Star. — London, England, 1827-12-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGGNCE. ROWS COURT S Ditiesrasa to. Rostra fins sr ALLIrTUM. AITIR of the ROLLS on taking his teat, deli. judgment of the Court in this matter, %%filch, mer, vighr. on les sens A laboured at violent. It fiNd by a vendor rf als est.te for the specific lance of an agreement. The vendee declin .d the c• ntract on ac , ount of a defect in the bell. to the Master was directed to ort upon ind the Mater had declared it w be good.— , were then taken by the vendee, and in this mate, was -rgoetl. It apiteerecl that the the title arose from the form of the deed Linde, r vendor claimed, the usual clause of a cruel. is the death of children, not having been in- There were sevon children entitled as tenants the property, and four of them had died with - suffe.ed any recovery, The question was, remaining three could execute a proper con their own shares as well as of the shares of .tildren who were dead? His Honour stated, bad paid much attention to the case, and was ted to agree with the Master's Report. It was the intention of the settler, that the surviving should take the shares of the others who were cross•rentaindets had been inserted in the intention, although sufficient as to a will, was . as to a deed where formal language had in reen required. Upon the whole view of the refore, his Honour was clearly of opinion, that :eptittas ought to be allowed. HUN 'uR disposed of nearly all the Petitions on copied In yesterday's Paper, from a Morning Paper, the • in Chancery on Satsrday, in which, by mistake, the kaiddiesea was menttoned instead of the Coroner of The caw has been repeatedly before the Coon, and I , our Headers, we suppose, cortected the error ; bet in , did not, we are anxious to call tbeit attendee to the ienseut.l AT KING'S BENCH, Wasmixeraa, Dacesuora to. Nisi Prlus, before Lord Tameatioas and a Special Jury. atticLatle O. DUMB AND cinaßS. :as an action to recover damage, in compenta• breach of contract. The case had been tried d the plaintiff obtained a verdict, which was ~ eerily set aside, and a new trial granted. tact/WHAM stated the plaintiff's case, which in the recollection of most of our readers. Mr. vas in Dublin in 1825: he received a hirer Kemble, offering him an engag e . fifty nights at 201. a night, and a benefit. To Mi. S oclair replied, wit'vut delay,"that he himself engaged, and added, that he would early enough to study for the new opera.— Mr. Sinclair went to Edinburgh, and whilst received a letterlrons Mr. FA wcett,the acting ma ho stated that it was desirable to know what Sinclair would arrive in Londen, ;bat W. her's Der Freiscltraz was to be brought out, and mus,c was extremely difficult, and •would re quire considerable study. To this letter Mr. Sinclair replied that he would arrive in town on the 15th Otto ber,artd he actually arrived on the morning of the 16th. te then discovered that Der Freischutz had been played two nights, and that Mr. Peat man had been pot in the character pointed out for him. He informed Mr. Fawcett, however, of his arrival in town, and shortly after received notice that the opera of the Ca line( was about to be produced, and that lie should choose hispart. His appearance in the Cabinet was also announced in the play-bills for several nights before ill took place. Mr. Sinclair appeared, and actually played under the engagement for nine nights, for which he re.; crived 201. a night. A mutual friend Ache late Dit latchiser)conitnenicated with Mr. Arnold, the Mana ger of the English Opera House, who made a very li teal offer to Mr. Sinclair; he was willing to accept it, but upon application being made .to Mr. Kemble, he replied, that they were going to bring out a new Opt. net Covent Garden, and that it was impossible to kt Mr. Sinclair go to the English Opera House. Mr. Sin clair, therefore, remained without any other engage. sent but that with the defendants, until the ends f the season, during which he performed only nine nights, is which he received 201. a night. He now claimed the observance at his contract, which was for fifty nights, at 201 a night. He submitted that the conduct of the defendants themselves put the matter beyond all doubt, tad that Mr. Sinclair, under the contract was entitled to 201. a night for forty•one nights If the Jury had laydivubt of this, there was a count containing a pans ism strait, and it would be for the Jury to say under that count, to what remuneration a man of Mr. Sin diit's celebrity was entitled. The