Star. — London, England, 1822-12-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCS. CeRT OF ICING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 4. BURN v. 111./NEIN. • This action was brought to recover the sum 01 £59; 7s. 6d. had and received by the defendant to the plaintiff's u e. It Appeared in evidenee, - that in 1814 Miss Dunkin, the defendant. kept a schoa at Maidstone, the terms of which were 25 guineas a year. To this school Mrs. Burn sent one of her danOters, and for some reason which did not appear, paid 50 guineas in advance for two years. After Miss Burn bad remained six months in the school, a fire broke out in Miss Dun kin's rooms, occasioned by her reading in bed, and Miss Burn, who slept in the next room, ran in on hearing the alarm. She found the curtains in Barnes, and was so alarmed, that she was taken ill of a fever, went home, and shortly after died. This action was now brought to recover a proportionate part of the fifty guineas for the time subsequent to the death of the pupil. Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, submitted to the Lord Chief Justice, that as the consideration for which the money was advanced had not wholly failed, the plaintiff could not recover it in this form of action ; and he teferred, in support of his objection, to the case of " Taylor e. Hare," 1 Bos: and Pul. New Reports 260. The LORD CHIRP JUSTICE observed that the pay ments for beard and instruction at school were made at regular intervals, and therefore, in his judgment, were so divisible as to suppot t the action in its pre sent form. He would, however, take the opinion of the Jury on the question of fact, whether the agree ment was for two years at all events, or for two years if the parties should live? The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da mage 7s. ad. DECEMBER S..—WOLF V. LEVY. Mr. HUTCHINSON stated this was an action for an assault, to which the defendant had pleaded that he was not s nifty. Mr. SCA KLETT stated, that the parties. were both of the Jea isb persuasion, both lived in Hemmings row, and both dealt in old clothes. The defendant', Mr. Levy, seemed resolved to monopolize the whole trade of the place ; for there were three other Levys all in the row, and he therefore attempted to take his custom from the plaintiff. He was in the habit of accosting customers of the plaintiff, and saying that he sold things cheaper ; but this was not the ground of complaint ; for he had proceeded from words to blows, and violently assaulted Mr. Wolf._ What defence might be atte , upted, he could scarcely imagine : the parties were of the same religion, and that might be excuse ; they were near neighbours. and that might be alleged for provocation; they were of the same trade, and that might be the cause of quarrel ; none of these ground, could furnish a de fence for outrage, and yet it mast surely be on one of there that the defence would be rested. In shorts there could he no defence, and the Jury would give such damages as should teach the Jews of I:mi ming's-row that they were to keep the peace towards each other. Two witnesq.s, Thomas Spiny and James Bargess, were called, who were mere passer, by at the time Of the assault, and ‘rho deposed that they saw the de fendant strike several violent blows. Neither of them could detail the words which preceded the blows, but the first heard a noise as of persons quarrelling be fore he carne up ; and the second had previously seen Levy follow Wolf, and attempt to take his cus tom from him. Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury for the defend ant. The defence was not, as his Learned Friend had been pleased to suggest, that the parties were of the same religion, or the same•row, or the same trade ; but there might be a fourth and a better ground of defence, to an assault, which it would not exactly suit a plaintiff to suggest—that such a provocation, lead been given as flesh and blood, whether Jewish or Christian, could not bear. This was not the first time that Wolf had complained without reason. The plaintiff had been afraid to call any witnesses but mere passengers, who knew nothing of the origin of she dispute; but the defendant would supply this deficiency in the cause. Ile would show that, as he was standing at the door of a neighbour, engaged in conversation, Wolf came up and began assailing him in such language as this—" There stands that housebreaker; there is not a thing in Lhe house which belongs to him ; he has been transported (which was False), and it will ant be long before he is trans ported again ;" with expressions importing that be had cheated his creditors. This language formed no legal justification of an assault which fbllowed ; but the Jury would consider whether a farthing would not be sufficient damages. After the assault, Wolf sa id—cc Now I've got what I wanted :" here, then, was provocation, irritation, and commentation. The plaintiff had sought for the assault, and provoked it, .and expressed his satisfaction when he had suc ceeded ; they would not, therefore, give him much compensation for that which he would have been dis appointed if he had not obtained. The Learned Counsel ealled three witnesses, who swore that the plaintiff used irritating language pre vious to the assault ; and one of whom stated that he ran about as if to find witnesses. Mr. SCARLETT replied, contending that the wit ne►ses for the defence spoke under an evident bias, and that the case remained substantially unshaken. