of -the act of Pariimuent Geo. 111.) un the kith sectioo, which expressly exempts all parishes from its operatiou that are governed by former sots of Parllsmeot. The Lord Chief Justice said lids was evidently illegal. The w-a bound by the set. of worse, if iuteuded by We teruas of the set. Tlm next resolution was to the effect that the churchwardens shouid lie indemnified for all expetices that ini„lat be incurred by reason or the election of' sextons being fetus, ed to ptocesd alter the old form rod castuni of Whiter hap:..l. The Lord Chief Justice held this to Le alba clearly illegal : it was a propos:J to indemnify polies for resisting as act of o4t. A resolution was Oen cited regarding the course to be Nu -I.llCli in the theis ensuing elecii.m. lids was declurcd to be unoli.aoux." The Lord Chiefiastice said this was mere nonsense. The " ussaimuus" resuiatios jail read was followed be " the pro test of T. B:aith, Eng." against it. - . - Mr. Scsrl.o Iheu conleuUed. that though the questiou of the of the *mime in the city and liberties of Loud on, uue or both of thew, must for the ',resent be considered. as reserved; it was open to him to show that the vestries ut Whitetlivel were held by custom. The custom was to allow one rote °sly la each inmatitant householder. Now. thr bib sectido of the Select Vestry Act excepted those, pa rishes to which otuy former stamte, or re tired pecui;Ar cus tom, applied. Seemed acts had regulated, iu furl, the tory idg of certain rides iu Wleiteehapel ; end this fact, together with the Ca% kiSJI be spoke of, would, be thought, sustain the eteurnion. . . . en.; Lord Chief Justice thought that this argument was important ; Lot pedlars the better way would be to make a case of it. Hie I. truship told the Jury that some doubt did exit as to the upplicuti.m of the Inbt r.ct ; and The Jur• , unuor Lis Loriluhip'u tumid vordict— Dainnex I a., costs 4:4.—aultp.ci to a DISORDERLY DOUSE.-ttLX r. IMAMS. Mr. Carney stated, that this was an indictment preferred by sea et id respectible of the parish of Marylehone, aAninat the defendant, for keeping a COI/4111011 brothel, in (.:une• bet land-streti, em be No% .toad. The iudividuals oho bop ported the proaecntitm had act shoat piirVyng ihtir neigliboce hob& but still the sink of iniquity ki i , t by the defendant re• rosined. The defendant, do:itt,- , a em, merahle time, bad ltt it out to women of be lona, who tmote an imleceut rap - wires of their peia•ms a• ton v.iiitiotas, iotirarg geoltemen to o The house havin4 been conducted in that way a considered., tint.., the defendant ay..s sp , i. J to by ',cram,' who re,..Sia st..ated with Lim, on said, lit., I cannot payluy / l ent oithoitt letting nay house to ands p, rsm.s." It was redly dist satin, tai aml a 131i1111 had bummer give up hostas tat.,piog, than sem, a mmeurit. rue hots %until-4A _ .-.461. _-~ .. s.• .... proved In evidence, and the Joey would; no doubt abate the nuisance by finding the &Nodose galliy. Dlr. Gettige Matthews said, be lived at No. 55. Cumber land -street, Few-toad, le the parish of 31arylebone. Mr. Diodes was Ike maser of No. 1. Cuoilteihine.-A:cet. lie had Peva ttoiliti! al the a indows pointini, to then, ail,' toltring litt to in. 1 h.. 7 were young 1tin41,6 nut very inodest. Atter the pro,reutiuu cumweilce.l, blades eti:letl 41.1 the tvituvre, and nblv.l waat otthuee be bad Oven him be witness said he had Livers vo oifenee to hiui, but the people opposite Lis Louse. llere Mr. Gurney consulted with the derentleees Counsel, and awed to 1110 Jeep , that the dersudent'•ad tiouseniect to let a t er.iiet go against hint, !autumn, et the salute lime, list he would re.:,o%et the saut,ince. " (euht the teamed couusei) Lc Gums fide gives up the house, he will nut be brought tip Ita jutigluent." WLSTNINSTED. ova. 17. WEST D. WADE. Thu: was no action by the plaintid, a tailor, spina the de. fendutt, • toow or the late Ltrut.-Culonel Wade, to recover • de.ualitl fur cloaths furnished as MUM sung on the death of her 'fha single question was, whether the mourning was furnish ed by the plaitiff, arm a specific agreement that the amount of the bill should be applied to ilie demand the plaintal had upon Col. Wade Burin.. is life. If such an agierinent existed and the widow did nut make herself liable, toe plaintiff could not recover. Ii appeared lied this Colonel bad kept a paint manufactory. and when the mourning was ordered the plaintiff sent the widow an order fur a quantity of paint. The value of the giso.ls so obtained was set iii a n iiiust the old deut, and the phinitill arrested the Jet, nasal fur the awuunt of the mourning. 'llia defence was, that the arrest hsd been wide in violation of life espresa agreement, and that the plainti.f had made so excessive charge. (or the pui pose of making the hid amount 10 151. '1 he whole transaction was &milted by 31r. Gurney, the defendant . ' counsel, In be a case of hardship and oppressius. 