THE NATIONAL REGISTER exceed 401. and defendant had now paid 601. into Court, the additional 101. being to defray the charge of plaintiff's going down to view the estate. The Chief Justice left it to the Jury to say, whether the defendant had not, by his repeated piornise to pay, ad. misted the plaintiff's demand or t4JI. Ils. If nut, they would say what was a lair femur raiiou to the plaintiff fur his trouble. The Jiffy Sound a verdict for the plaintiff for 701. 3x. costs 40.. SHERWOOD V. CLARE. The plalntifi, a person in trade, besought his action against the defendant, to recover damages fur a loss sus tained by a false character given a person named Williams by the defendant. It appeared that the defendant described the said Wil liams to be ass honest man. and trust worthy, in conse quence of which the plaintiff was induced to give him credit fur goods. The plaintiff lust his debt, and he now undertook to prove that the defendant knew, at the time he gave the character, that Williams had been a bankrupt. The concealment of that fact hail Gccasioned the plaintiff's loss, and it became a question for tier consideration of the Jury, whether the defendant had concealed the tact from fraudulent motives. The Jur), under all the circumstances, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages. I WI. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONDAY, DEC. S. . ObDoHNZ. This was an action to recover bark 3a guineas paid by This was an action to recover back 35 guineas paid by the plaintiff, au attorney, residing in Essex-street. in the Strand, to the defendant, a livery stable keeper, for a horse, warranted sound, which afterwards proved no. sound. 'fuse plaintiff purchased the horse at the defen dant's stables on the tut of September last. A gentleman, named Best, ss lio - ss as wills the plssutifi , observed at the time that the horse was a screw (lame) in the near fore leg. The defendant said it was of no consequence, the hot se was sound, and if the plaintiff did not like him, lie might return him any time within six Itlolllll4, and be would give him 44 guineas for him. Upon (Isis represent ation the plaintiff became the purchaser, and took the horse first a journey into Essex, and afterwards into Sussex, when the animal turned oust to be lame. 'the plaintiff returned the horse on the tl tot of October, having previously ascertained front Mr. Send, the veterinary surgeon, Hutt he was lame at the time of sale. The d efence was, that the plaintiff had not returned the horse in six days, according to certain conditions of sale put up in Isis yard. The ClaiefJustice left the question to the Jury on this point, namely, whether the transaction had been an abso lute sale, or a contract binding the plaintiff to return the horse within the time named. _ The Joey, nutter all the circumstances, found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 401. costs 40s. TUIDiDAT. DEC, 4. CHM. CO:11.—PIDININ•7014 VLLOWD... Mr. F. Pollock opened the pleadings. He said this action wast , rought by the plaintiff, Homage o,rlevie Pennington, against Joseph Palmi r Lowe, to recover damages for crimi nal conversation with the plaintiff's wife. Serge..st Pell stated the ewe. The Jury bad beard from his Learned Friend that the 'action was brought by the plaintiff against Mr. Lowe, the defendant; to recover damages tar criminal conversation with his wife. The situation of the plaintialuf Inte years had been very distressing, and the injury he complained of had been aggravated by the advan tage oaken of ais mini:innate state. In 1808, the plaintiff, being a widower, without children, married the lady whose misconduct gave rife to the action. She was the daughter of a ;violent:lu named Alwin. Mr. Pennington was $4, and his wile tl. They lived cornier several years in domestic happiness. It happened unfortunately that Mr. Pennington entered into the c legion without the consent of his wife's father, anal the jury would find the family dislike continued to the year 1811.--They had four or five children, and one of them nits on ned Ellen Lowe Pennington. Toe plaintiff urger his marriarte, carried on the business of a coal-merchant, with great credit to himself; but he became unfortunate; his business failed, and he became involved in difficulties.— at that time he was living in perfect harmony with his wife, and applicatinn was made to her father, Mr. Alain, for assistance. He was willing to assist him, but only on one condition, nnmely, that Mr. Pennington and his w ife should • no longer live together. At that time Mr. Lowe had nut only become intimate with Mr. Pennington, bat professed 1U be his friend. Ile had been au assistant at a school, where he became acquainted with Mr. Alain, the brother of Nirs. Pennington, by whom he was introduced to the I plaintiff. His inamwra being those of a gentleman, he from a common acquaintance became a friend and 'Moe of Mr. Pennington. In ISIT the plaintiff and his wife lived sepa panne from each other. Immediately on their parting, Mrs. Pennington lived in a house belonging to her father, in Battersea-fields. After residing there some time her father died, and in 1818, she reclaimed to