Star. — London, England, 1822-11-15 00:00:00

;~ I 4• ~~ 1,! LAW IM'ELLIG,ENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 14. STA I N NIOO R RECTORY. MUTTER V. CIIEAUVELL AND OTHERS. This case came on again in the shape of a motion for leave to amend the bill. It was partly heard on the day before Term, and the argument was thii day resumed. The original question was the right to the , living of Stainmoor. The defendant has been in pos session since 1811 ;. but the plaintiff claimed the right of presentation to the living, and of occupying it himself as presentee. The bill was -filed in 1818,; and after much Chancery litigation and the death of many of the parties, a motion came to be made in, 11322 for leave to amend the bill. Messrs. HART, SUGDEN, and DUCKWORTH, sup-, ported the motion. The grounds, from the technical form in which the question was brought forward, vemed to be that both parties had assumed the living to be a donative, while in fact it was a perpe t lal curacy : and that the defendant, Mr. Cheauvell, e)tained and held possession by means of ft aud. Mr. HORN E declined to reply to the arguments on the other side, as the practice of the Court precluded; the prayer of the motion. The fact was, that the motion was made, not for any object in,that Court, but to usher into the world'a publication on the subject. Mr. Haat replied, and was proceeding to answer a question by the Court, as to the specific amend ments proposed to be made, but Mr. HonNE contended that he must have leave to address his Lordship upon that subject, if the prac tice of the Court suffered it to be introduced. Mr. HARt finished his reply. The LORD CRANCELLOR, after giving a general history of the cause, said he could not give leave to amend the bill, without having in writing the amend ments proposed to be made. Mr. llonNE suggested, that a notice, ton, must be served upon them (the defendants) as of a new ma tion, at the same time with the amendments to be made..—This was ordered, and the next motion day, this day se'nnight, was fixed for the motion. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 14. GORTON V. SMART. This was a bill filed for the purpose of obtaining the specific performance of an agreement. Mr. Howie, for the plaintiff, stated the facts of the case. He stated that the defendant had let a portion of land to his client upon a building lease. In the agreement which was entered into by the parties, it was stipulated that the houses in hich were to be built upon the ground should not be under third or fourth rate houses. The, plaintiff had built several dwelling houses on the land, and also a brewhouse; this was the subject of litigation between the parties. The defendant refused to grant a lease for this brewhouse, on the ground that the terms of the agreement did not authorize the building of any but dwelling-houses, and he threatened to proceed against the plaintiff by ejectment. The Learned Counsel contended that the terms of the agreement did not prohibit the plaintiff from erecting buildings cf any description upon the ground, and he therefore prayed that the Court would decree the specific performance of the agreement, and enjoin the defendant from proceeding by ejectment. Mr. SUGDEN, on the part of the defendant, main tained that the plaintiff had acted in contravention of equity by building the brewhouse, which was a nui sance to the sun minding neighbourhood, inasmuch ai it did not consume its own smoke. Mr. HEALD, who was also Counsel for the plaintiff, said the Court might be led to imagine, from what Mr. Sugden said, that the atmosphere in the neigh bourhood of this brewhouse was particularly pure, that it rivalled in salubrity Kensington-gardens ; but the fact was, that its immediate vicinity abounded in manufactures of all descriptions ; there were saw mills, iron-manufactories, seven steam-engines, and two brewhouses. The VICE-CHANCELLOR was of opinion that the agreement ?id not preclude the plaintiff from erect ing any description of buildings : it merely provided that the dwelling-houses which should be built should be of a certain rate. The plaintiff was therefore en titled to the specific perforrnante of the agreement. If the defendant considered the brewhouse a nuisance, he could seek his remedy at law. COURT OF KING'S BF.NCEI, NOVEMBER 14. THE KING V. AtIBEOSZ CULLRN. ME SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for the judgment of the Court on the defendant, who had been found guilty in Kent, of assaulting an Officer of the Cus toms in the execution of his duty. The Cower sentenced him to pay a fine of 301. and give security for his good behaviour for three years, himself in 1001. and two sureties in 501. each. TIIE KING I'. VINE. This was a case of a similar description to the last. The defendant urged that his affidavit was lost, but that its material statement was, that he had a wife, nine children, and an aged mother dependent on him for support. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, on hearing this, said that he would refrain from praying any judgment on the defendant, whose recognizances were accordingly taken, to appear and receive judgment if called on; and who was dismissed with an admonition from the Court, that the lenity shewn him by the Crown should dispose him to refrain from all illegal deal ings in future. THE KING V. HENDERSON AND ANOTHER. Mr. RUSSELL moved for a Rule, calling on Joseph Henderson and another person, a Clergyman and Magistrate of the county of Carmarthen (whose name at present he would forbear to mention), to shew cause why a criminal information should not be filed against them. He made this application on behalf of Mr. Saunders, a Gentleman of property, a Ma giqrate and Commissioner of Roads in the county of Carmarthen, whom the defendants had attempted to incite to fight a duel with Henderson. On the 15th of October last, Mr. Saunders went to a public meet-' ing in ins official capacity, and, on entering, was ad dressed by Henderson in very opprobrious terms, in relation to his public situation as trustee. After this, Henderson left the room, and defied Saunders to fol low him and give him satisfaction; when the Cler gyman told Henderson not to disgrace himself by imself oa a level with Saunders, but to treat did. Saunders demanded if this meant to im? when the Clergyman added other in iguage, intended, as the applicant believed, him to fight. Under these circumstances; Mr. Saunders clainaza the protection of the Court, which had often been granted on similar occasions , and was peculiarly due to a man of high rank and of great public spirit, who had been insulted in the dis , charge of important duties. If the Court would grant the Rule, it would probably be the means of. producing a proper acknowledgment of the offence, and an assurance that Mr. Saunders should not be subjected to such conduct in future. _ The Cower granted a Rule to shew cause. Tin WO V. JAWS*. The COURT this day tesumed the consideration of the cake of this defendant, who was brought before them for practising at Leeds as an attorney, in the name of a person named Thackeray, who has been struck offethe roll for his share in the offence. Mr. Jaques now urged that he ought to have been tried by vivo , voce testimony, and not on affidavit, and that the appearances against him were fairly to be attributed to the embarrassed circumstances of Thackeray, whose clerk he really was, and whom therefore he assisted by the advance of monies. He also put in an affida vit, stating that lie had a wife and five children de pendent on him for support, and had already suffered great exrense by the proceedinp against him. The COURT said that, by their invariable rule, all cases were brought before them on affidavit—a prat-. lice favoqrable to the party accused, who was thus enabled to give to his defence the sanction of an oath, and necessary when referred to the extent of their ju-i risdiction throUghout England. A comparison of the affidavit and of the book to which it referred, had satisfied them of the truth of the charge, for which, taking all the circumstances into considera tion, they sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned in the prison of the Court for six calendar months. • lin r m a n s g he teter to Ilirr suiting hulk to provoke] • WADDINGTON. Little Waddington, on receiving his sentence to 12 months imprisonment in Cold Bath Fields Prison, said, " I hope your Lordships wilt allow me the use' of pen and ink there." COURT" We have nothing to do with that." IVaddington- 4, Though I did not sell the book, I will bow with submission to the sentence of this Court, when the Bishop of Clogher is brought to justice." The little man was immediately taken out of Court by one of the officers, to undergo his sentence. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 14. DI/14COMBE V. FINLAYSOI43. _ _ Mr. Serjeant LENS stated this case to the Jury. It was, he observed, an action brought by the plaintiff, a newsvender, against the defendants, who are linen drapers, residing in Holborn, to recover damages for an injury received on the defendants premises under the following circumstances:—On the 11th of Au gust, 1820, the plaintiff went into the defendant's shop to get payment of a small bill due to him. In going through the shop he fell through a trap-door which had been improperly left open. In the fall he broke his leg in a shocking manner. He was imme diately conveyed to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, where he remained six months, and was at length discharged, but in a crippled state, so as not to be able to move without crutches, from which state he has not yet recovered. No personal blame was at tributable to the defendants; but as they were legally responsible, and as no offer of compensation had since been made, the present action was brought. John Duncombe, examined by Mr. JONES. The plaintiff is my father. He is a newsvender and book seller. I remember having been sent for on the llth of August, 1820, to the house of the defendants. On my arrival my father had been brought up through the trap-door. He was stretched on a shutter, and a sheet placed over him. He was bleeding peofusely. He said to me--" Oh, John, I fear that I am mor tally hurt ; my leg is broken in a terrible manner, and I am sadly bruised." He then desired me to look for a little child which he had in his arms at the time he fell. It was my child. On inquiry, how ever, I found that the child had been taken home, and was quite unhurt. Mr. David Finlayson was in the shop when I came. He said to me, " Your fa ther came in for the payment of a small bill, and was told to come up to the desk, and in his way up he fell through here (shewing the place), one of the shop men having neglected to close the door." He then turned round to some young men who were in the place, and asked how could the door have been left open? but they denied having done it. This was about the time of lighting candles. There was no light from the window in the shop upon the trap. My father was taken to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, where he remained six months. He came out with out being fully cured, and ha has ever since been un able to go without crutches. He has been unable to carry on the business of a newsvender as before; that is done by his wife, with the assistance of a boy. On his cross-examination, he admitted that it was not necessary for customers going into the shop to go up to the desk. The trap-door was rather beyond the counter. One of the defendants had called twice to see his father, and seemed mach concerned at what had happened. Two surgeons, from St. Bartholomew's Hospital, proved the nature of the injury sustained by the plaintiff. It was a compound fracture of the leg, a little above the ancle. It was probable that he would recover/so as to be able to go without crutches, but he wesfld never be able to go about as before. Mr. Cohen, a butcher, residing nrar the corner of Chancery-lane, proved the situation of the trap-door. It was near the counter, at one side. He was near falling in through the same door a short time before. On his cross-examination, this witness admitted, that unless one was passing through to go to the back of the house, he need not go by the trap-door. A customer coming to buy need not pass this door. There was a bell in the shop, which communicated with the back part, which persons having articles to deliver in the house might ring. When witness went to be paid, he did not go to the desk, near the trap door; he went to the counter. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN addressed the Ju'ry for the defendants. He could assure them, he said, that no persons regretted the unfortunate circumstance out of which the present action arose, more than his clients, although, as he was sorry to observe, insinuations to the contrary had been thrown out on the other side, about not making compensation, and so on. The cir cumstance was lamentable, no doubt, that a poor man in the situation of the plaintiff, whose subsistence de pended on his personal exertions, should be deprived of the use of a limb; but the Jury did nut sit there to decide merely accoraing to their feelioge, but ac cording to the facts of the elite, and to the right which the plaintiff had to recover from the defend ants ;for unless that right could be clearly proved,the plaintiff was not entitled to damages, however much the Jury might feel for his unfortunate situa.ion. It would aptieax ' and he had witnesses who would pr ove l the fact, that the place where the trap-door was situ ated was one to which the plaintiff had no tight to go: that it was beyond the counter where money was invariably paid ; and that if the plaintiff went there, ha was a trespasser, and must take the consequences. It would also be proved that the circumstanceof the door being open was one of necessity. In order to turn on the gas, one of the young men went down the trap-door, and remained below only so long as was necessary for that rurpose. If he should prove: these facts, he submitted that his clients were notl I bound to give any compensation for an injury which, however to be regretted, the plaintiff had brought upon himself. He then called Andrew Gibbs.