different letters alluded to in the Counters statement, and also the evidence of Dr. Kitchirrer on the la.t trial, owe put in and read as evidence. The ArinataLe Gaunter., for the defence, addressed the Jury. The fasts relative to the formation of the contract were before them. Mr. Sinclair had contrac - ed In play fifty nights, commencing in a new Opera the first vat of October. He failed to fulfil his part of the contract, remain. d in the country, and abandoned h eugagement with Covent-Garden; was he then entitled in compensation under a contract which he himself had violated? The part in the new Opera, which had been Pupated for him, was given, in consequence of his Armee, to Mr. Pearman. Where was the injustice s( that? Were the managers to postpone the Opera be cause Mr. Sinclair thought fit to prefer a country en gagement to that which he had made with Covent linden? He should have been in town two days befose the outcoming of the Opera, in order to prepare, yet it did not attire until the middle of October, andefter the Oper a had been produced. Mr. Sinclair failed to morns his part of the contract. Had he a right to I till m the managers to perform their part ? Cet tainly 14 . Such conduct had no support either in equity, or s alart*comnaon reason. On the same principle that he larghtrernain away from his duty one fortnight, he ali ght also extend ins absence to a mcnth or two months. Was there airy taw to justify such a violation of his con tract? Then ' as to the attempt on the fan of the plaintiff 1 0 construe Mr. Fawcett's letter into a deviation on the Put of the defendants from their original contract, the luppotitirn could not stand one moment. Mr. Fawcett, the stage manager, did not unite the letter in his official character ; in fact, he had no authority from the Proprie tors to change or modify any contract formed by them. Mr. Fawn. tt's letter was only an act of good nature to *Ards Mr. Sinclair,to inform him that the difficulty of this susic would require some time to study, and wattling ham of the necessity of coming in time. Mr. Sinclair's - l etter in answer, saying he would be in town on the 1 56 October, was no satisfaction to the managers. who wanted him the very first week of the month. The r• *us nothing in either Mr. Fawcett's private letter, or in Mr. Ehnclan's answer to it, which could fairly be con• stored into a waiver of the first engagement on the pint the Theatre. Then as to the idea that it was neces• • that the Theatre should gibe Mr. Sinclair notice-•-• " las it ever before held necessary to minim' a.man a contract into which be bad, entered? No; the The MASI ',reed the jo on a former was a bill fill performance fulfillirg the A reference the 01 , ..11d Exceptint s shape the m, detect in the which the we in case of th, carted. The in tail to the out having 31 lIINIher the • veyance of tl the four chili that he had not prepared 'evidently the children shoe dead, and a deed ; but it insufficient a variably. her Case, thrrefo *the exception Ha HON the list. (We copied proceeding in Coroner of Pod smeesetatre. conseqbrotty r we rare did I loil4tarcenceit. COURT OF &tines at Nil al This was tion, for bre before, d e g n eg,,entl . Mr. Haut p ost be in I Sinclair war from Mr. • anent lot fit this letter ftil considered I be in town I Soon after o• there receiwr nager, who " day Mr. Str opera of D K. that tbe mu quire consid replied that her, arid he Ile then d played two • pot in the c Mr. Fewer • shortly afte Batt was al choose his p s. announced • took place. ender the e oived 201. latch leer) • Eerofthe 1 t▪ eal offer it, but upon , b replied, chi 111 • n at Cover 3T ' Mr. Sinclai p elate, there lan' went but tl - season, due bna lot which I I • observance ev at 201. • ni defendants ei sad that fvl hod to 201. a ni S • say dqubt • ' tea wernit 110111• that count, cl,it's cele' The di: statement, the la.t tii The Ar r em the Jury. t t • contract a _ to play fift w volt of ec • contract, eagageme to camper violated? rrepared ea iteence, t a I& that? We o tante M r . a n d flgement garden ? theme° rank le aid no the Opera mum I es. . and fali os tl old v a•Sucl Jur . CI A dhtrei • bei Might als have h as tltn Batt? TI be on▪ d - to tonsil • . put of tl toppositi ream the s tage ."" charade d • tors to cl rd Mr. Faa id, te wards Al le • • auk w etelf ben of t r . .letter in "'e' 15th 15 th Oct b,a " wanted he • 1 - air was nod NI • Mr. Btni ty,wa• anted it saga t° ' W the T P lace d "fy tha vier acs- whoa w; A a cc . - aistence-of 'such c . ontract was sufficient node of the necewty of fulfilling its condition. Then as to the• iaiisterrii•g to .lr. P.