Butissoe-place, in the Wandsworth road. She again removed to Woodford, where she lived with her mot her. Much about this time it was ob served that Mr. Lowe had designs on Mrv. Pennington, hos tile to her peace, and in con-equence of what had passed at the house of Mrs. Alwin, that lady was so dissatisfied, that she would not permit her to reside in the house. She went to reside at Thayden Bois, near Epping, in 1819. Mrs. Pennington there declared her intention to go to Southend, for the benefit of her health. She left Thasclen 1.1114 accordingly, and on her return on the Sd Nov. 1519, site had tin infant child. In consequence of some infor mation übtained from the maid servant who had been employed ht Thayden Buis by Mrs. Pennington and Mr. Lowe, the plaintiff was led to the clearest proof of the adultery. It would appear that atter leaving Thayden Bois, where she lived with Mrs. Pennington, instead of proceeding to Southend, she is ithdrew to a small home at Wanstead, at no great distance from the residence she hail quitted, and there was delivered of the child she had carried home, on the Sd of November. It would be in proof that Mr. Lowe, the defendant, took the house at Wanstead. He passed for an officer on half-pay, and the husband of Mrs. Pennington, and in that very house, un der his protection, Mrs. Pennington was delivered. It world be proved that at this house the pat ties slept to g Iber as 1111111 and wife, so that there could be no doubt Mr. Lowe had effected his purpose. The circumstances winch led to a more minute discovery of the adultery were of a curious description. it .hewed that a here via existed, it would be brought to light. The medical gentleman, who attended Mrs. Pennington thought he had seen that lady some where, but could not tellwhere.— Nut long aliti her delivcry, as lie was walking through LAW INTELLIGENCE. .......- COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MONDAY, DEC. E. DAVIS V. HINDIAV. The parties in this case were cheesemongers, the plain tiff residing in Vere-street,Ciare-market, and the defen dant in Gray's-inn-lane, and the action was brought to recover damages fur a loss sustained by giving credit to a person named Ford, in consequence of a false character which the defeudaut gave that individual, for the alleged purpose of entailing him thereby to discharge a debt due from him to the defendant. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff proved, that in July, MO, Ford applied to Davis to be supplied with nods, stating that up to that time he had dealt with indley, but in consequence of Hindley not having suffi cient stock to supply him, lie wished to purchase goods of the plaintiff. He referred to Hindley fur character, alto confirmed all that he bad stated. In reply to the plaintiff's inquiries Hindley said, there was no standing account between hint and Ford, and that Ford only owed him for two tubs of hinter, which were to be paid fur the Monday following. He added, that Ford was trust-worthy. Upon this representation the plaintiff was induced w give him credit to a considerable amount. In December following Fold was arrested by a creditor, and ultimately, on the bib of Maid', went tip to take the benefit el the Insolvent Act, a hen he ass adjudged by tAe Court to be liberated after eighteen mouths' impriso 1111 l ent. At that time the delendaut claimed to be creditor to the amount of xfifil. and further acknowledged that the debt was due at the time he was represented to have said Furd owed him nothing except for Iwo tubs of butter. The balance due from Ford to the plaintiff was 1771. and that situate sought to recover from the defendant in this action. Mr. Matryatt, for the delemlant, - contended that his client had never given Find the character here repre sented, and also that credit had not been given Ford upon what the defendant said. The plaintiff called on a tradesman named lie iiiiii lugs, with whom Ford also dealt, to ascertain his character flum that person.--" Chat pay ment to the amount of 33241. had been made by Ford to the plaintiff at different times between July and December, and that in fact. The Jury, alter bearing the evidence and tlie aumming tin from the Judge, found a verdict fur the Oa' 'd— Damage• 1211. TUESDAY, DEC. 4. CHRISTIE V. This was an action to recover 1401, the amount of credit given to a person mimed Knight, by the plaintiff, un the impropet character given him by defendant. It appeared that at the time Clark recommended Knight, am a trust-worthy person, lie knew him to be deeply involved it debt, and that be in fact was a creditor to n considerable amount. Witnesses were milled to contradict this statement ; but the Jury found fur the plaintiff—Datinges 1401. •TAVI.EY V. DODD. This was a qui lam action on the statute of the 5511 i of the late King, which provides that any Or, rseer, Guardian, or Governor of the Poor, or coy other person, directly or in directly, concerned in thy expenditure of the parish money, who should famish any article towards the supply of the poor, with a view to profit, should b. .c thereby liable to a penalty of 1001. The defendant was an inhabitant of Bethnal Green, a cow keeper, and the charge against him was, that be bring a qualified governor of the pour, had furnished the poor-house with milk. It appeared from the evidence, that by the local-act for the regulation of the poor of that parish, any parishioner hulling to the amount of 801. per annum, might, on sending its kis qualification to the vestry clerk, become and act as a governor of the poor. 