MINNOW ~,,. `: ?RON TUESDAY maliT'S GAZETTE.. BANK KU PTA. .1. Beverley, Berge Yard, Rucklersbury, merchant. &inciter, Mr. Farren, King's Arms Yard, Coleman street. T. flail. Old Compton Street, Soho, woollen draper. Sole. Moan. BiIIOW and Co. Rasingh..ll Street. DIVIDKNDS. lan. el. J. Green, Oxford Street, smith—Feb. 4, W. Thorpe, hawker—l, J. Holier. Tooley Street. Southwark, eityinist—e. W. Dimwit. Cast e Street, Finsbury. tailor—l, I'. ebber S.reet, Daubed' Marsh. hat inaniiiketurer—• P. and J. Herbert, Loudon, merchants-3, W. Wright. Tewkesbury, linen draper-4, W. Wel, ford. Tower hill, mer chant—S. T. Arthur, Need]. 4lsmorg.imliire, shopkeeper-10. • A. i+witnew, H. White, and T. Tindall. Chesterfield, hat manu facturers-13. T.. Griffith. llllmorton, Warwickshire, victualler. CMITIFICATKS to be granted Feb. • I. Craney. Suuwhill, grocer--. 1. Robertson. Old Broad • Knee,. merchant-7. Passman, Old Street Road, me cliahr J. Atihweß. Nottingham, ironmonger—J. Thurtell, Brudwell. . Sodblk, merchant—M. Douglas. Sunderland, coal litter—J. I. and P. Coto -art. Clement's Lane, wine increhants--T. Jacks, Bishopegate Street Without. flour fluor—J. Beattie, Purism, fldua&r—F. Robinson. Aeon, Warwickshire,dcaler. . . W JAYE LLIGEVIVE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. IatiNDAY, JAN. 13. IIItiCLAY C. smitten:rt. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to f the Weed:mg 4701. 10s., which the plu;ntilf had lent, and the de athbed had premised to repay. The plea wee, that DO such money bad ever been !cut to the defendant. but Met it hail been paid over to him by the plaintiff in discharge of different sums of sunnily which the plaintiff had that to him at play. On ibis (tint none was joisseth The first witnemeeeled was John Bewley, a brother of the plaintiff. He stated, that the plaintiff was a dealer in snuff and tobacco, residing at N 0.49, in the Strand, and that the de fondant is a clerk is a banking-booth, and also carries on bud eines" as a coal-merchnot. On the 29th of May, 1820, the defendant came le Isis brother's shop, and asked him fur a loan of 1001. His brother replied, that he could not then spire 1001., but that he wield let bim linve 701 ; and he was actually drawing • cheek for that ma epos his hankers, when the defendant said, that he wanted a few shining' for some purpose or other, and desired that the cheek might be made out fur 791. 10s. This was a..cordingly done. On the 7th of June, in the same year, the defendant again called u;ton his brother, and said be wanted 3001., hut that he did not kaow person eseept the plaintiff to whom be could apply for snob a lora. His brother, after some cant ersstion, gave him a cheok on Isis hunker for that sum also. On the td of October, 1820, the defendant again called upon his brother, said that he waded money to pay fee some ooals, and asked the plaintiff to lend him 1001. for that purpose. His brother replied, that be hat not that sem by him to *pare, but that he would give him a check for 301.. and accept a bill of exciter e to this same amount for I ho, payable three ur four months after dates The defendant said, that this wound do ; and the check awl the bill of ex .lunge were immediately betided to him. on bin promise to dis eharge at the following Christmas all the money which had been lent him. Subsequently to that period his brother again asked the defendant in big bearing to repay the gems which had bees 'advanced to bite. The defendant promised to do so, as soon as ever he could ; and added, that if he bad had buck all that had been bet to hits (the plaintiff) at play, the pleintiff would owe hint money. Cries examined by Mr. ScArlett.—Tlefore the 29th of May, he had seen the d. readmit since or twice, he: did not think °Reser, at his brother's bouth, in the Strand. He was acci dentally at one lime in the shop, at another time in the counting house, when the defendant called on his brother about these loans ; it was thou that he had overheard the conversations which he had detailed to the Jury. His brother was not in the habit of leading monevivithout taking sit acknowledgment for it ; he did it, however, to two or three iuslividnals. lie knew that brother eittered the 701. lOs in hie books as muney lest to lb s defendant. John Willis, a clerk in a hooking-house, pruned that the bill of exelithge for 501., drawn by the defendant, and accepted by the plaintiff, had been paid into their boo,. by M Hall Rod Bevan, con -merchant*. The payments of the cheeks by the plaintiff's hankers, and the kwlgnsent of the proceeds in the bird, of the defendant's bakers, was admitted by the riefeuditeit'it Counsel. Tile plaintiff's case then closed. ,Ir. Seeded, for the defeucte, charged the witness Bewley with flat unqualified perjury, committed for the lourposte of re cove;in.