Star. — London, England, 1822-10-25 00:00:00

LAN' INTELLIGENCE. / COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCTOBER 24. - - WINTOSH AND ANOTHRR V. HILTON AND CO. This was an action by Messrs.•Milotosh and Stir ling, of the Campsie Alum Manufactory, near Glas gow, to recover the amount of a demand for goods sold and delivered to a person named Beattie, as agent of the defendants, Messrs. Hilton and Co. of the Isle of Dogs, in the year 1821. The sum de manded was about 4001. for alum supplied to the defendants.—The single question in this cause was, whether Beattie had acted as accredited agent of the defendants, in ordeiing the goods supplied on their account? It was not disputed, on the part of the de fendants,'that the goods had been supplied, but the defence was that they had paid Beattie for the amount, and that they had no immediate dealings with the plaintiffs. On the other hand, it was suggested that Beattie was not forthcoming, and that the plaintiffs had never received the ;slice of the goods. Several instances were adduced in evidence, in which Beattie had acted as the special agent of the defendants dosin to tfie month of June, 1821. The goods for which the defendants were now charged were supplied be tween that period and the 29th of November in the same year. The LORD Cuter JUSTICE was of opinion, that as there was no proof of the•defendants having ever' countermanded 13eattie's authority, or repudiated his agency during the period in question, they were liable in point of law. In consequence of this ruling, the defendants sub mitted to a verdict, and the amount of the damages was referred to Mr. TA I.FOURD. RAMSDEN AND OTHERS V. ASHTON AND OTHERS. This was an action of debt by farmers of Pest Horse Duties, to recover the amount of certain duties due t( them from the defendants, for the letting of horses in the year 1821. Tile defendants were licensed to let horses, and re tided in Gray's Inn-lane. The object of this action was to try two important questions respecting the of persons letting horses for funeral solem nities, to the duties payable, in respect of horses so emyloyedr—l. 'Whether horses let for the convey ado" of hearses and mourning coaches beyond the bills of mortality, and - within ten miles of London, are liable to a duty of ls. 9d. per diem only, or to onelom th the sum paid to the persons letting, for a day's employment, where the distance is not ascer taineJ ? And 2. Whether hearses and mourning coaches, which require a hackney coach license within the bills of mortality, are liable to duty, when the number of horses employed in the conveyance of such :arri;u:es escreis a pair? The plaintiffs inshted upon the affirmative of both propositions, which de, ' , ended upon the construction of the 9th Anne c. 23, and Ist Geo. I. stat. 2. c. 5, s. 3; 24th Geo. IIL c. 27, s. 7; 32J Geo. 111. and 42.1 Geo. - 111. c. 37. Several tudgrtakers were examined as • to.the facts necessary to raise the question, und, at the suggestion of the Leamed Judge, it, was agreed that a special case should be framed for the opinion of tile King's Bench upon both questions.—A verdict for the plaintiffs for nominal damages was taken, subject to a case. TILE KING V. HOWARD AND GIBBS. 1 • Mr. SCARLETT stated, that this was an indictment preaired against the defendants by a Gentleman, named an knell, charging them with having con spired to def i raud the prosecutor of the sum •f1,200i. which he had et trusted to them to invest for him in' good securities, by a pretended advance to the Doke of Marlborough fur an annuity, aainst the wishes and desire of the prosecutor. The Luarneil Counsel stated the case fully to the Jury, and called witnesses in support of his statement. Itidiard Darknell,..the prosecutor, stated, that pre violets to the year 1818, he carried on business as a stationer, in St. Martin's-court ; be was in the habit of employing Howard and Gibbs as his agents to lay out money for him. In the beginning of 1818 they received 1,1071. 4s. Gd. for witness, for the redemp tion of an annuity which had been granted by the Marquis of Sligo to the witness. Several interviews afterwards took place between the witness and the defendants, respec.ing this sum. The witness gene rally saw Mr. Gibbs. Witness wished to have the money, but Gibbs advised him to lay it nut with the Duke of Marlborough. Witness objected to doing this, observing, no one would trust him a shilling. Gibbs said—.