'fame defendant h id been so qualified, but had not acted for the last two years, ■nd it was now proved that the mister of the workhouse had sent one of the paupers daily to the defendant's house, for about six months of the time, fur two quarts of milk for the use of the pauper children, which was paid for quartet ly by the parish. 'lids was I lie breach of the act alleged agnieht the defendant. A number of witnesses were called, aiming whom an, the master of the work-house, who stated, that its it was discretionary with him to scud where he pleased, he had vitt to the defendant, because be bad gut the milk cheaper and better. The Chief Just ice said, the act in question was a most wise one; hut, in his o; this ease was not within its meaning. There was no contract, on the contrary, a person went to purchase of the deft-Wain, w ithout any solleitation on his part I and it would be a hard matter indeed to sub ject a tradesman to a penalty of lOW. because be, beim!, as qualified governor, might inadverteutly serve a pauper with a ;aloud of cheese or an ounce of tea. His Lot dship also much doubted whether the defendant, not having acted for the list awn years, could be considered as a governor at 4111.-I'l:Liu tiff non-suited. WEDNESDAY, DEC. i. kIIIIIN3 V. BARTON. This was an action to recover bBl. los. for work and labour. The defendant pail SOI. into Court. The plain till, an alectioneer,ll'4: , , in ILOS, applied to by the delete dent's solicitor to know steal would be the expense of putting lip an estate, situated in Gloucester, the property ul the 410 * mM:int, to auction in London. The plaintiff seated, that to do the thing properly, advertising, &c. in cluded, would be JUL besides his commission ; but should the estate he bought in, be should charge as low as pos sible. Thaw statement of the plaintiff's was made known to the defendant, and the advertisements, particulars, etc. wile published. The plaintiff afterwards suggested that it wits desirable he should see the property, Ina the defielidnill ' s ugeut objected to the cxpence of a journey down. The however, said the expellee would be but trilling, as he was gollig to that past of the tomtit), and would Dan aside awl look at the pi' nye' . lie accordingly did 10, but ultimately the properly wit not sold by him. Senn after the plaiuulf tgalismitted his account, amounting to Wel. lib. in the defendant's agent, and reminded him the account was not settled. In reply to Ilits letter lie had one front the defendant, apologianig fur having suffered the account to stand over so lung, butt said it was UWilig lu the delay and J . 1.411'1,000- mein he had experit need in getting the pui 'Anise money fur the estate fu question, bill that lie expected soon to lie in luau , and would then brute it. Defendant afternsids came w town, and plaitilitt's son called out him; be agani uttered the seine eistioe, Old said he would pay the In I as souls as possible, and at length the plaintiff (nought Illy Neill evilest. The defence set tip was, that the plaintiff's hill was an overcharge. He had said that the expence salsa nut aa:~ Epping Forest, lie met the plaintiff, who oil hearing that his wife had miscondected herself with the defendant, Was endeavunting to eel some imclligenee wills respect to her residence. A gonversatiom formed, and Mr. Mae. donal, the medical gentleman, knew that the lady was Mrs. Primington. He recoil civil having attended her when she was under the protection of her husband. Im mediately after Mr. Pennington obtained clear proof of his wife's infidelity, Ise commenced proceedings which terminated in the inquiry before the jury this &iv.- Within forty-eight hours after Ise hail brought his action, the defendant had the iniputlence, as well as the cruelty, to sue the injured husband for a pretended debt of II 11. for necessities supplied his rune children whilst the site had been living with him, without the least knowledge" a the loan of the linsbaud of the fact. The jury might picture to themselves what at be the feeling of a bus baud ellen he found himself arre.ied by an adulterer, tnr so large a sum as II iI. This being Ilse nature of the care, lie had only to say a few woods on the subject of the in• quiry. He had said in the 'inset, that the parties were not living together, and it had been a question of slight importance, whether an action of this description could be maintained by a husband separated hem his wife.