„: from bin client a sum of money which the p:aintilt had paid to bin as a compromise for certain greater sums which he Wed lost at play. After commenting upon the improbability of 1 . i.111 plaintiff lending welt a suns of money, witlisen tatting an acknowledgmetit for it, to a person whom has own brother vowed never to have been in his heave more than two nr three tenets, and also upon the likelihood, supposing the tummy to Lasts herb actually lent, of hin having a110....t1 two years to elayse before lie snide any Wort to recover it, Cie Learned Gentleman proceeded to detail the eireomstaacea int which lie mitred his defence, and which will be best understood by the stroden.!e lie called to substantiate it. Cleat. Joarph Wtllities Cooper, of the F:ast Kent Militia, slated, that on the ggd of May, 11+20, lie dined at the Piolllol 0 tee-horse, by ins dation of Mr. licelgson, who then kept it. tin that day he met at dinner Mr. %V Hit ratan, of Estwx-street, Sordid, Mr. Bewley and Mr: Spurring. Mr. Bewley he knew betbre ; Mr. Spurring lie did not. It appeared to him from their cominel at that titue, that Mr. Bewley and Mr. Spurring were complete strangers to each other. In the course of the evening cards were introduced, and ail the party played except Mr. Waterman ; lottery was the game played. At the begin wing the stake 4 were (wily abating% ; lint Mr. Bewley soon pro- poised stakes, and, with the esetption of the witness, half-crowns, crowns, pounds, out go forth, were goon staked I be all the parties. 1. 0. Ilfs, and amen pieces of cards, were Il• vl indeed of money. Mr. Iltswley was the loser ; witness ',sought that Mr. Bewliy owned that he wee a loser to the amount of 301. or Ile% Hodgson and spurring were, he also thought, tett!, wino •rs. No dtitlement was suede that evening, et least in Isis pmt velure. liodgeon Invited the thole party to dine el his eliatubers, in Clement's-inn, on the ensuing Friday, the 2015 of May. They dined there scourdingly ; • duly dined there with Vire,. Play ass introduced there also in the even in;. The witness played a little higher than he did before played or own Makes. There ens high play between Mr. Bewley and Mr. Sparring, soul at whose sugecati .... be could out tell. I. O. Ws were 'gaits steed. Before supper the de frodate was Rniii,c away ; he drat went to the plaintiff, who was steinliug near the lire. and said, " It is a large auto you have lost tu.nigm." Wittiest 04.41 4 61 that hr said rather more thee 4001. Mr. Itesilly lame* viand and said, I hope you he not uneasy af you will call oo me to.thorrow, I will give 111. 7 1 : 11. 4. -. 71;7 11111 "n liii."4"1". 4111 < r ' **. 0101■11.• •.‘ 11"1. 1 - • Ns % 3 VI k, THE NATIONAL REGISTER pa part or the mosey i■ casts. and a good bill for about MC sou 4001." The *Betas; then proceeded to stahe, that shoat eight or nine days afterwards he saw Mr. Bewley again, who told him t h at lie had settled his businers with gr. Sparring, He said that Spurring bad given him back a bill for 3701, which was as good 11 , 4 the Brisk, and Mid bike,' 3001. each fur it. This he looked upon as much hondrome conduct, that he in tended to give Spursiug toe liaodsonsost snuff'-boa that he had its his shop. On the 12th of June, when the same patties dined together, the witness saw on Mr. Spurring's mantle-piece ' MN. atinti-box *blob Mr. Bewley had presented him with. On ' the Mb of Jose, however, which was the diy before, Bewley, and Spurring met at his know. Bewley said--" Mr. Spur• ' ring, you owe me a dinner." Spurring replied—" 1 do, and ts ready to give you the very best dinner the Pieria cant Alford." " No," replied Bewley—" not shine there ; I would rather dine at your own house." They dined accord ingly at Mr. Sparring'. lotlgiite, is Seymour place, New road. After dinner, Mr. Bewley and Mr. Hodgson cut the cards for sums so large that the witness said—" Good God ! Bewley, what are you at?" and received in consequence such a mina as made Inn I.old his tongue for the future. About one or two o'clock in the morning," continued the witness. jort as we were going away, Heyday said to Spurring—" Come, Spurring, you must give my revenge." They cut the cards in consequence, and a matter ended in a few minutes by Spurring's winning 34101. Bewley then said, •• Gentleman, 1 eau% pay you, fur lam at this mernent escherpiered for 1,0001. You mum sot ask me for money for live or six mouths to anat."