-At mxii the part in the . Ope►a that 'rod been i tended tor, add promised by the manager% n Mr. Sincl .ir : it %could he proved that the imager _ . Was Mn act, no• of choice hot of necessity; alterdhstri dela)ed the bringing out t f De, Freischrts as,itoirg es tl•ey could. until the 14th October. Alter it 4,,l en played a few nights, it appeared that the Om., w i r ) Mid he succe4ul—..worild it be proper then in the managers to take from Mr. P.armao that part in which te na4 obtained public 'approbation, and give it to Mr. Sin , clair ? Mr. Sincl iir attired in town on the 16tIssOr.N. tuber, and was told by Mr. Kerable that, in cmssc l / 4 . 1 quence of his failure to arrive in proper time,. Jbe engagement with him ss a: at an end. Then ai'to Wilting Mr. Sinclair oat in another Opera, that h eriiiild be rendered improbable by the successful multi Per Freischkix; it would be impossible they coulatemptOYMr• Sinclair for fiity nights that season, as they.baikat.6rsi contemplated : but they would let him appear as many nights as they reasnnably could, at the original lila@ 201. a night ; to this new arrangement Mr. Sirttlilr ceded ; but sub equenilyaskrd leave from Me. Kerable to form an engagement with Mr. Arnold, of the Lyceum, for J.,ne. This Mr. Kemble refo..ed, on the ground that they might have other new Operas, and would re- quire his assistance, and that be being one of the com• pang for the entire_ season, cmld not be absolved from . . his du ies to their theatre. In accordance with this to employ M. Sinclair, Mr. Kemble got up the, Hebrew Family. a new Opera, for Mr. Sinclait's ap pearance, and the CeltfeetS told one . in both of which Mr. Sinclair tailed to atir t irkt tile public, and beimpetifit t a the theatre. Then Othiir piece, were playe4:sttass . - iii which Mr. Sine4it -could not appAir, • and the necessity of playingttese precluded all possibility ‘ of the manarrs employing Ms..Sii.clair fin) , • Ins that season. Then Mr. Smclait askei an early Icen! %Thiel! .In. Kenible granted, wishing to soothe hits imps cms-, peksation far tge lost he brought on bithiarby his'own neglect in the tertian casement ; but that &Attic he sa l not under the first engagement, but on thtkiriinistaoce of his attending the theatre as a general perfehrati,. r -,, Os Mr. S•n• lair's failure to bring profit to tt e short pouf w ould be found iu the fact that qsip t peanut,. in the Cabinet brought only 1744. to the Atik, whereas Der beisclautz brought the "nigivi sifter 3401. Then did not Mr. Sinclair, when he asked fpt, Lis bin:S. early in May, and requested it might hem s the last night of his appearance that season—did,h,,pa t by that confess that ne considered his original enegr, merit at an end, by which it was contracted that he to take his benefit illJu . e? And if he consiclel'at first engagement valid, *1 y did I se voluntarily to theatre in May? As to what constituted the reasoitelper number of oughts which Mr. Kenible had promised tr Mr. Sinclair for his appearance, the only way ro esti mate that question was by consid, ring it inyeferente. to the interest of tie theatre, and the taste of the public.: When the opera of Der Frei:clads was so successful as, mi t 'ruti for 53 nights, and a cumidy called A Woliehl: NeverVesed, bt ought good houses 27 nights, besides riuniber of night devoted to tragedy, would it have been reasonable or indeed 'possible for the managers Oi bring (or ward Mr. Sinclair 50 nights that season, pat: titularly when they could on!). 1 r play" at a loss to themselves? No man would ray so, under these cir- cumstanees. Mr. Sinclair had no claim for compensa- tion for 'Use first contract, which he had broker:, nor under the -second, as it was c:ear the managers had vmpinyed h:m every night they reasonably could have done. John F 4 wcett —I was stage manager of Coient•serden in the season 1825 and 1826. 1 wrote to Mr. Sinclair on the 21st. of September, not by authority of Mr. Kemble or the proprietors. It is not usual to give notice to performets of their commencing contracts. Mr. Sin clair did not arrive in the beginning of October.— Dlr. Sinciair's answer to Mr. Fasvcert's letter was here put in and read.] I wrote no ansac to this letter.