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE shortly informed the Jury, that as an assault was proved the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict ; bat, it they believed that he had provoked it by insulting expressions, the damages should be trifling. The Jury instantly found a verdict for the plain tiff—Damages Is. PALMER V. LECOATT. Mr. HOLT stated that this was an action to recover damages for the seduction of the plaintiff's servant. Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury on behalf of the plaintiff, who, he said, sought compensation for a very serious injury, occasioned by gross misconduct on the part of the defendant. The wife of the plain tiff, who carried on the business of a straw-bonnet manufacturer in South-street, had taken an orphan aiece, named Anne Allen, into protection at a very tender age, bad 'received her as apprentice to' her trade, and treated her as a matubdr of her family.-- Part of her house was let to lodgers; acrd Mt. Leg- '7.7,1 7 • it en/ the &feedlot% a gewaillim of ample fortune, who had retired . cnisin byline* Occupied thi first &or. He was chiefly attended by his servant, and his deportment was such that Mr; and Mrs. Palmer had not the least idea, until accident discovered the troth, that he had meditated, snitch less effected, the ruin of this unfortunategirr. It would, however, now appear, that on the 21st of April in lass year, he took an opportunity, when all the other inhabitants of the house were absent, to send foi this young female, and to complete her ruin. The intercourse was renewed as opportunity offered, until it was followed by its na tural consequences, and she became with child. On the 21st of January, Anne Allen was seen with bride- 1 ,Fake, which Mr. Leggatt had given her; she was questioned respecting it, and at last confessed the melancholy - truth toher aunt and uncle. Mrs. Palmer immediately charged Mr. Leggatt with his conduct; he made protestations and promises, which he had broken, and the plaintiff was therefore compelled to seek redress from their verdict. He had been forced to maintain his niece during her illness, which conti nued throughout her pregnancy, to pay the expenses of her lying-in, and to procure a servant to supply her place in his business. When the Jury considered the situation of the defendant—a lodger in whom confidence was reposed, and a man of station, who was called on to set an example—when they adverted to the youth of the girl, then little more than seven teen—when they perceived that she was artless, un suspecting, and ignorant, liable to be deluded by the arts of a man in the rank of her seducer—they would feel that this was not a case in which they would deal out compensation with a sparing hand. Anne Allen, the girl, examined by Mr. GURNEY, said, lam now nineteen. I was apprenticed to Mr. Palmer, being niece to his wife. My mistress car ried en the straw bonnet trade. I am an orphan, and have been seven years in the service of my uncle. Mr. Leggatt lodged in the house, occupying the first floor. He had been there three or four months be fore April, 1821. He bad a man servant who at tended him, and I occasionally assisted. On. the 21st of April, when my aunt and uncle were out, I was culled for, the man servant having been sent away. The bell rung, I answered it: Mr. Leggatt begged me to lay the cloth for supper, and to take water to his bed-room—CHere the witness described what took place further, and then proceeded>-He told me if my aunt found it out he would keep me. The intercourse was repeated when my aunt was out, on which occasion he sent his servant away. On the 21st of ,:inirary my aunt made a discovery. A Mr. .814:ken had been marl ied, and Mr. Leggatt give me some bride-cake. I sheaved the cake to my aunt when she c::rne in; she asked questions, which pro duces! the discovery of that which till then I had kept secret. My mutt spoke to Mr. Leggatt, but I , did not hear what she said. Afterwards my aunt sent me up stairs to Mr. Leggatt, to say he was the man who seduced me. I became pregnant, and was brought to bed two months ago. I was ill before that occurred. That Gentleman (pointing him out) is Mr. Leggatt. My t.ncle maintained me in my ill-' ness, and procured another person to do my work; 1 am in his family now. On cross•examination by Mr. Scanterr, the wit ness said, Mr. Palmer is servant to the Duke of Bed ford, but he sleeps at home. There were Mr. Leg gatt and a Mr. Palmer on the second floor, and Mr. Sowry and Mr. Perceval in the attics. My aunt and uncle slept in the parlour, and 1 near them on the parlour floor. I cannot read or write. I do not know what month we are in row, or the month or day of the month when my child was born. I know was the 21st of April on which Mr. Leggatt sent for me, because the bonnets went home on that day. I often know the days when the bonnets go home.— On this night none of the other lodgers were at home, or I slice.:f - i have called out. I did attempt to do so, but was prevented. My aunt told me the day of the month when she discovered it, but not the 21st of April. I believe I heard my aunt say that Mr. Leg gatt was going to leave his lodgings. When she sent me up to Mr. Leggatt she did not accompany me. 1 held the door in my hand and said—.. My aunt de ' sires me to tell you, Mr. Leggatt, that you have ruinated me." I do not know of any difference betweeo Mr. Leggatt and my aunt about rent. I waited on the other lodgers. Neiiher of the Gentlemen in the attics ever went to the Tower ; one was .a clerk in Loarbard-street, and the.other was a Gentleman. I know the first was a clerk in Lombard-street ; but I never went with him. I have been once at the Tower. I went part of the way with Mr. Sowry and part by myself, to spend the day with a friend of my aunt's. I came back before it was dark. I only went that once. My aunt never told me to swear that Mr. Leggatt was the father of the child. Ido not know why the child was not sworn to any one. My aunt now maintains me. George Sowry said—l am a clerk in the Duke of Bedford's office. I lodged at Mr. Palmer's two years and a half. Mr. Leggatt lodged there, and Ann Allen was in the house. I never saw anything incor rect in her conduct. Cross-examined.