• I have got the Duke's will;" to which Witness replied—" What's the use of the old Duke's will?" and they separated for that time. After this, Gibbs and witness.met several times, and Gibbs re peatedly promised witness his money. Afterwards ss itness saw Howard and Gibbs together, and again pesiing for his money, Howard said, " a), my boy, we have done the Marlborough annuity for you, and it bears a premium." - Witness replied, " You are welcome to the annuity and the premium too, only let me have the S!igo money." Witness observed further, it was very odd they should servehim as they had done; they had given him neither information nor document. Gibbs said, " Have you not, my boy? then I'll send them to you t*-morrow ;" and the next day witness received a paper, the same now shewn to him. - Witness never saw the annuity deed till now. The pencil writing on the back of the deed is wit ness's writing. Witness saw Gibbs several times af terwards. The pass-book was delivered to him by one of Gibbs's clerks on the 22d of April, 1811. ' The entries in the pass-book were then read, and contained items relative to the witness's account with them. One item gave him credit for the 1,1071. received of the Marquis of Sligo, and debited him with. 1,200/. advanced to the Duke of Marlborough. Against that transaction the witness repeatedly re monstrated, after receiving the book.: On the 21st I L of August, in the same ye• ~ his pass-book was agai n sent to him, and in this • punt credit was given to him lot £lOO, the half ? e• annuity received from the Duke of Marlborough. Witness still continued to remonstrate against this transaction, and to urge for his money as the Sligo 'money, always repudi fig ar Marlborough annuity. At len4th the wit ness received a message to go to Gibbs s—he went accordingly, and was kept there about four hours.— Gibbs put down a £lOOO and some other notes, .and said, 44 Look at them, - my boy !" Witness asked whe ther he was going to pay him ? and Gibbs said, call to-morrow morning. Witness afterwards went again, ' GAlbe laid, witness should be paid if he AWd nobody else. At a ssibsectwant ineetins Gibbs eioduessl a debenture, and said to witness, " Sign , * ~~ , ot# Ibis, and you sliall have y fit rum of ShTet months.* . Witness.did not 66v/what it waa l y and wishing to place confidence in bit atmentif t he signed it, It was at a subsequent time thavGibbs told.wit ness that if he did not tell any one he shoild be paid. Witness had never received a farthing, either of prin cipal or interest. The pass-book was sent to him at a subsequent tune, in which he was made debtor for £lOO, returned to the Duke of Marlborough. Cross-examined.. Retired from business in 1818. Had keen in business upwards of forty years in an, extensive way, and settled his own affairs regularly. Commenced purchasing annuities in 1812 ; then ad- vanced £l6O, and received about eleven per cent..... He received it for about four years, but had since re ceived nothing, and was now at law about it. The CHIEF Jusrtcs.—You was very fortunate to , receive it so long. Witness resumed—Had since had other annuities. Gibbs managed his. annuity business. Might have received annuities in advance cf Howard and Gibbs; used to act on their advice, but never authorised them to lay out his money as they should consider to the best advantage. Cannot swear that he was not told the Marlborough annuity was principally secured on the Post Office annuity. The debenture produced wa's not understood by him; he had it at home with him tor a month, but did - not read it, and afterwards returned it to Howard and Gibbs ; but was obliged to take it back again, as they told him, if he did not they would send it to him. Did not recollect that he was told the reason of executing the debenture was, that the Lord Chancellor had decreed that the Post Office annuity of the Duke was not chargeable. Had not quarrelled with Howard and Gibbs; they used to wrangle a little during. the last year of their transactions. The Marlborough annuity deed. was then put in and read ; by which HoWard and Gibbs advanced £10;000 to the Duke, on condition of receiving, du ring the life of the Duke, an annuity of £l6OO. The debenture was then put in and read, by which Mr. Darknell agreed to take £l3OO, to be paid under a certain trust deed; of which trust deed, Colonel