— The Opera of Der Freischmts had been in preparation from tic opening of the theatre that valor'. It was played first on the 14. h of October. I had neither seen nor heard of Mr. Sinclair up to that titre; it was_per- formed 53 nights that season. I had some conversation in the course of the season with Mr. Sinclair mi the sub ject of his engagement., I observed to him that he had come too late tor his engagement ; his answer was, 'it was not Material, as the music in Der Freiachuts did not suit him. I recd. ed a letter from Mr. S nclair early in May. (Mr. Sinclait's letter to Mr. Fawcett, requesting his benefit to be find on an early night, was hemmed). In consequence of this I filed his benefit on the 25t6 of May, giving him three weeks notice. He di& not • perform for the theatre atm° the 25th. nor attend the close on the 16th of July, 46 nights after Mr. Sinclair' left.. I believe Miss P. ute was engaged that season. ; It was the wish o the proprietors to employ Mr. Sinclair ;' they requested me to try his streneth in the run of Der . Frerschatx. We played the Cabinet for him on the 15. h if Hecemter, when the receipts were 1721. TLe nett night we played Der Freischuts, the 27th night, :intik' brought 3531. 4s. 6J. We afterwards brought out M. 1 S nclair rig i t in a n w opera, called' The Hebrew Family :. it was ; laird only three nights, and failed.' We brought h m out atter in the opera of the Nerelioe 4 Land. If the receipts of The Native land were betel* the sum brought on an average by Der Fteisclarts, irk could not hope to continue to play The Aaiire I.sentil with the success of Der Freischulz. . • ' ''''' Cross-examined by Mr. Beouotiam—My writing 65 . Mr. Sinclair to Edinburgh was merely an aet of civility . on my part to Mr. Sinclair. Mr: • Pearman had press viou ly played in the opera 'of Der Freischnis at the English Opera, and was acquainted ailh . Vithil4. l . 4 ledi it there, but not with our version a it:: t .ii, cancli ; al sled. I am so ry to say, from Weter, is well inibtlain) a. dial'gue. He had played it with applatise, consider., ing that i.e came after Mr. Braham—frightfut odds (A laugh.)—Mr. Pearman received much less salary; .han either Mr. Brabant ur Mr. Sinclair. Mr.Pearman did not learn it with greater facility, but with greater difficulty rather, as he had to forget the *ay he learned the music first. I think Mr. Pearman did not get the music to study until after we untie' stood Mr. Sinclair would not come. Re-examined by the ATTORNEY GENERAL—The opera of Der Frriachulz was reserved by us as # grand opera for the high talents of Mr. Sinclair. My impres sion is, that I did not hand over the music of Der Freischsts to Mr. Pcatman until I bad received Mr. Sinclair's answer. Mt. Kobettsou—l think Mr. Sinclair arrived on the 16th or 17th. I saw him in the presence of Mr. Kern Ide and Captain Forbes. They informed him that as lie bad arrived too late to play in I)er Freischuts, which ci i was brought out two or three nights befoie , th e y con sis mod Ins engagement at an end. He erptessed tegtet at it ;so did they. Mr. Kemble stated subs queiitly, that as the operafor which his services were required was filled up, they could not guarantee to employ hies fifty nights, but as they considered him one o f the company, they would employ him as many ni g h t s as they could, :without specifying the number , Inuits. Aft.r some Itesicasini , ,.Fitt a.cerii el to thil pet posal. He played in tl,e M.% ing• December. He p.rid, through my h.-i . t..s.ts.• in the t.easur v, B.lturdav af er fices,vd, .1 3 , e 1,41 11;m say hr 1114 d aced In fichly s iihiefialrthiiilig lei. fi• st enr a em er.t. and that lie shoulrl.be - Ait I re.. v ., horn the Theatre scion as he could, as he had rerei , eJ only 18 l. that se ',son, the Feat Arm he had et ei• 'received for a season ".ince he had been in the profession. lle asked me whether his services were hkety to be wanted longer. 46 he was anzious to go away. On this question 1 re (erred him to Mr. Kemble. He never claimed to be ' allowed to play the number of nights contracted in the first engagement. He took ~ his benefit on the 25th of May. 1 paid bim the balance of his benefit the day .fiet , ...11. WAS about 3.51. Cross•ezarnined by Mr. PoLt.occ —The amount of a belleti's receipts depends much on the popularity of the performer. T heard Mr. Sinclair lament that he had not , been oftener employed. I never heard him A. Olivier--I am deputy tre,suter. I have heard Mr. Sinclair say on one occasion, that he was very foolish in nit having come soon enough to fulfil his engagements, as he had mule less that year than any he bad been in the profession. Mr. I;aOUGHAN, in reply, denied that he had in his opening founded his ctse on Mr. Sinclair's