Star. — London, England, 1822-10-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE COURT OP KING'S BENCH, OCTOBER SO. • warm , ' V. PODSON AND wire. This was an action by the endorsee of a bill of ex change for £69, accepted by the female defendant previous to her marriage with her present husband. After the prima facie case of the plaintiff was esta blished by the usual proof% Mr. Falkner, the drawer of the bill, was called on the part of the defendant. — He admitted that the bill was given to him by Mrs. Fogson, then Miss Standish, while she ma's in the pri son of the Marshalsea, previous to her taking the be nefit of the Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, under which she was subsequently discharged. It was given in substitution for another bill, which was, overdue, :Ind which she had accepted for goods sup plied to her by the witness in the course of his trade. He directed the bill not to her as in prison, but to her former residence. The first time he went to her, he was accompanied by his attorney, but he went twice before the bill was accepted. He never threatened to oppose her discharge, if she did not accept the bill. On cross-examination, the witness explained that he went to Miss Standish in consequence of .a letter from her. She said he should not be a loser by her under the circumstances from which the debt arose ; but she wished to ask her mother before she gave the bill. He endorsed the bill to the plaintiff, Mr. Simp son, in pal t of payment of a debt of £l5O, and never told him that the direction of • the bill was a false hood, and that the acceptor was in prison. Here the LORD CHIEF Jostles intimated that hi had a great difficulty in receiving this defence, as the present plaintiff appeared to be an innocent holder for value. Had the billfemained in Falkner's hands, be would have felt no doubt that there would be a good answer to an action. Mr. SCARLETT submitted, that a bill of exchange given to a creditor by a party in prison, and con templating a discharge, was ipso facto void even in innocent hands. If this were not so—if a party, to avoid the persecution of a particular creditor, could bind himself by an instrument of this kind, the bene ficial intent of the Statute would be defeated ; be cause the insolvent would thus charge his future effects with a burden which would deprive others of their remedy. Such a bill was like a bill infected with usury or gaming, and void in its creation. Mr. MARRYAT was about to reply, when The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said, that be should not decide the point now, as a negotiable security was in question, but should direct the Jury to find for the, plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court. It was then agreed, as the validity of the discharge might come in question, to submit itidence on two points to the Jury— fi rst, whether a - previous dis charge by the detaining creditor named Clagg was tot intended to deprive Miss Standish of the means_ of obtaining her final discharge ; and whether being so released from prison, she was not collusively ar rested by a person named Lynch, so as to place her again in custody, that she might take the benefit of the Statute? • The Jary found the affirmative of both these ques tions, and a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £63, subject to the opinion of the Court on a special case. 'WILSON v. TUCKER, ADMINISTRATIux OF TUCKER. This was an action against the adrninistratrix of an attorney, to recover damages for the injury sustained by the negligence of the intestate in not duly ex amining a will previous to prepaling an assignment of a legacy to the plaintiff, as a security for an ad vante of £2lO which he proposed to make. The facts of the case, respecting which there was no dispute, were these :—The plaintiff (Mr. Wilson) had lent to a Mr. Robert Feshfield the sum of £lO5, and was applied to for a further advance of £2lO, which Mr. Freshfield proposed to secure by assign ing his share of a legacy ' f 0,000 under the will of a relation. Mr. Tucker, who was a solicitor of great respectability in 13artlett's-buildings, was employed to prepare the assignment, which he did, and the money was advanced to Freshfield. It proved, how ever, that following the bequest in the will was a clause providing that if any legatee should assign his legacy so as to give trouble to the trustees, the le gacy should be void and sink into the residue ; and, after a 'suit in equity, and considerable argument, a decree