St. John was one of the trustees, and released the Duke from the payment of his annuity. William Lewis Davis was formerly a linen-draper in Oxford -street, but had retired from busines s ; was sorry to say, he had had transactions with Howard and Gibbs. Knew them to be partners. Witness had an annuity of the Duke of Marlborough's. The de fendants negotiated, and thanaged the transaction for him. The annuity was granted in ISI3, and witness received it down to 1817 ; don't know that defend. ants were at all acquainted wiilt the state of the Duke's affaits in 1817- . . George Whitehead, formerly a clerk in the service of Howard and Gibbs; they commenced partnership in 1813; they had considerable transactions with the Duke of Marlborough. Witness left them in Decem ber, 1817, and does not know w hether the Duke was in their debt at that time. Jchl Felton Cooke was a clerk to the.clefendants in 1818 ; the Duke was then in their debt about £BOOO, upon two acceptances. Knows this only front the ledger. Knows of Darknell's annuity, and the sum of £10,200 being raised lot-the Duke; but does not know whether any money was paid to him ; he had no info: oration, except what - he obtaineJ from the hooks. The SciLICITOa-GENERAL addres•ed the Jury for the defendants. . He was cnnvin.ced every one who heard- this case. would consider it as a most extraor dinary one. Messrs. Howard and Gibbs bad been the Solicitors of Mr. Darknell ; and if they had int. properly advised him, they were liable in a common action ; but a common action would not have suite.l Mr. Darknell . s . purpose ; for then the defendants would have come-into Court on equal terms, which now they could not do; for Mr. Darknell, who was a party interested, was allowed to tell his own story; but the defendants were restrained from giving that answer to the highly-coloured picture which Mr. Darkaell had drawn, ikhick he was instructed they could have done. The Learned Counsel then pro ceeded to take a review of the state in which.the ‘ Duke of Marlborough's affairs were at the time Mr. Darknell's money was advanced. At the time in question, the Duke wanted to raise £lO,OOO, and it was intended to be secured by annuities on the Duke's Not-office annuity, which the highest legal authori ties had declared to be an available security ; and the defendants, considering it an advantageons mode of investing money, had divided it amongst their clients, and had given Mr. Darknell a share of it.— So confident were they that the. security was good, that they even gave Mr. Darknell credit for the first half-year's annuity of 1001. In the meantime, the subject of the Post-office annuity came before the Lord Chancellor ; and his Lordship decided, that the Duke had no power over this pension; but Howard and Gibbs had acted most carefully ; they had gone upon legal advice of the first reputation. -Had that opinion been right, Mr. Datknell would still have had a good security for. his annuity ; and were the defendants, he would ask, under such circumstances, to be made not only civilly but criminally answer ' able, as was attempted to be done in this case?— When the mistake was discovered, Howard and Gibbs. exerted themselves to obtain other securities for the annuitants. They applied to the Duke for new se curity, who agreed. to assign over all the property over which he had any controul to General St. John, a relation of the family, in trust, to form a fund, out of which to pay those annuities, and this being done,' these debentures, as they were called, issued. What could they have done better? Ile would shew that: Mr. Darknell knew well' enough what was the na ture of the debenture ; and further, that though not at prelent available, there was no doubt it„ would oltimately be so, and that, under all the circum stances,' there was not the slightest ground for the present prosecution. Henry Havard, jun. saw the Duke of Marlborough sign the annuity deed to Howard and Gibbs, in 181.8, and saw the 10,0001. consideration money handed over to the Duke., Mr. Gibbsond witness went to the Duke at Blenheim-house to have the deed executed. Cross-eiamined.