popularity as is performer. He had merely put the question be teen the Intl ties, as one between man and man. He Jid not waive, on the part of hilelient, the first con tract—the refusal of the defendants to let him go to Mr. Arno d proved their wish to se.effr® their contract. Yet when Mr, Sinclair wiabed to claim compensation from.theny.isecording to that contract, then they held themselves flee Wm it, though they at the same time held him boiand to his part of it. Now this was con ,chict which the Jury would that day condemn by giv• lag their verdict for the plaintiff: ..4 seed Tartrentaza instructed the Jury that there Could be 110 doubt the first engagement bad been en- Aeredinto, and as little that the plaintiff had failed to pesforrn it. The only ground, then, on which the Jury could d tide for the plaintiff on the first engagement, , was on proof that the deferdants consented to waive Isis.nouperfornsance of it. As to the engagement bind- Ang the dit'endants to employ the plaintiff a reasonable Number of nights, though these was no direct proof of such engagement in law, yet, if the circumstances stated should.satisfy them of its existence, they might take it f . ta fact, and find for the defendants. Tb. Jur y consifered aft w minutes, and then returned it verdict fcu the defendants. :11;* •erdict in the for met trial was for the plaintiff: 1. THE WINO V. COMM. • ' The defendant was put on his triat el an indictment charging him with perjurT. Mr. GURNEY, with whom were the COMMON SIR- GIANT and Mr. BRODERIP, conducted the case on the part of the. prosecution. The ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. ADOLPHUS de fended the prisoner. Tile facts, though spread over much time, and com ities:me emery witnesses, were reducible substantially ,Inureires following brief statement : A miner and gilder. named Smith, brought an ae-' lion last year to recover from a Mr. Peach the amount of a claim for regilding certain frames of pictures be longing to Mr. Peach. Mr. Peach resisted the claim, ots, the grouud that he had never given any order or autho• rity to the plaintiff to legit,' the frames in question. WI Smith brought the tale to trial. On the trial, a person named Coppard, apple:nice to Mr. Smith, deposed that having gone to Mrs. Peach's house for some tea ttays,with Nelson, a workman, he heard Mrs. Peach, in a conver sation which she had with him and Nelson in her draw ing-roons, giving directionalor the regilding of the p;e. cure frames. Nelson stated the same thing-on the trial. On this evidence the Jury on that action gave Smith a yet dict of abour 7001. being nearly the amount of his demand. Mr. Peach has iince that lodged indictments against tbosiOtwo witnesses, Coppers! and Nelson.. charging that their assertion, that they held a converse lion with Mrr.-i'each on the suhjrct in the drawing room, was a wilful and corrupt falsehood. The indict ment against Coppard was tried this day. Mrs. Peach, Mr. Peach, Mrs. Chester, their hoosekeeper ; Eli zabeth Mackenzie, a housemaid ; and Barker, a butler, ,all swore point blank that the men, Coppard and l'ilelson, never were in the drawing room of Mrs. Peach ,off the day in question, and that these men had no l imes; view or conversation whatever with Mrs. Peach t on the soil ject. On the defendant's side, Nelson (boli is •also indicted on the same charge) depo , ed, ' that Mrs. Peach held the conversation in question o¢ him him and: Coppard in her drawing room; and ahoy named 'Forret stated, that he saw Mrs. Peach go op stairs to the drauing room, in company with COpi aid and Nelson. Several decent persons spoke bighly of .the defendant Coopaed's integrity and habi ;mll onset ranee of truth. t• i; Tim. ATTORNEY GENERALGENERALtook several legal objec- ,Simi to the vial of the case, which were overruled by 'by the Chief - Justice, bars: Ouarrav on one side, and the ATTORNEY Ge NEJkAL n the opposite, advocated the cases of their 1 • .. . respective cue at . s w i th their usual sonny. ror4;ll M/ panaii having repeated the evidence, the 'Jar deOared,the defendant-Not Guilty. • COURT 011 ,- TOISMON PLTtiAS, Gousuati, Dm. is. Singer) atter idiettaarnas Term before Jr. Junkie Cassias and , connweill Juries THOMAS. RING Vs HOOTING AND ANOTHER. • ' This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff arum the defeadinti,WhO are Sheriff,' officers. for a Use attest and imp , isonment. It appeared that the plaintiff tnson-Shrorr et named William "King, against whom process had been issued. the executon of which wan