pronounced the legacy void, by reason of the assignment; and consequently the security became of no avail. _ To prove that Mr. Tucker was not merely directed to . prepare the assignment in form, but.was instructed to examine the security, Mrs. Rebecca Watley, the housekeeper to the plaintiff's brother, was called. She stated that she accompanied the plaintiff on the 12th of May, 1819, to Mr. Tucker's office, and in troduced them to each other. Mr. Wilson requested Blr. Tucker to go to Doctors' Commons and ex amine the will of Mr. Freshfield, and warned him not to mind anything Mr. Robert Freshfield would say, for be was a great rogue. Afterwards Mr. Tucker called, and said " something unpleasant had hap pened ; he was afraid Mr. Wilson would lose his ' 37 ; nney." She asked how.? He replied, " either from his t.'wn stupidity, or Webb his clerk's." She said she h ope d ;tot. He rejoined, " If he does. not, I shall." On the part of the defendant, it was alleged that this staten:ent was entirely untrue, and that Mr. Tucker's vigilance was completely lulled asleep by the statements o ethane laintiff, and that he was merely employed to p \ p the assignment in form, with all possible dispktch. To prove this statement, Mr. Webb, whe\had been many years clerk to the deceased, 'and final 4 -, became his partner, was sworn. He stated, that he was present at the whole of the in terview : that Dlrs. Watley was not present at the. whole of it; and that no such expressions as she had related ever were used. Mr. Wilson produced the official extract of the will, and requested the assign ment to be prepared as soon as possible, as the par ties were waiting in London. He said he understood that Freshfield had raised L'3oo or £4OO on the le gacy; but there was still enough to secure him, as he had inquired of the trustees, who lived at Norwich. The witness admitted that a letter produced was in his hand-writing, though signed with the name and written under the directions of Mr. Tucker. It was dated after some doubt had been expressed as to the validity of the legacy, and professed the belief of Mr. Tucker that the objection would not prevail. prepared by Mr. The draught of the assignment, I 4 Moore, the conveyancer, was dated the 19th of May+ and the decd itself was executed on the gist. The LORD CHM JUSTICE observed that, generally speaking, it Attorney wa_naseythwehidcuhthyeofhaadnlost. employed to prepare an assignment to exercise due diligence is arertaining the validity of the security intended, un less tea t vigilance was lulled asleep by representations of his client which might fairly convince him that its, exercise was needless. If the Jury in this case believed 1 Mrs.Watley, they must of course find for the plaintiff,, because she proved an express instruction to examine the will, and a subsequent recognition of the liability of the int estate. If they doubted the truth of her story j they would then consider whether there was any representation made which could fairly have the effect of exonerating Mr. Tucker from the discharge of his ordinary duty. That Gentleman was, he be lieved, a very respectable Attorney ; but if by his neglect, or that of any one whom he employed, the plaintiff had been damnified, he was entitled to re cover The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da mages, Two Hundred and Ten Pounds. ALEXANDER V. M'OOWAN. This was an action of dettnue, to recover a quan tity of Hebrew printing types, plates, and manuscripts. The plaintiff, a Hebrew printer, had had a fire some time since is his house, from which were saved the property in question; and being desirous of re moving it to a place where he could carry on a work then in progress, namely, a Hebrew and English stereotype edition of the Old Testament, he entered into an agreement for that purpose with the defend ant, a printer in Windmill-street, to whose house the materials were removed, and he proceeded with the work. After it had gone on some time, the plaintiff sent a demand in writing requiring the defendant to deliver up the property, there being then some mom,' due to the latter for the work he done. It was alleged that the defendant had refused to deliver the work until his account was paid; and hence the pre sent action, in which, besides the materials them selves, the plaintiff sought a compensation in damages for the injury he had sustained in consequence of his being unable to c ompletethework h e had contemplated. In defence, it was urged, first, that the defendant's demand did not include the plates mentioned in the declaration; second, that the plaintiff had abandoned the idea of publishing a Hebrew and English stereo typed edition of the Old Testament, long before the demand in question; and third, that in point of face the defendant had not refused to deliver the Hebrew types (which was now the main point of contest); but had offe re d to give them up if the plaintiff would send and separate them from some types of his own, with which they had been intermixed in the progress of working, the defendant himself not being able to distinguish the plaintiff's from his own, but the plain tiff had refused to do this.