— He was of opinion the action might be sustained. but the Learned Judge would nut decide that question. If the decision should be against the plaintiff the defendaut would escape; but hi case the action was maintainable, the jury would not only leave him to the compunctious visitongs of conscience, but say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to receive. They would consider the de fendaut standing in the situation of a false friend, and the plaintiff the lather of the four children:—damages to a large 'mount would be no compensation for the wound inflicted upon 1114 clieut. The Learned Sergeant then called his witnesses. John Killington was present at the marriage of the plaintiff and his wife at Paddington church. He gave her away, He visited after they were married. They appeared to live happily. Air. Raymond, the Parish Clerk, produced the Register of Paddington Par ish, by which it appeared that the plaintiff and Miss Alwin were married ua the 19t14 of January, 1806. Lieut. Franklin of the Royal Navy, said he bad been acquainted with the plaintiff from his Watley. In 1811. about three years after his marriage, he visited him, and no couple could appear to live happier. Mr. Peaminglon's conduct was that of a regular decent man. Mr. P. at this time was about 45. They had four children living ha the house. Mr. Francis Alwin, the brother of Mrs. Pennington. said his sister was about 21 when she married. Mr. P. was about 35; he was a coal-merchant. His family con sisted of four children, two boys and two girls. The youngest of the girls was named Ellen Lowe Pennington. Mr. Lowe was teacher at the school where witness was. Some time after witness left school he met Mr. Lowe at Kennington and renewed his intimacy. He introduced him to his erother and sister, and his visits were conti nued so the time of the separation. Mr. and Mrs. Pea ninelon lived happily together. He had seen Mr. P. in toxicated, but very seldom. When they separated, it was the separation of persons who appeared to wish to come together again. Mrs. Prnaington resided with the wit ness after the separation, and removed to Densaue-place. His father died a year after the separation. Mrs. P. then lived with her mothex, at Woodford, &boat twelve months after she left her husband. Soon after the father's death the plaintiff wrote a letter to bring about a meeting with his wife. His object was to live with her again. Ann Litter said she lived at Wanstead. Mr. Lowe, in August, 1820, engaged apartments iu her bowie. It was the 12th of August. He took possessiou a week after. He took them as a married man. He came alone to take the lodging, and a week after he brought Mrs. Lowe r as he called her. He also brought a child, whom he galled Ellen. They slept together, and passed 10f man and wife. He came occasionally, and they went up stairs together. to one room. In September she was delivered by a medi cal man, named Macdouel. The little girl. Ellen, was between four and five years of age. Cross-examined by Sergeant Rusanquet.—The witness never saw them in bed, but she saw him go out of the bed room in the morning. after remaining there all night. Mr. Alexander alacdonal, is surgeon at Wanstea4l r said he knew Mr. Lowe. He epistler' to witness. about the month of September, MO, to attend a lady, whom he called Mrs. Lowe. That person was delivered of a child, a girl. The witness undetstuod the lady was his wife. The wit ness had seen the lady before but at first did not know where. lie saw the child Ellen. t ie met Mr. Peaaingtoa, in Iv. lauary or Maich last, ill true Forest, going to Wanstead.— The witness recollected the lady ties Mrs. Pennington of Banksider he had formerly attended the family, his the ab. senee of Mr. Blown, a medical man iu Blackfrianeroad. This was the pl case. Mr. Sergeant Vaughan then addressed the Jury, bet de. chned calliug witnesses. Chief Justice Dallas, having adverted to the facts of the ease, observed, that the uniform good behaviour of the plaintiff to his wife had been proved by all the witnesses.— At the same time the Jury had to consider whether the Or comstance of leziring u wife exposed to the attacks of other inen did not "educe the claim to damagrs The Jury retired from the box, and all their return found a verdict for the plaintiff—Donage, 2301. WEDNESDAY, DEC. i. STAFFORD V. lIASISTOX. This was an action brought by the Commissioners of Sewers, so try the liability of the defendant, who resides •ear Knightsbridge, to pay his proportion of rates for making and cleansing the Knightsbridge and Hrompton sewers, which run tin tough Hyde York. The cause had been opened, and two witnesses earns ii iii ed, when Mr. Langley, of the Edgeware•road, a gentleman between Mt and 60, who was on the Special Jury, was taken ill. He left ti a box, and endeavoured to recover Ii i iii self SUM ciently to lies his situation,but was unable to act again as aJaror. The learned Judge, with great humanity, dispensed with the gentleman's further attendance. His age and infirmities made bins wholly unfit to serve as a Juror. Mr. Sergeant Lens, Counsel for the defeudant, then offered to proceed with the eleven remaining Jurors, but Sergeant Hullin:, who conducted the plaintiff 's case, re. lased to agree to that proposal. The Judge said he c.juld slut go on after the refusal of the plaintifi to proceed. Chief Justice Dallas then ordered the Joey to be dis. charged, slier some conversation between Counsel, the cause was ordered to be made a remanent for trial at the sittings otter neat Terri. - ill 31