intiostecHabthe defendants, and they accordingly proceeded to his house, in the Mile End road, and de livered a letter directed toWilliam King, informing him that the beater had some intelligence of importance to impart to him. This letter came into the hands of the plajatiff, Thoasas King, and he opened and having read thecontents, came out of the homer and was imme riiately. arrested by the defendants, on the supposition ,that-besvas.the right person. The plaintiff, however, inforrnedthem that his mime was Thomas, and that the person detcribed in the- writ was his brother. To this ase ,defendants paid no attention, saying he was" the person win) appeared to answer the letter, and coming oist of the house convinced them that he was the puson they wanted. Ti•e plaintiff then appealed to 41 ,1, acquaintance who was standing by, to say if his , ,p.ame was not Thomas ? and he replied that it was.— All remonsttance, however, was vain, for the defend ants thought the plaintiff was only practising , a trick , upon them, and they accordingly insisted on' taking him to t a,kick-up house in Carey-street, which they did with. eppsiquention to his feelings—not follOstingclose at hiirbeefkor thrusting him into a hackney• Coach, as Was,fzegisently 4one: on the contrary, they followed' him at'a considerable distance, and allowed bins to atop and speak to a friend without intttr¢ing themselves l upon hits. Having got him• to Computed, one if them went* air Attorney who had ;scarab, prrvciss, .tod, rimming in Metalling. less than.hall an hour, charged the plain 4 • Fl'ir the difendants,if wiii iota- • :ended that the eace was entirely void of any aggra vated cumstance4. The defendants hAd good reason rn •u,:ntise that the pl4iniiff ss as the Mao they 'wanted when they found th 4: h.• had opened the le. ter addressed o Under a'l the circunisrances„it was insisted th .1 it war, a case call.ng for n ,, minal damages only, or , f any, at any rate for a very sm4ll amount. Mr. Justice GAUL', said, that if u e Jury tbotpAkt. the de;eridants had not exercised that due cau4oir, or' made those inquiries that they were Mood u. du, pm vious to the arrest of any individual, they woofs' an. doubt. dly have to answer for the consequences In the present case, althouer they had acted ertorreously,slmy, did not Pinter to have acted uncivilly, or to have 4 'liked the flaint:ll in custody when they were mewed that be war not the per on they wanted. It thket.efole ippeared to him that the case was-one calling for saran damages only, though certainly for more than mere nominal damages. Tt e July Immedi ;rely returned a verdict for the plaintiff—DiMages 101. >sl HEDGER V. HORTON. -.. i r7l! Mr. CR,WDER opened the pleadings. This was an action en a bill of exchange fur MI. drawn by a per- • son of the name of Hansell, accepted by the defendant, and endorsed over to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Mr. Sergeant ADAMS said that his Learned Friend had, in tact, stated the care; he had only is add, that he believed the defendant intended to.disptite die coo- AderatiOn of the, bill. If that were the case, he should be in a condition to prove that value had been given by 'a Check drawn on the plaintiff's banker. At preseit, he should only prove the handsel i:ing of the parties. , • Witnesses were then called, who proved the hands writing of-the plaintiff ;ad the defendant, and also that of the drawer of the bill, ' Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the defendant, said that the :circumstances under which this bill had been obtained were such as he thought would exempt the defendant from liability upon it. His client was a tailor, and had supplied a young Gentleman holding a commission in the army with clothes to a considerable amount. When in 'town, this young Offic r henerally resided at Long's Hotel, in Bond -street, and having, as most Gentlemen of his profession usually had when they were not ac wally engaged in service, much spare time on his bands, he had not unfrequen.ly found it difficult to know bow to pass aw ay the da i . From this perplexity he was rescued by a person named Mosesilansell,who,in order to relievehien from the ennui which appeared to oppress him, occaeiop ally tossed up for various sums of money, and also, With mach kindness and consideration, supplied him with . handsome and expensive dressing-case, and a tiariety4 lady's trinkets, 'without having received any order; and, _unfortunately, the youth was unwise enough to retain them. For these trinkets and losses at