—Witnesses were called to sustain the latter grounds of defence. The case went to the Jury, under the directions of the Learned Judge, and they found their verdict for the defendant. MEILEN V. SMITH. This was an action by one Mark-lane corn dealer against another, :o recover 981. 12s. 3d. being, the amount of a parcel of corn alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. There was contradictory evidence on the one side and on the other. The witnesses for the plaintiff proved that.the cern was sold to the defendant, and that the sale as well as the davery notes were made out in his name, whilst those for the defendant swore that he was only guarantee for a person named Ward, who had keen - a bankrupt, and that the corn was, in fact, sold.ticthe latter,'Oough his name was not used in the transaction. The case went to the Jury upon the issue to whom the corn was sold, and they found their verdict for the plaintiff for the whole sum sought to be recovered. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OCTOBER zo. ROBINSON, ASSIGNEE OF HAWLEY, A BANKRUPT V. GRAY. Mr. Serjeant PELL stated the case to the Jury.— This was an action to recover the sum of 400/. ;s:,ich the defendant had received from the bankrupt to the prejudice of his estate, there being no account of the money in his books. The defence relied on was, that the whole was a bona fide transaction, that the money had been lent to the bankrupt about fifteen months before his bankruptcy, and that at the time of the loan the bankrupt engaged to repay it at the end of the year. The repayment had been made without any memorandum of the year having been entered in the bankrupt's books, and this naturally exciting the suspicion of the creditors, they had caused the defendant to be examined before the Commissioners, when she so grossly prevaricated that they made out a warrant for her commitment to Newgate. Finally,' however, she gave such an account that the creditors felt very little doubt that the money had been frau dulently received by the defendant under the name of repayment of a loan, in order to secure it for the defendant after he had obtained his certificate. The only papers in which this loan was mentioned, was in the schedule given in by Hawley when about to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act ; and in a little memorandum-book which be had not given up to his creditors under the Comthission, but which had been produced to support this case for the defendant when it was previously tried in this Court. The examination of the defendant under Hawley's commission was read, in which she made a variety of statements in order to account for the possession of such a sum of money without it being mentioned in her father's will. _ Mr. Mouchett, a broker, proved that he had sold out property for Mrs. Gray, but never for her daugh ter, and that he was not aware Gray, her father, pos sessed any more stock than that mentioned in the will, and which the witness had been employed to sell out for Mrs. Gray. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, for the defendant, said he had never felt more anxiety than he did on this ex traordinary case. He begged the Jury to remember that first principle of English law, that when a party came into Court to claim a sum of money,, he should produce such satisfactory evidence that be should hardly leave a loop hole on which to hang a doubt. It bad been said that the young woman, the defend• ant, had given such an account before the Commis sioners, that not the slightest credit could be given to it. If this were true, then he mast say, the plaintiff had no case, and *as completely out of Court ; for if everything she said was false, there was no proof whatever that the money had passed between her and .