—l was in the employment of thei defendants at the time of this transaction. The trap-, doot was behind the counter ; it was where customers , coming into the shop ought not to go. It was about dusk when this happened. I had been in the shop a few minutes before, and bad gone down the trap-door to turn on the gas. I left the door open because I could return nn other way. I delayed as short a time as possible. There was a house-bell in the shop. I did not remain below a minute. Money was invari ably paid at the counter, and not at the desk near the trap-door. John Maclean was a shopman with.the defendants , at the time of this transaction. The trap-floor was beyond the shop.counter. Witness was near the door at the time. Did not tell the plaintiff to come up to the desk to be paid, nor did any person in his hearing so tell him; if any person had so told him, witness must have heard it. Does not know whether Air. D. Finlayson was present at the time. Cross-examined by Mr. Jos:ea.—Could say posi tively that it was not the practice for purchasers in the shop to pay money at the desk : the desk is only for the shopmen to give what money they may re ceive from customers. The shop has been altered since, and the desk put further back.—The cashier of the defendants proved the invariable custom in his time of not paying money at the desk. He was there only to receive money from the sliopmen. Mr. Squires was in the practice of going to the de fendant's shop. Money was invariably paid at the counter, not at the desk. The Collector of Taxes gave a similar testimony. Mr. Serjeant LENS replied, and contended that a sufficient case bad been made out to entitle the plain tiff to damages, not for the misconduct of the de fendants, but for the negligence of their servants, for which they were legally responsible. Mr. Justice Bualtouoit, before summing up the evidence, said, that during the course of the de fendants' case, he expected to have heard it proved that the plaintiff had gone idly and wantonly to that part of the shop where he had no business, and that , his fall was the consequence of his own imprudence. l No such thing, however, had been .attempted. If it had appeared that the plaintiff had obtruded himself into a part of the premises where strangers had not usually access, and where the same precautions would not be taken to guard them from accident by this trap-door, then, indeed, the defendants would not be answerable for what occulted ; but this was not by any means proved. If the Jury believed that a person, having business in the shop, might come near this trap-door, and that owing to the neglect of their servants any accidents occurred, the defendants were certainly liable for them. Looking at the whole of the case, it appeared to him that the defendants had given no satisfactory answer to the plaintiff's case. His Lordship then detailed the evidence most minutely ; and the Jury, after consulting to&ether for a few moments, gave a verdict for the . plaintiff— Damages £5O, and costs. IRELAND. COURT OF CHANCERY, DUBLIN, NOVEMBER 9. I The celebrated Barrister, Counsellor M‘Ma HON, rose and addressed the Court in the following terms: " My Lord, I have to call your Lordship's attention to a case the most interesting and seriously important that perhaps ever came within the precincts of this Honourable Court. My Lord, I have bitterly to complain of the oppressions and hardships I have suf fered for the thirty-four years last past, by vexatious litigation, by unfounded litigation, by venomous liti gation, this being the fourth suit, in acrimonious and successive bitterness of spirit and avarice, carried on against me and my amiable, my valuable, my much injured wife, Lady King, that's now dead. My Lord, above three years ago my wife and I filed in this Ho nourable Court twef answers on oath, with four schedules annexed, containing the most full, the most desirable, the most correct detail of her first hus band's property that was ever exhibited in this or any other Court of Justice and Equity, by any man or by any woman ; notwithstanding which, the plain tiff' sought to fish out by this his fourth suit, some further or chance remnant of the testator's assets.