—l believe she sometimes slept in the attic floor. I have hoard Mr. and Mrs. Palmer say she sometimes slept there ; but she could not al ways, because sometimes Mr. Leggett's servant slept in the third room. The witness was asked respecting his accompanying the girl part of the way to the Tower ;' and explained, that Mrs. Palmer requested him to allow here go with him as far as he went, to which he acceded; but he knew nothing further of her visit, or of the manner or time 9f her return. She brought his breakfast as usual on the following day. Mrs. Bolton deposed, that she had known Ann Allen during the whole of her residence at Mr. and Mrs. Palmer s. She offered to take the girl out of mere humanity in her illness, which lasted for three months. Mr. GURNEY proposed to ask the witness as to the demeanour of the girl. Mr. ScAaLarr objected that this was not evidence, as he had not asked the witness any question as to her bl eneral character. • .r. Hors and Mr. GURNZT replied, that the whole' course of the cross.examination bad been toimpeach her character, though no question had been asked directly; and the insinuations were quite as effectual as direct attacks. The LORD Came Jturrsea held, that as the girl was not herself the plaintiff, in this stage of the cave he could not receive evidence of her genera, desseaneer. Elisabeth Till proved that Mrs. Palmer supported '. . -... 1„, and paid her while s ite soma Ann Alto In her lying-in.. Mr. fryar, a surgeon, who anemia the girl, pfoied the charge to be 71. ss. 7d. which had been paid. Mr. Walford, formerly clerk of the defendant, stated that he bad retired from, business in January last. He then believed him to be a man worth 4001. or 5001. a-year. He kept a servant and This was the case on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. SCARLITT addressed the Jury for the de fendant. This was a species of action to which every man, however innocent, was liable, as in the case of indictment for rape, when any wicked witness thought fit to charge him as her seducer. She had only to lay the scene in some place to which no one was near; to represent, as this girl had done, that all who were usually present were out of the way, and she might walk over the Course swearing whatever she chose. In these cases, then, there was no protection for mens lives, except in the vigilant attention of Juries, requiring confirmatory circumstances to support the well learnt tale, and looking vigilantly at the proba bility and consistency cf its details. If the plaintiff were entitled to any verdict, it could be for little more than nominal damages: he was not the father of the girl, whose agonized feelings might require to be appeased ; he had no legal obligation to support her ; the child might still be sworn to Mr. Leggett, and he might be compelled to indemnify the parish against its charge. But he trusted that he should be able to shew that the gial was undeserving of credit ; 1 she had sworn that all the lodgers were out of the way ; why were they not called to prove this? She intinuated that Mr. Leggatt's servant was sent out of the way ; why was he, no longer under Mr. Leggatt's controul, not called to confirm her? She could not write or read ; she did not know the present month or that in which her child was born ; but she had the two dates, the 21st of April and the 21st of January by heart, and confessed that her aunt suggested them. How much else of the story had her aunt 'suggested ? It appeared that her aunt desired her to go up to Nlr.Leggatt, and tell him he had" ruinated her"—necessary information, dipubtless ; 'and she did go and tell him, what he heard with surprise. This was true; it was the only part of the story which was true; the rest Mr. Leggatt positively denied, but he could not be called. as a witness. If he could be so called, be would swear in the most solemn manner that he never had any intercourse with the girl. Mr. GURNEY rose and said, " My learned friend boasts that his client will swear that .the charge is false; f ant quite willing to put the question upon that issue. Let him swear it, and I will give up my c a s e . " Mr. SCA ILLETr.--.. I am quite ready to do so, my Lord." The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—" You know I cannot take the oath of a party in a cause: but you may, if you please, refer the case to some Gentleman at the! Bar, before whom lie may be sworn." Mr. SCARLETT.—" I consent to it, my Lord ; I earnestly wish that my friend may consent.' Mr. G URNEY.—" I cannot refer a case of this kind; it is impossible." Mr. SCARLErT..