• . • Hawley. The question to be tried, was not by what sews she acquired this money bet whether she really had possessed it, and had lent it to the bank-. irupt ? It had been attempted to be shewn, that the defendant's father had not the money. It was clear, however, that if this transaction hadbeen a fraud, the defendant would not have readily consented to place the money in the hands of a third person, in order to abide the event of a suit. The Learned Serjeant con cluded/by observing, that the defendant would,entitle herself to a verdict by producing persons whose tes timony could not be impeached, and who- would prove that Mr. Gray had possessed considerable pro perty, and that he always expressed his intention of leaving his property to his daughter. Jane Hawley, the wife of the bankrupt, proved that she had known the defendants father many years, and the defendant since she was a child. In 1819 witness's husband was pressed for money, in conse- , quence of having been obliged to pay A large sum of money to a bankrupt's estate. Witness asked the de fendant to lend her 4001. and defendant said she would consider of it. In a few days she called at witness's house, and said she would lend Hawley the money if nothing was said about it. She lent the money, and in June, 1820, the money was repaid, together with 51. as an acknowledgment for the defendant's kind cness. Witness counted the money when it was lent, and is sure the sum was 4001. No memorandum passed between the parties when the money waslent; witness repaid it in her husband's presence. Cross-examined—Her husband was an uncertificated bankrupt. Witness had never represented herself to plaintiff's attorney as Mrs. Gray. Witness asked for a receipt upon repaying the money, and the defend ant gave it. Re-examined—She never represented herself as Mrs. Gray, but had a receipt in her pocket given by the plaintiff's attorney for some business he had trans acted for her husband. Witness produced the receipt, which was in the name of Mrs. Hawley. George Hawley, the bankrupt, was then examined, and supported by his evidence the testimony of his wife. On his cross-examination he said, he had not given up the private memorandum-book in which this payment was entered, because his Attorney told him it was needless : he did not keep an account at a banker's. John Hams, brother to the defendant's father, said, Gray told him, about seven weeks before his death, that he should leave his wife and daughter nearly four hundred pounds. Other evidence was given as to Gray's property. Witnesses were also called to prove that Gray had said he would give his daughter a few hundreds un known to her relatives. 'The case for the defendant having closed, Templar, the plaintiff's Attorney, was called to contradict Mrs. Hawley, as to her having repre sented herself as Mrs. Gray. The witness stated that the receipt had been altered, for he had originally written Gray, believing Mrs. Hawley4o be Mrs. Gray, Mrs. Hawley having represented herself as that lady. Mr. SerjeautVAuGHAN replied to this evidence, and Mr. Serjeant PELL to the whole of the case. After which, Lord Chief Justice DALLAS summed up the evidence. The Jury retired about half an hour, and then re turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £4OO. The case occupied the Court from ten in the morn ing until half-past five. 01.1) BAILEY, OCTOBER 30. Thomas Fearby, John Curry, William Leicester, Wil liam Whitton, and Samuel Raven, all gent e elly-dressed men, were capitally indicted for stealing in the dwel ling-house of James Curtis, the White Bear at Houn slow, 16 sovereigns, four 5/. notes, and other property. Mr. Curtis deposed, that on the 18th of September Fearby and Whitton came to his house about half past eight in the evening : while there they conversed with him about Egham Races. The other prisoners at the bar came in afterwards. There was also a sixth person, whom they called White. Their gig horses were all in harness outside the door. The party were in a parlour together. The family were in the bar. There is a passage leading from the par lour to the bar. One of the party desired the door to be left ajar. The staircase comes into the passage leading to the parlour, and that passage leads also to the garden. One of the party went into the garden. ahe party stopped an hour, and went away together. Fearby and Whitton were the last in the house. In ten minutes after, it was discovered that the bed room door and the bureau had been forced open, and the papers it contained strewed about the bed, in which one of the witness's children was asleep. Four or five boxes were