tossing up, , the worthy Mr. Hansell claimed a sum of very nearly 1001. Ti:. circumstances under which the.. bill: ma question was drawn were these:—As Hansel' was One morning on his way to call on his young friend, he met the defendant, who was also going to seek pay ment of the demand he had on the young man. H , nsell was soon shark enough to extract from him what was the nature of his business, and then said that he also was a creditor; and a'ter si-me further conversation he proposed that the defendant shi uld get a bill from the young gentleman for the amount of their joint claim, which he was to retain, giving Harwell his acceptance fee the amount of his claim. Having bras assured that the young man was perfectly responsible, the defendant . at length conses,ted, and a bill was drawn teethe iraint debt, which Hansell got accepted, and 'gave to the defendant, who then gave him his acceptance for the' amount of his claim. In the eourae of a few days, however, ihe defendant learned what was "the Use nature of the transaction, and he repaired, without loss of time, to the voting Gentle Man, and re.tiruel to bias the joint bill; tied :tins that he would hate nothinicto do with the matter.. From thence le proceeded to . Hansen, and offered to repay him•the s9l.esstli, vhiih he advanced in consequence of their agreement, at the same time requiring that the bill he had given should be returned to him. This, however, Hansell refused to do ; but happening so produce it, ;bp defendant made a vain effort to regain it by until. ing at it. A SCLEII! ensu-d, and the bill got torts in half, the defendant being unable to get i. Its consequence of this transaction, the parties me. at Bow -street, wherienough transpired to make Han sell think it prudent to get rid of the bill, and he handed it over to the plaintiff, who now sued upon it. 'The de:. Pendant was placed in great difficulty to d.y to prove this transaction, for the young (Mite r was abroad. and the only witness he could Call was Hansell himself, which the jury most alloie was a !cry forlorn hope': He should, howevcr, place him its the b a and frormehat . might be eztricted froin him be thought I.e shot:dribs able t ) prove that theplaintiffin, this case.havieggiyen no cmsideration for the bell , could. not inairthres . ap • ... action upon it. Moses Hansell— I live in the,-Ftdhatmrrad, -end am the drawer of this bill. The defendant an i I ::ad never any dealings in business before. Ikinw a Li moment Best, and I firs met him some five or sic month s ago at Hounslow. I had not met him at Long's Haul Shortly before the bill was drawn.' I first met the def. ndant is the street near Lieutenant Best's lodgings, ag •it st whOm I had a claim of 97/. tha. was neither for a toss up,tfor)i toss down. My claim was not tot money 1 nt • t MA' .. up,' but for money lent. • and goods sold; 5t4 is . for money lent, being the amount of two checks of 251. each, returned unpaid. I had lent him 1001.. -:- upon receiving tour checks of 251. erch,• . tillable 0, e month after each other : two tit these were tun: paid. He was pretty well my blend. I lent lim a part of the m ney while be was at. Brighton. tl lent him 5 01. while he was there, aid sent it him either 'in' • notes or sovereigns. I will swear that I lent him that sum ; I stint it by post. There is no doubt but that it must have been in notes ; sovereigns could not have gque by the post. lam not prepared . With the account, and therefore cannot say how or in what he hadit, except' that it went by letter. I cannot say positively whether it was in noes or sovereigns. I had no notice to pia. duce my accounts wi h Lieutenant Best. (The notice' served on' the witnets was then read, but ft did not require the production of the accounts betweeis him and the Lieutenant). The whole of the Mew, was advanced to the defendant while 'he VW. at Brighton, part by letter, and part I deliverecrpes lostally to him - in the barrack-. No' on e w as low7e . OM at the time. Lieutenant 'Best was I- resent slim, that bill was given ; it was in tbe parlour Of hie hee'S house in VI 1 _.l.4pr..alleet. this is the bill: . ' ' hen I received it I gave up tse o checks fo, 251.-eaeli f .1 [ ot received the other two checks for I , ant advarwed et Brighton. At the time I drew that bill Lien's:. n Beg ' nWed me 601. for caskadvanced,• and 1 had 6 he t ; ... minds on him for goods sold, a gold and two sets of Lady's . ornamer ts. I for his approval, and be retained them. a t Le repeating sent tbsso op hog 00. Poofilie•oip , . •