1 be •;01UU1011 Sergeant, who was fur the plaintiff , iu his reply answered the case of hardship, by static; tart the defendant was preparing to leave the country with her children at the time the plaintiff arrested bar. MU Lord Chief Jost;ce, in his charge to the Jury. consider ed the con :act of the plai tiff reprehensible, hut kft them to decide • hether an agreement had been made to add the charge fur mourning to the Colonel's account. The Jur) found a verdict for the defendant. 6WINUTUN V. PARLINS. The plaintiff' brought his action against the defendant, en. of the tide Sheriff's for Middlesex, to recover a compensation for loss, occasioned I the improper conduct of the Sheriff's officers, in raking an ioccrrect bail bond. Itlr. Gurney stated the case. It appears that the plaintir was the indorser of a bill of exchange for 101. He sued out a urit against John ‘Vhite, the acceptor, who was arrested, and his attorney put in bail for him. Neither %% bite nor his attorney knew into %hos.: hands the bill hid fallen, but White hating been arrested, on a writ issued by Mr. Ewington, by Amino blunder on the part of Hopwood and Nei g hbour, the Sheriff's officers, a bail bond was prepared in the name of ing..ave. It was sent to the plaintiff - 4 attoiney to be exe cuted iu the name of %%Ingrate, wrote upon an ermine, which had been the us ..e of Arabella. The hood was filled up sod executed against N't hit • and Mor.mii, one of the bail iu the name of %I ingrate. Thc plaintiff 's attorney supposing, as it came from tike Siltriir, and was reg Mar, brought two actions. in kith of which he was nonsniicd. The costs to the plainulf amouhted to 1331. besides the less of the debt, which natio tie whole 1.1131. Tim) sum beelow sought to recover on the ground, that it had been occasioned by tile usinolotact of the Sheriff . ** 011iCCra. Mr. Ilult. for the defendants, r,iresented the mivtake to he an immccnt oversight, which produced no benefit whatever to the Snelitr 's °Ulcers. The Lord Chief Justice could not consider it a case which admitted of palliation. After the error had occurred, instead of a remedy they ►utrered it to go to the plaintiff's attorney. knowing It must produce the loss which ultimately fell on the plaintiff. The Jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff.—Damages 1584 GORDON e. CANNA:Lt.. The plaintiff, who had been an (Alice, in the Portuguese service, brutia,lit his action against Mr. Campbell, surviving partner of Mr. Stewart, an army a,ent, to recover 1501. which the plaintiff stleged bad been transmitted to the sad partners, to be Laid out in the 3 per cent. annuities, and which bad never been accounted for. T..° Common Sergeant, who stated the case, said the pia:a tilt* was a British °nicer, lhl6, and twelve years pre vious, had served ill Portugal. About th•it time he was re quested by Aleaars. Campbell and Stewart, army agents, to place his affairs in their hands, and allow them to become his agents. lie acceded to their request, and sent them 1501. the fruit 01'12 years' service in the Peninsula, with instruction to pu.ehase stuck in the S per cet.ts. Mr. Stewart received the ISUI. which wit paid to hint by Messrs. Cox and Greenwood. Some time after the transaction Mr. Stewart died, and in the accounts sent to Captain Gordon no notice wile taken of the 1501. The plaintiff left l'orugal and came to England in Ihdl, sod immediately called un Mr. Campbell, time surviiing partner, fur payment of the money. Mr. Campbell said he knew act hing shoot it. The uansirotion war. a private concern with the lute partner. ithesses were called, nod letters read in support of the statement ; but theme was ground to sup lose the transaction wax exclusivaiy between Mr. S..uwart his friend Captain .11r. Smitten for the defendant coati oiled, that it was a matter in whicu Campbell was out revuusilda. The Jury (*mid • verdict for the derendat.t. BRANT V. PEACOCK. This was an action far a 01111iCi01111 arrest. The plainlif alleged in bin declaration, that rho defendant falsely, malici ously, and without renamitible cause, sued out a writ against Vim, and held him to hail, knowing there wan main- due. It mode/used that a person named Jones, who liv ed at Cam bricl,te, bad dealings with Peacoak to a large amount. In June, Itv:IO, he gave him a bill of esiliange, MIACII had been accepted by Imam, the plstn'a, for Jones. The bill was dated 2116 June, 1620, and was for 501.; it become due on the 27th of October. Jones saw that Pcicock had not paid the bill away. and he paid hies a sum of WO.; 501. of which was to go to Ilia payment of Srant'n bill. Peacock at the Wile time amid lie Gould nut hive the hil/ up. as et was al some distance. Junta, however took a memorandum oldie payment to he applied to the bal. Thin happened iu Nutria:Jet. 1/324, and Meld months after the defeinlmit thoJglit lit to ear lirtint. The plaintilf was arrested and taken to a lock up house, where he incurred es peso •. The action was set down for trial ; alto one sgainnt Jones; and In,tb Lein; referred, it appeared that the Omaha 'a bill had been owl. and the deleitdatit paid dm snail is loud' actions.