— My Lord, I have been long without food and rai ment, owing to this sum of ten thousand pounds being kept from me, by harassing, endless, unfounded litigation. My Lord, the plaintiff is dead these some months past, and I now throw myself on your Lord ship's humanity and justice, that this Honourable Court will order the Representative to revise his bill in this cause, or to dismiss it with full costs, on the ground that said hill was actually out of Court by abatement, owing to the death of the plaintiff." Mr. DIXON, for the plaintiff, accounted for the de lay on their part, owing' to the difficulty of obtaining a probate to the will of Mr. Turner, the late plaintiff in the cause, who made several wills, and they had been engaged these four months in selecting one of them for proof. Mr. M , MAtios replied—" That on Fi iday he read a copy of the only will of the deceased, which was lnly a semblance of one, having neither date nor place—an imperfect instrument, and altogether in capable of proof." His Lordship ordered that Mr.M.Malion should serve notice of his motion on the parties before the next motion day. Mr. M.Mairom.—lndeed, my Lord, I thank you Whilst addressing the Court, Mr. : Miblahon up dpeared to be very much agitated. POLICS INTeLLIGENCE. MulantcnillmeiaddlrEfteillsy . Messot. Capp and King, asu Agents, were summoned to answer the complaint of Sarah Rigby, whom, with her fwe children they had undertaken t o send to the ape of Good !lope. lire husband, a soldier sic_ that place, h:d remitted fifty pons's to carry her thither, and she having se,-n an advertisement that tl.e Dan, Captain Haw.; lock, would sail direct for the Cape, with the names of Cap. and King appended thereto as Ship Brokers, paid them forty pounds an the 29th of Joky, and was put on board, since which sheltad been living en the ship's rations till about fourteen days ago, when she was told that the Captain was in prison, and the vessel would not sail at all. She then applied to thes:lefend ants, who promised.t• seek redress for her, but in despair, tio sought his Lordship's interference. When called on by the Loan Mayan, Mr. King replied, that they bad earned thew. selves for the applicant ; that they had handed the £4O events the Captain, by whose insolvency they had themselves anstainell a loss of £7OlO ; .that they bad nevertheless intended to hove given the poor woman the money, but as she had taken that course, they should decline doing so. The Loan blawor. diet asked if they were sworn brokers? Mr. Ring replied, Anil they were Ship Agents, mid that they had not thought it necesl nary to be sworn. k was here intimated that " Ship Brokers' was on their door, sad they were so described in a letter they had now delivered to his Lordship; but it was said tole under the impression that a Ship Broker and Ship Agent were syno:. stamens. Ills lordship assured the defendants they should he taught differently, and he waled direct the City Solicitor to pro secute them. Alderman Arazis said, by thus styling themselves, the Public were !e'l to suppose they had a security, which they had not. A Ship 11.4ent was empowered by warrant of attorni7l to manage the afratrs of a ship. in the end, Mr. King declared he would be swuru Immediately, and was ready to pay the pe naky he had Incurred, £5OO. His Lordship persisted that they should be prosecuted, and the defendants expressed their wil lingness to gibe the woman £2O. Uston-Ifau..—Wednesday, a man named John awaits was charged with being concerned in forcibly entering the hoses, No. 5, York-street, and stealing the cot pse of Sarah Crouch. Mrs. Barnard, cousin to the deceased, stated, tliat her unfortu nate relation had been a married woman, but had been parted from her husband several years, since which, to the time of tut. death, she had cohabited with the accused, who used her most cruelly. Ile was in the habit of sending her into the steals to get money by prostitution, and on her refusal she was treated with the most savage barbarity. Witness was sent for on Sa turday to visit the deceased, whom she found in a dying state, mortification having taken place in one of her legs. She conti nued to attend upon her until eleven that night, when she ex pired. Preparations bad been made for her interment, and she went several times to see that everything was properly arranged. In these visits she generally met with opposition front the defen dant, who was anxious that no person should sit up with the corpse. On Tuesday evening he brought two men w:th him to witness s house,who he said wished to see his Sally before she was screwed up. At twelve o'clock at night he brought the key back, and put it with a trembling hand into her's; but, having been informed that two resurrection-men had been prowling about the neigh bourhood, she went the next morning to have the body removed to her own residence, but found the door had been broken open; the coffin lay in the middle of the floor, turned upside down; the shroud and cap thrown into s corner, and the corpse gone. The defendant declared that he was ignorant of the mamer in which the body had been stolen, and when he hard -f it he was shocked beyond description. lie acknowledged being accpzinte4 with Austen and Holies, two resurrection-men, but deni:d having been in their company on the night alluded to. The Magistrate observed that it was a very extraordinary case, and he should sift it to the bottom ; and in the meantime held the defendant to bad. Yesterday, John Cousins appeared again.