— On my return from Camereury iu the October followisv, Bewley told me dust he heal settled with Spurring ; be aid that lie had given hint a cheat on his Hailers for 301., and accepted a bill of eschinge for 5 101. more at three or four months. He likewise said lb t Sparring was sot to ■rk Into for any more money till it was coovenient for him to pay it. 1 continued my visits to Bewley for some length of time after this transaction. I never beard him at that time say that he bad lent Spurring money. Ile first told me no in last May. He always said how well Sparring bed bchaved to him." Cron-elausiord by Mr. Marryatt.—Though I have often been at Mr. Ilewlry'r house. I never saw him play fur large stakes brfure the 20th of May. I have nut seen Hottgaus for a morph, and I do net know where he is. He does not keep the Pisa.* Coleo-bouse at present, but his brother does. Has Hodgson been a beskropt!—Of eoorse be has. The Lord Chief Justice.-1 think, Mr. Marrystt, the witness has given you a %.ty proper mower. He says, of course, be bas.—(A The witnesses cross-examination continued.—Modgeon bad been married, bat his wife is dead. The lady who diued with as at his climbers, in Clement's-inn, was called Smith. I be lieve she lived there. I do uot know where she lives at pre sent. 1 only know a little of Hodgson, I knew biro from going to the Plaits Cuffee-house, where I viu a member of a oard Blab. This was the ease on the part of the defendast. Mr. Marryalt replied, and committed that the witness whom he bad produced was fully as worthy of credit as the wastes produced by the other ride. The Lord Chief !artier summed op the evidence, and left it to the Jury to decide which of the witnesses was must d Mg of credit. The Jury, without hesitation, returned a ♦erdict for the isfeudat.ts PERJURY-711r KING r. HARRIS. The Solicitor-General staled, that this was an indictment fn perjury. Toe parties were both clergymen ; Mr. H WWI Lessee under t;te Crown of the Chapel in Spring ;muesli, and bad let it to the Rev. George Masters, the present prosecutor, at a rent of 2501. a year. This ander lease was grunted at Lady-Day IS2i, and at Michaelmas following the first lilt year's rent, 1201. became due, and was applied fur by Mr. Harris. Mr. Masters claimed certain deductions under • lease for repairs, tia which seduced the sum, as lie contended, to 921. •2e. 6d. and that Sala he tendered, but it was refustil.— Mr. Harris afterwards made an affidavit of debt, for the pur pose of issuing a writ aunimit Mr. Master►, nntl in that afllda• sit he swore that lOW. was due to him, and that no lender of the scine had been made to him. Upon that affidavit a writ issued, and Mr. Masters was arrested ; lie now in his turn pre ferred this indictment for perjury, the perjury IN ing alleged upon those parts of the affidavit whiob swore to 1061. as the sum doe, and to no lender hissing been mule. The prosect. for also urged, as ■ proof of malice, that Mr. Harris had en deavoured to procure his arrest un the Saturday night, with an intent to prevent ilia performing Divine Service in the Chapel on the following Sunday, as by hailing ►o do so his lease would have become forfeit. The Jury, after hearing the evidence in support of the in dictment, sad an observation from the Chief Justice, that the whole was a matter of account, and might reasonably be in ferred to have ■risen from olio:Ike, rather ham ■n intention to commit wiltal and corrupt perjury, found the deteudaut Nut Guilty. TUESDAY, JAM. 1 i. AfEDSCAL RIVALS.-11EVIER V. ISESTER. Mr. Pollock state.:, that this ors a proceeding by snire facies, that the defendant, under a penalty of 20001. should nut pratnice Ili) sic within two miles of Tower-street, in the city. The de fendant had sullen d judgntent lsy delimit, and the Jury were here called on to the daniaaes. Mr. Searlett stated, that Mr. Hunter, the plaintiff, is • man with a large tamily, et' high professional respectability ; the de fendant, his nephew. . 