broken open, and some silver spoons, two snuff-boxes, three watches, seven rings, nine brooches, a pair of ear-rings, one gold pin, 16 sovereigns, four li. notes, half a guinea, and other. articles, in all to the amount of 1001. were taken away. Witness sent his wife for an officer, who ac companied himself and his hostler„and two other men, in pursuit of :he robbers. When they reached Kensington, they found three of the prisoners at the Marquis of Granby public-house, and the other two at the Palace-gate. Leicester, Fearby, Whitton, and White, were in the public-house, and the other two were taken in a gig. There was no other person on the same side of the house. Witness has regained three of the a notes through the Bank of England. I Cross-examined—There were several persons in the tap-room who could get in the parlour by the passage at. the foot of the stalls. There is no other staircase leading to the bed-room than that coming into the passage leading into the parlour; the door leading to the street is opposite to the staircase, distant R. few yards. Any person might see it from the street. •• . Mary Curtis, wife of the preceding witness, con firmed the above testimony, and added that, about' five minutes before they came in she had been to lies bedroom to see her child. She went to the box con- taining her ptoperty, found it all safe, locked the box and put the key in her pocket. James Hampton, ostler to the prosecutor, confirmed the greater part of the above testimony. Mary Simpson Is a servant to Mr. Curtis. Remem bers the party coming into the house on the night in question. After the robbery she went to the wag goners' room, some of whom bad lodged there 15 . _ and foimd them safe in bed and asleep. A Mr. Cock, the high constable of Hounslow, Staines, a horse-patrol, and other witnesses, deposed to having pnrsue4 and overtaken the prisoners and a man named White, at Kensington. Fearby and Whitton were at one public-home together. Curry and Raven were ' • .„ . . g ypped at the Pilact-glite . byllse . 'hervie-petroL lA. . .center anct White were takia on the 'road together, They were put into a public•houte, and all under went a strict search, but nothing belonging to the prosecutor was found. When they had been in cus. tody about an hour White contrived to slip out of the house, and hal not been heard of since. A watch was found near where Curry and Raven were stopped. This closed the case for the prosecution. Fearby read his defence from a paper, in which fle reasoned with much ingenuity upon the evidence.. Was it likely, he observed, that if he and his friend Whitton had been concerned in a robbeil, t h e! would have kept on in the high road to Lohdon , ana stopped too at a public•house at Kensigton to refresh themselves ? There were plenty of bye-roads by whiclt .they could have turned off, and thus have eluded pursuit most effectually. He protested "be knew nothing of the robbery, and said he would rest satis: fied that the Learned Judge and the Jury would not suffer any prejudice to operate upon their minds. The RICOWDER summed up the evidence with much minuteness, and the Jury retired for about a quarter of an hour, and returned with a verdict, find ing all the prisoners Guilty—Death. Nearby, when he heard himself pronounced guilty, lifted up his hands and eyes in seeming astonishment, and soon afterwards exclaimed, , 4 My Lord, I never engaged in such a transaction as this in my life. I am innocent, so help me Goo, I am r The RECORDIM addressing the prisoners, observed that three other persons were now under sentence of death for the same species of offence. It was a kind of crime which has of late become so prevalent that severity was necessary to check it. Publicans were compelled by law to keep their houses open to all persons who chose to enter them for refreshment, and their property must necessarily be very much exposed ; and they must be protected ; and, as it was impossible to say what might be the decision of his Majesty upon these cases, they had better prepare for the worst that could happen ! George Brindle, a youth, was capitally indicted for e.iiiimitting:a burglary in the dwelling-house cf John Shaw, of No. 12, kVbite Conduit-street, Islington, on the night of the 19th of October last, and steali n g therein two straw bonnets, value 40s. - Ann Shaw, the wife of the prosecutor, said, that the property mentioned in the indictment was left in the parlour on the night of the 19th of October ; the window was forced open, and the property stolen. A