—Glannon, the offi cer, stated that he had been at St. Thomas's Hospital, where be was shewn into the di;secting-roorn of that institution, but could not discover the body of' the deceased among the other subjects. The Surgeon assured him that no subject answering the descrip tion of the deceased had been sent there ; and said that if it was, care should be taken to give notice at the Office. I lall said that it was most probable that the corpse was on its way to Scotland, for the medical students there. Mr. A Ltali asked Cousins if be was prepared to say anything further? Cocsins.—" I can't say more than I have already stated. What Mrs. Barnard says is all untrue. I can prove that thc deceased lived by prostitutkm before I took up with her." Mr. ALLEN..—Of all th, base conduct I ever heard of towards an unfortunate female, th*.; man's is the worst. First to seduce her from her husband, th,r. to send her out into the streets fur prostitution, and cruelly beat her if she did not obey the ochres command; and lastly, to sell the corpse of his unfortunate vir tiet to the Surgeons for dissection. The worthy Magistrate t'.2e3 addressing himself to Cousins, said—" You may clepend th..: every exertion shall be used' to bring this disgraceful an; to light, and you will still consider yourself bound under your re cognizance to attend here, in the event of any further elucida tion of the affair." Cousins.—" I am very happy to hear you say so, and again solemnly deny any knowledge of the removal of the decea*ed." He was asked who the two men were who had been drinMng with him at the Duke of Wellington? Ile admitted that one of them was Mr. Holies, well known amongst the body-snatchers; but of the other he could not till the name, but be was a painter and glazier, and used to call to see his Sally when she was alive. Cousins then gave his address, to No. 1, Eleanor-place, Gray's walk, Lambeth, and all the parties withdrew. BIRTHS. Oct. '2B, at Cromarty, the Lady of George Macdonald, M.D. of a daughter. Nov. 9, the Lady of the Rev. William Foster, Rector of Col- ton, county of Louth, of a daughter. In Dublin, the Lady of Dr. O'Beirne, of a sort. MARRIED. Oct. 30, at Kerrisdale, William Macleod, Esq. surgeon in Dingwall, to Mary, second daughter of Kenneth Itlackenzie, Esq. of Kerrisdale. At Cove, George Alexander O'Leary, Esq. Lieutenant IL X. to Mary, youngest daughter of Edward Verling, Esq. R.N. Lately, John Ingram, Esq. Captain in the 24th Regiment, to Mary, daughter of Macnamara O'Brien, Esq. of Biibaa, in the county of Limerick. DIED. Oct. 29, Kingsmill Berry,Eiq.Youngest son of Bennis Berry, F.sq. formerly of Dover-itreet, Piccadilly, and Hadley House, Barnet, Iltrt.r. March 16, a few days after leaving Madras, homeward-hound from India, Mr. Alex. Durward, Chid - Officer of the ship Fame. Oct. 28, at Dunbar, Alexander Johnston, Esq. for many years surgeon in that place. Oct. 21. at Exeter, aged G 6, Thomas Caird, Esq. 4.1 years a surgeon in the Royal Navy. Nov. 11, at Woolwich, Charles Proby, a Mi.ishipman in his Majesty's Navy, only son of Commissioner Cunningham, R.N. In Dublin, Abraham Boyd, Esq. one of his :•lajesty's Conc. ad at Law. At Naples, M. Contugno, the author of irmerous important rnatomical discoveries, distinguished also as an elegant writer, both in Latin and Italian. ALCERTAIN COMPLAINT, and all the direful consequences of neglect and had treatment, are beet com bated by the use of BOER II A AVE.'S REOPI PILL, No. 9-- This remedy acts with equal mildness, certah iv, and expedition, requires no hindrance of business, and is take .eithout exposure. Its amazing sale for the last fifty years, tiro. .. t seldom adver tised, is the best proof of its surprideg efficacy. The Directions that accompany each box fu4 enable t!te Ta. tient to cure himself.—Price 4s. 6d. per box. Sold by Mr. Johnston, 68, Cornhill ; Mr. Sanger,llo, Oxford street (opposite New Bond-street) ; and all Medicine Venders. MAILS. AIR. nu a. Dublie 1 0 Alt k • irl 0 0 France *aterroni 2 0 Guern•ey and Jersey 0 0 liambiirga 0 1 0 Limbo,' 0 0 Hol) 1 0 Malta Alr~ii' 0 0 0 0 Gottenburgh 0 1 13mzil 0 0 iiIGH.O ATUR at LON UVli Bli'Wilt TO-MOM:MA. MI nom: - - - 2R minutei zfter 3 • - Afternoon - - 49 minutes after 5 I. I s 10N : rrintrd and puhliArd by Lem Kuti, ?Wien pLacc, Terup:e-Bu.