1 he Jury would find the bentlicence of the plaintill had n' t only extended to the defendant, but to his brother and mother, for which the defendant had at an early period expressed his heartfelt gratitude. The plaintiff feel educated and brought up the delendaut to his protessiou, and allowed him 1001. as his assistant. A very affecting letter of the defendant's wile here referred to; it was addressed to his father, and *linen in IMO, expressing boundless gratitude and affection to his uncle fur the benefits he had received from hiw, and smoking a thousand blessings on him and his family. Ilia apprenticeship having expired, the plaintiff engaged him as stasiitsio for ►even years; he accordingly entered into this bond, not only voluntarily hut cheerfully. Six years having ex pired, the plaintiff proposed a partnership between linuaelf. his sun, and the defendant. The tiefendant brat agreed, but alter wards dissented. AnotSer letter was referred 10, written by the defendant to the plaintiff, /repressing the strongest feelings of gratitude and 'auction. 1,. 11,20, the defendant took a shop within two or three doors of his uncle, melting up for himself, and carry i ng swa y hi s unc l e ' s practice ; haying brought his action for a breach of covenant on a runner occasion, his bonlship seeing it was between near re lations, proposed • reference, which took plsce.—Nis uncle was more affected by Ibe defendsot's ingratitude, than any con aid, ration of penalty or the bond ; the defendant's bits was iinch. that alter this reference, which reused Idol in reinose, ha still kilo tip the competiUon, throu;b the ;Beduins of another person ; asel then he himself came hack carried on tbe besines• is the same piece as before. Se great was the injury Mr. blunter, the plaintiff, bad suffered, he cutad neither procure ♦ partner or am apprentice with api ; because the answer was, your nephew carries on the business next door, and litre is ad effectual competition. It was • painful delicacy Mr. Limiter, the plaintiff, would be under to prove special demagog.. as that several or the uncle*s paiieute had left biol. end gone. to hit nephew ; but the Jury would asses* the damages from the general estimate .r injury anstaisied. Mr, Charits Simpson, attorney, produced defendant's letters, which were put iu in evidence. linens prepared articles of partnership between the par ties in 1610, with which the tlefeudant expressed liiingeilf satiofied. Defendant was to have a fourth share for femme* years—objections afterwards came from the defendant, who wanted to be second partner in the firm instead of third. The treaty commenced iu June, 1620. The plaintiff finding a.- fending practising in competition, desired witues to write him a letter fur the forfeiture of his bond. file letter was berg taut in, threatening to pet the bead in force, unless be removed from the neighbourhood.] Witness received no MI% er. Cross-essmined by, Mr. Wilde.—The plemtiß carries on business in Mincing-lane, corner of Tower-street—defisiisat in the neat street, which is Crutched-friars. The bond reeitss. that in c:ise of the deeds of Mr. Ilunter, sem the business was to be divided into three shares ; •of which plailtilf was to dispose of by will, the other two between son and nephew.— % does* believes defendant quitted his uncle est by his desire, but even withou t taking lo Irate. Is the last esmie the be- trator awarded about 3001. damages and coals. Re•e:amiaed.—The 4efendant by the articles was placid ow the same footing as itlsintirs 6011. Robert Coots was servant to Mr. Thomas Heater, of Crattlied-friars, not the assistant, only to •ake htmselt useful waited at (aisle. Mr. Scarlett.—Did run carry oat medicines ?—I dou't know whether they were medicines. Mr. Sear!, tt.—Did you carry oat parcels which were sup posed to contain medicines ?—I cast swear that they conia:nod seedinines ; L won't swear that.. 26.Nearlet1.—Your evidence is the more valuable, that )less sweae with so much caution. Witness carried out ravels supposed to confide medicines he shout a dozen, or nut so many. (16sansieed as to dilferent patients to whom he earned what be suppose t to he medicines.) Mr. Thomas flouter kept books, in which be wrote himself, but witness :oold not read the language, it was toot for witness's scholarship. There were various sorts of things in that shop that witness did not like—doings that imitated medicines, gal lipots, jars, bottles, &c. Ile. master's shop was more like an apothecary's inside than out ; can't say whether it was an apothecary's shop or not ; has seen things then out of larger into small bottles, and witness has worked a pestle awl mortar. Thomas flouter was on the DOW, and a eight bell *With wan eccaeionelly rang in the eight. Cross-esainined.