—Does not know whether Mr. Gibbs took his bill with him ; saw the money paid over to the Duke ; can't say how much of themoney Mr. Gggas took NA to town with him. Mr. Stephen Pair, - a ccal‘lancer t arm constantly consulted for years by _Howard mkt Meson the sub ject of the Duke of Marlbomilisis 'Wain. In 1817 was, ecanaltad as-to the power of theikke to charge - ,•mirarrasied, and his onnuitiet in arrear. He believed his Grace was in greater difficulties after he became Duke, as he had several large sums to pay on his ther's death. - Mr. Merriman, nephew to General St. John, pro duced the deed f trust executed to General St:John by the Duke. Thomas Stephens, clerk to the defendants inlBlB, was attesting witness to the debenture signed by Mr. ,Darknell, read it over to him at_the time it was exe cuted, and explained it to him. Cross-examined.—Does not know that the defend ants had ever raised annuities to pay off the arrears of other annuities, or that at the time of the transac tion, the subject of the present inquiry, taking place, Howard and Gibbs bad bills coming due, which they had accepted for the Duke. The opinion of Mr. Butler in favour of the Duke's right to give securities on his Post Office revenue was put in and read, as was the opinion of Mr. Preston to the same effect. Mr. SCARLETT replied, and conietbded that the de fendants, in not producing the evidence in their power, 'gave the strongest support to the 'charge, which the testimony of Mr. Darknell had brought ; _home to the defendants. What a strange complexion their case had—at war with their clerks, their clients, and their assignee4—that they venture not to examine, a single witness from their own connexions. The Ciller JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and requested the Jury, upon a case so frequently before the Public as this, to release themselves from all pre possessions. Ilad the defendants in this case even acted improvidently—had they not executed their duty towards their clients—yet if they had 'laid out the money which Mr. Darknell gave them, they were not liable to the present indictment. The Jury would take the evidence as it was submitted to them, but they would feel it their duty also, as, it was his duty to state to them, to dismiss from their Minds all that they had previously heard as to the . bankruptcy of Howa: a and Gibbs. _ The Jury did not retire, but after a few minutes consultation gave in a verdict.ofNot Guilty. . OLD BAILEY. Yesterday T. Craucher and C. Harrington were ;11- dicte,l for breaking and entering the dwelling of W.; Smith, and stealing therein eight silver spoons, the propeity of Daniel O'Brien. O'Brien is a milkman, and resides in the cellar of a house in Blue Cross -street, Leicester-square. On the morning of the 2d October, O'Brien 's daughter went nut about seven o'clock, and at that time saw the pi isoner, Crouchcr, standing at the corner of the street, having► a milk can in his hand, and a blue apron on. When she returned she met the two prisoners coming out of the house, and one of them had a great coat, which she after wares recollected was her father's. The cellar was found to have been plun dered of a great coat, some silver spoons, and other things. A milk can, not belonging to the cellar,was found on a table. The prisoners were apprehended by Avis, a Bow-street patrol, the same day. The Jury found both prisoners Guilty—Death. Holland and John Barnett were indicted for breaking and entering the house of C. Clayton, with intent to steal. Mr. Clayton lives at No. 29, Oxford-street. It is the Old George public-house. On the 20th of Sep tember, about a quarter past seven, he was standing at the bar, when two men came into the house in front of the bar. Barnett was one of them, but he had never seen any of them before. Witness sleeps on the first floor, and he has a contrivance by which a bell rings in the bar if his bedroom is opened. No one is allowed to enter it but his wife, his servant, and himself, and the key hangs up in the bar.— While Barnett and the other were drinking at the bar the bedroom bell rang. Ile ran up stairs imme diately and met Holland on the stairs. He said 4 , Who are you ?" and Holland said 4. What's that to you ?" Witness seized him, and Holland collared the wit ness. A struggle ensued, and witness called for a candle, and as his servant was bringing it Barnett and the other parsed her. One of them took him by the neck, and he and Holland fell down stairs toge ther. The third man knocked the candle out of the girl's hand as they were falling. Holland imme diately jumped up and ran out at the street-door.