constable of St. Luke's stated, that he appte headed the prisoner near to the prosecutor's hoist: on the night of the robbery, with two straw bonnets in his possession. Mrs. Shaw identified the bonnets produced by the Officer as the property stolen. The prisoner made no defence, and called no wit nesses. He was found Guilty—Death. The following were convicted of felonies, viz. David Carrol, aged 39, for stealing 281bs. of sugar, &c. John Leach, 16, for stealing a silver spoon ; Mary Stevens, SG, for stealing jewellery ; Thomas Barrett, 30, for stealing a gown, &c. James Gosnell, 24, for stealing two sheets, &c. George Oriel, 19, for stealing a sack and four loaves ; Valiam Moore, 33, for stealing buttons; Elizabeth Alitchell, 22, for stealing a shift; Elizabeth Petty, 45, for stealing a shirt; William Johnson, 34, and John Richardson, 36, for stealing lead ; Will.am Harris, 44, for stealing a jacket, &c. James Smith, 39, for stealing a coat; and Jane Taylor, 34, for stealing a pelisse. The following were acquitted, viz. John Shepherd, aged 32; Joseph Hill, 39; Henry Casc, 22; Sarah Wilks, 17 ; Christopher Harlow, 20; Catherine MJor head, 24; Charles Woodford,' 20 ; and Joseph Smith, 23. WILT H. Saturday, at Court Herbert, Glamorganshire, the Lady of the Rev. Thomas Gronow of a sou. EAST INDIA BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND pEAT HS (FROM TUZ /*)IUT GAZETTE or MAT.) MADRAS—BIRTHS. April 20, at Mavullpatam, the Lady of Captain J. Ogilvie, of the Ist Battalion 17th Regiment, of a son. May 25, at Madras, the Lady of Captain Osborn, 2d Nativ.: Regiment, of a son. MARRIAGES. May 16, atVlzagapatam, Mr. Wm. Arthur Leslie, second sci of the Master Attendant at Calingapatam, to Miss Lucy Cowan, sister-in-law of Lieutenant Cecil. April 15, at Pulicat, Serjeant-Major R.Ward, to Miss Mar garet Nichol. DEATHS. April 22, aged 37, at a few minutes before four o'clock, at his Garden-house, James Staveley, Esq. barrister-at law of the Supreme Court of Madras, Member of Gray's Inn, and for merly of the Northern Circuit. April 22, at F.gmore, Catherine, daughter of Mr. D. Sinclair. April 1, at Wallajahbad, of an epidemic cholera, B. Wilinati, Esq. Assistant Surgeon Wallajahbad Light Infantry. BeNGAL--BIRTHS. April 10, Mrs. S. M. Goodall, of a daughter. April IS, Mrs. J.W. Roberts, of a daughter. April 17, Mrs. A. G. Balfour, of a daughter. April 11, at Collingah, Mrs. A. S. Adele, of a son. Jan. 2, at Patna, at the house of her father, Mrs. John Bell, of a son. April 1, at Haim, the Lady of Lieutenant Ramsey, Bth N. L of a son. March 24, at Asseerghur, the Lady of Captain C. J. C. Da vidson, Garrison Engineer, of a son. MA RR I AGES. April 10, Mr. Charlet Blackburn, to Miss Catherine Bask ? April 13, Mr. Samuel Austin, to Miss Mary Ann De Souza. April 16, Mr. Robert Fleming, to Miss Ann Eliza Huet, daughter of Mr. Sam. Henry Huet, of the Persian Department. DEATHS. April 11, Captain Thomas Jennings. April 16, John Mitchell Samson. Esq. April 8, at Burrisol, in the Bachergunge District, Mr. John Gill, many years Writer in the Judge and Magistra te ' s Office of that Station. April 7, at Patna, Mrs. Mary Barnett, relict of the late M r. Samuel Barnett, of Bakurgurge, in-the Psovince os Dacca. COAL.MARKET, OCTOBER 50. Hebburn Main 461 . to 43s 3d—Killingworth 45s end Bell and Co.'s 43s 3d—Wallsend Bewicke 46s 3d—Wallse^ l Brown's 45s 6d—Wallsend Northumberland 46$ 3d--Wallsend Russell 475—WMIngton 451—Usworth Trader 42, 6d—White• lee Main 411 6d—Eden Main 44s.—Hedworth Main 429 ,Lambton Primrose 44,—Nesham Main 44s—Wallsend dell's 41s 9d—Wallsend Springwell 43s 6d—Wallsend Stewart 475 6d.-23 Ships at market; DE. BOERHAAVE'S RED PILL—N% 2 . A.MEDICINE famous throughout Europe f or the eure of every stage and symptom of a Certain Complaint. It is owing to the ignorance of onskilful men that the most dread ful consequences frequentlyressit from the treatment of Vene real Diseases. By the present mild Medicine, the person is effec tually discharged ftom the,systeN, and a cure'effected with safety and expedition. Price only U. lid. per with which is given a copious Bill of Directions, by whiels allitervons are able to cure themselves witheut exposure. or hindrance of, business. Sold by Mr. Jobaseq,.6g, Coinhill and r. Sanger, ISO, Or ford-street, opposite New BoodAreet ; ll MedicineVessiers. • KWH. W ATILItat Lt)N DOM BRIDGE TO-1 MR i; i4 • Morn•ng - - • 13 mingles after S AllerreoM 53 minutes after 3 1 4 0,4 PUN ?dated and pubffshed Al Len Kat; Picket'• I h I r I I : ~_