—Think• i: was in October or Nov. 1820, when witness came into the defendant's service ; left ebout a year and three quarters ago. Francis Henry Motley remembered defendant being tenant to witness's her in Ib2o—has seen the medicine-bottles in the shop, and the name of " Surgeon" on the door—witness learned from the defendant that be bad burned or destroyed his books within the silt nionthe—the shop was shut at the time the arbitration was finished, but cannot speak to dates—never saw any 'minimas ctrried on until defendant returned after the arbitration—the man that simile in defendant's absence merely kept the house ; the cause was, he believes, tried in June. Re-examined by Mr. Searlett.—When the arbitrator was examining the shop remained as before, only the name taken off the door. Ilas heard skit defendant left et the expiration of hi, bond. Mr. John Berridge lives in Tower-street—Mr. Hunter, the plisintiff, attended witness's family. The defendant ;mended generally as assistant—rententhers his setting up for himself ; surd no, boliciting but succeeding his mode • basiness in wit. Seas's fmily. From Nov. 1820, to May, 1821, witness paid him 951. 10e. %ben lie came buck from the North lie celled on witness respecting a bit which eiefendant said he had mis laid. Vittoria has no doubt that at Una time lie was attending patients geuerelly. Mr. Wilde put it to the Jury whether the defendant had not Made ample return to his node for all the favours he had re wired, by having served him faithfully foe so great a number sr years. The defendant, having already paid 3001. damages, nom hale had a great struggle, therefore, in the present in stance, that heavy damages lie would never be able to pay. The Lord eider Jubilee observed, the Jury had not to try any question, but simply to 'sees% damages fur a breach of the agreement after November, 1820. to was impossible in pro duce evidesee of all the patients the deleisdauts might have led away—the Jury, would, therefore, form a probable and general estimate froiu Octobar, 1520, to Juue, 1521, the loss of busi ness the plaintiff had sustained. The Jury found for the platiotiff.—Damages 501.-costs 40e WPIONCADAY, JAN. 15. PRICE AND OTHERN e. LLE. The Solicitor General stated, that this wait ao action to re cover 1581. for goods sold and delivered. Mr. William Percival was traveller to the plaintiff in March. 1821, when he saw the defendant, Mr. Thomas Lee, of Kid derminster, carpet manufacturer, who ordered • quantity of cream of tartar and lee dye. Witness mentioned Ts. Yd. per pound. 31r. Lee offered 6s. 9d. W duets made a ammonia- dum of the osier—tilisersiisg, it was rather below witness's hmiti; that was as to the lac rle. Witness informed the de fendant he should transmit his order—and, if he did not hear from the house, be was to conclude the order would be executed. Crosa-exemincd.—There was no agreement to wait for the order being limit. The Solicitor General observed, • •erbal and conditional order in flint rase would not take, it out of tile Statute of Frauds. The Lord Chinf Justice observed, a part acceptance would take it out or the S,atute of Prods.--The cream of tartar wild an absolute order, the price being agreed upon on both sides, mud the delivery we. complete. Letter put its Iron, defendant to the. plaintiffs Gent', meet,—We cannot take the goods invoiced. Year trartlier ens to transmit the order, and you were to say it you accepted by return of post. • ' It was arlr•itted the ru•iendant received the cream of tartar, but refused the lac dye Mr. Gurney observed, both parties in this ease were highly respectable, only the mistake arose on the part ut the Iran eller. The market priers oh these articles were falling, and therefore it was important the plaintilis should send an answer. No answer arriving, fir. Lee could wait no longer, and there fore purchased of another at as. It was only atter the fall 01 the market the plattattia thou ,ht proper to ru k .ply the order. ~. I I t.. ~~ `.y~r