— Witness followed immediately and caught him, and, with assistance, secured him. He then examined his bedroom, and found the door open, but nothing taken away. He secured the side-door, and was doing the same by the front doer, when . Barnett made a blow at him with a stick, but was prevented from striking him by the persons present. Cross-examined—He had had a bookbinder lodging ' in his house, but he had died a short time before.— 'Holland told him, tome time after he was secured, that he had gone up stairs to the bookbinder, but he did not know his name. The har-Maid gave evidence .that she was in the room at six o'clock ; she put the bell on the doOr, shut andlocked it, and hung the key in its place in the bar ; she heard the bell ring while the key was still in its place. • Other IA itnesses corroborated this testimony; some of whom found a dark lanthorn, and some•skeleton keys, in and near Mr. Clayton's house. The Jury retired for a considerable time, and returned a verdict of Guiltp—Death. David Jenkins and. Thomas Proud were indicted for stealing a box, containing wearing apparel, the pro perty of Louisa Owen. The prosecutric lived in St. John's-lane. Westmin ster, and is servant to • her aunt. She saw thi pri soners in her aunt's house on the day that her pro perty was lost, and part of it was afterwards found id thcce ll ar, where the prisoners use, to cut wood. —The thieves had gone along the parapets of the. houses, and icot in at the window of the attic in which the prosecutrtz slept. There vas the mark of a lad's Toot on the parapet, arLd the will grazed where the 'boz had beep lowered down into the yard. Both prisoners denied4l knowledge of the robbery, ,and the Jury. found Anifte Gailiy of stealing, hut. not of enteriet the dtieliteOlirieset and Adz indicted fat etaiikng applied, the Byers, in his dwelling-house. ' been abont thlie weets-a servant On'the . 17th inst. his crap wilt half-past four in the morning, by the the alarm of a thief being in the he had Come up to her bedside.— Prosecutor, his wife, and a Mr. and Mrs. Odell, went down stairs, and found all the doors closed, except the kitchen door, and no stranger in the house. The kitchen window *as partly open, but a deal table near' it was not soiled by marks of feet. They found that sore lace caps and other articles of his wife' were missing. The prosecutor called the watchman, and communicated his suspicions to him. The Watch:. man said, that on going - his rounds at four he-saw the kitchen window shutters open, a canfil; burning, and the clothes-horse covered with cltither She was„on this, taken to the watch-house. The pro:. secutor searched her bed, and between that and the sacking he found the identical articles which the pri soner had mentioned as those that the thief had car. "tied away. A little girl in the house proved that the prisoner wished her to sleep with her that night, as something told her that the house would be tobbei that night. The girl refused, but said she t ould tell the watchman; to which the prisoner replied, 0, nonsense r The girl then told the prisoner to fasten the kitchen window; but she said, if she did that, how was she to got up fruhe morning ?—Verdiet-- atilt, of stealing to the ',aloe of 39i. only. The following were also convicted of felony, viz. Robert Barnes, aged 18, for stealing three fowls ; Niary.Mor ris, aged 19, for stealing two tea-caddies,. &c. William Bush, aged 31, for stealing a watch, &c. William Davis, aged 22, for stealing wearing apparel. &c. William Richards, aged 18, for stealing from a person; Thomas Dobey, aged 24, fur sealing a watch, ?tc. Goodman Soloman, aged 15, and John Bailey, ay.,' 10, for stealing part of a brass crimping machine. William Fry and Peter Ward were indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling-kouse of W. Pap terson, and stealing a pair of boots, his property. The prosecutor lives in the llroaaway,We.-ttninster. -On Ft iJaiy, the 4th of October, between seven and eight in the evening, he was sitting in the kitchen behind his shop, when he heard a noise, and same persons exclaiming, " They are robbing your shop!" He then went our, and saw that a pane of glass, which had been cracked and mended with puttie s had .been removed on one side, and through that aperture a pair of girl's boots had beep taken. Two little boys saw Fry and Ward together at the window. Ward had his hand on it, but he went away to a post. Fry went back to the window and took something out, which he put under his coat. They had previonsly heard the glass of the window break. Fry gave what he took out of the window to another boy, not to Ward. Fry returned to the window, arid took something out again, which he gave to the same boy. At the time there was a mob of boys about the prosecutor's window, and when the prisoners were taken nothing was found upon-them. Verdict—Both Noi Guilty. bIIDDT.E.SnX SESSCONS. Yesterday John Semple was indicted for assaulting a person of the name of Lewis. The shalt facts of the case, as they were proved in evidence, were these :—The defendant found a boy in his orchard stealing his apples: he took -the and, after dipping him in a horse-pond, put a rere round his body, and suspended him in the air for some time by means of a crane which was on his wharf in Camden-town. The prosecutar, alarmed by the cries of " murder" uttered by the lad, has tened to the spot. He remonstrated with the defen dant, and in return for his humane interference re ceived a sound beating. Witnesses were examined for the defence, by which it was endeavoured to be sworn that the prosecutor had Eh; best of the fight, and was the first aggressor. The Jury found the defendant Guilty, and he was fined 101. by the Court. Ii)DOS p 1 , iil ' said, 4 , I 1. .. then he ' to-morn and Gib tell nob 1111111111:: 4141" • . •. . . , . . • , _ . . ... . his post.o g err n emes • tint and 'e and in June, 1817; gassiiiiesiiiiiost v ttbe -had quilted Proud. the poeier, and afteenitesis:pser ; - ' ,StrrakPerry was inc Mr. John Abbott, clerk, tour. *Pin : , solicitor property of Edward a to the Doke,' prov3d that'th :77Fe.deed _ Gene- The prisoner had be ral Si . John a - trathee for the Papp the aninti- to the prosecutor: Or tants was executed by the advice of Mr. Saunders. ' disturbed, about halfq tross-examined.ln 1816 and basbutiOg of 1817 prisoner. She gave th ' the Duke, then Marquis of BlandfOrd, was greatly kitchen, and that he 1 .. _ Ii? _ - ... ! . !..., !... ......n. , ••• INA kA;aapata4 VAreasars•ana Ma gar:Tia ~ SURREY SESSIONS. Yesterday, a respectable-looking man, of the name of George Hall, was tried upon a charge of having feloniously stolen forty-two yards of bombasin and other articles, of the value of £lB, the property of David Simpson, haberdasher, Bishopsgate•street.— The proof was complete. When called upon for his defence, the prisoner said, with much emotion—" It is of little import to me what verdict the Jury shall give, for after having been placed as a criminal at this bar, it is impossible that I can ever again hold up my head in this country, at least among those with whom I have been accustomed to live. I have been brought here by an extravagant course of life, joined to habits of gaming, and not by any natural depravity. All that I have to ask is, that the Chairman, when he shall come to sentence me, will so dispose of me that I may be made ser viceable to my country, whose laws I have outraged." The Jury found the prisoner—Guilty. The Comm inquired into the prisoner's former life. It appeared that he had made it a practice to rob tradesmen by various methods. A second bill was found against the prisoner for stealing a quantity of ker•seymere from a mercer's. He pretended that he put .up at the Old Ship Inn, and took the thindle out of the hands of the boy who accompanied him, and made off with it through the back of the house. ThE prisoner appeared himself to be desirous of not mentioning his connexions, and only said he was bred up as a grocer and diaper in South Wales; but it was shewn that he, some time ago, kept a respectable tobacconist's shop near London Bridge. The CHAIRMAN sentenced him to be transported for seven years. The Foreman of the Grand Jury applied to inspect the Brixton-mill, but the CHAIRMAN said that it WI, not a Sheriff's jail, and that no one could be admitted without a Magistrate ; and there was no Magistrate on the Bench who could be spared to shew the mill to the jury. • MAILS. Aar-Du a. Dublin 0 1 Waterford 0 1 ♦ KM. DLL 0 0 France Harnburgh 0 1 Sandels 0 0 Guernsey and Jersey 0 0 !Jab= 0 0 Malta Holland 1 .0 Leeward Islands 0 0 0 0 Gottenbitrgh • 0 1 Brazil .0 r 3• O,A Mit et LUNPUN To- mutat() v.. 3tkrums - 3 minute+ after 9 . Afternoon 24 minutes after 9 LONDON t Primed And published by Levu Kevs, i'lltotte• ykitc, roller. Bat. R I`' iti N .... ~... d