-14 I knew my friend would not consent ; I knew it was mere bravado on his part, because he was aware that my client's oath could not be taken, and he refuses the only possible mode by which it can be received!" The Learned Conn -el proceeded to urge that the girl had sworn she always slept on the parlour floor, whet eas it was clear that she occasionally slept in one or other of the attics; that it was more probable that any one else • rather than the defendant should have taken freedoms with her; that her story of the discovei y was improbable and absurd ; and that there was every reason to believe that she had fixed on Mr. Leggatt because he was the wealthiest lodger in the house, and not because he was guilty. If the defend ant were on trial for rape, and his life or death in issue, he could have no defence against the falsest and foulest charge, but that which such improba bility, such want of confirmation, and such contra diction, would supply. The LORD CHIEF Justice recapitulated the evi dence to the Jury, leaving them to decide on the credibility of Ann Allen. If they believed her testi• mony, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff; and in estimating the damages, they might include the expenses of the illness and lying-in, because, though the plaintiff was not strictly obliged to incur them, yet theie was fair reason why she should do so in a ca,.e like the present. They would also give da-, mages for the loss of service ; but not for the distress and degradation which, in the case of a parent, were birly regarded by Juries ; because, though in one instance such damages had been given in the case of a niece, there the relationship was averred on the re cord, whereas here the girl was only described as a servant. If they disbelieved Ann. Allen, they would had a verdict for the defendant. The Jury retired for twenty minutes, and found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £25. PREROGATIVE COURT, DECEMBER 4. BELL V. ARMSTRONG. This was a suit respecting the will of the late Mr. William Bell, who died in July, 1818, propounded by Mr. John. Bell, this next of kin, and calling upon Mr. Armstrong, the acting executor, to prove, in so lemn form of law, the validity of that will. Against this suit of petition the defendant had entered a pro test, in which it was contended, that the plaintiff was barred of his right to commence this suit as next of kin by lapse of time, .as well as by evident acquies cence in. and approbation of all that had taken place under Mr. Armstrong's administration. It appears that the deceased, who was a person of considerable property, residing in Portman-square, feeling himself to be in a declining state of health in February 1817, called on Mr. Armstrong, a Gentleman who had pre viously acted for him in the capacity of a stockbroker, to assist him in the arrangement of his money trans actions. Mr. Armstrong wrote to the plaintiff, Mr. Bell's brother, who was a farmer in the North of England, advising him to come to London without delay ; which advice was, however, disregarded by the latter. Oa the 15th March following Mr. Armstrong ' wrote again, and expressed his surprise at the :appa rent negligence which Mr. John Bell had exhibited. Mr. Bill then came up, and arrived in town eight, days after the execution of the will now in question. He waited Cll% the defendant, accompanied by Mr. James Blackburn,. and was told that there was a, • handsome legacy for him. 111 the course of a few days be went io see thc afternoon at his country house, 4 aridossid with him the afternoon of one day, and the • morning of a second ; after which" he rainina4 to wn and s!epaired tip his own farm iq the . North, did not revisit London until he heard of his brother's decease, upon which he came up and expressed his belief that the whole was a swindling transaction... This language might be :apposed intended for a 00. dicil to the will, by which a person named Sanders was appointed a residuary legatee, and which codicil had been afterwards controverted and set aside.... According to some statements, Mr. Armstrong lead suggested to the plaintiff the wisdom of their divid..• ing the expense of opposing the codicil, and sharing the property of the deceased between them. Mr. Bell however, in his affidavit, deposed that Mr. Armstrong had promised to secure him from all expense, and upon this understandineg paid to him, as he CONIC cerved, .the legacy of , beqiteathed to him b 7 the will which he now sought to invalidate as frau: dulent and unjust. This fresh suit was instituted Se c : April 1822 , the plaintiff having seen the widow of the deceased long before, having also seen a copy the will in May 1821, and learned that a will of 114. terior date had likewise been executed in 1815, whereby he himself was a principal legatee. Dr. JENNE& and Dr. LOSIIINOTON were this dim heard in support of the protest, contending that the plaintiff by long acquiescence in, and regular know ledge of the will in question, forfeited his right et now disputing its validity. Dr. SWANEY was heard shortly for the plaintiff. . Sir Joust Ntcuot (Judge) observed, that the cases of Ewins and Weeks, as well as of Gore and S,:encer p were distinguishable certainly from the present, not only by a greater lapse of time, but by tie tact (4 . the validity of the will itself having been br,,ught in question during the previous proceedings, in each of those two cases. It must be some very poi erful consideration to bar the next of kin from a f u ll in quiry into the causes of hi; being set aside. lle (Sir John Nichol) could not in the present state of the whole cate,• take it upon himself to Lietermine whe ther the plaintiff might have interfered with pro priety before, nor could he, from anything which had passed, pretend to anticipate the result of a fa cure inquiry. Stall he deen,ed it necessary, %kb a view of guarding against vexatious litigation, to di. rect that before any new Petition the legacy be re paid, and within a reasonable time. The defendant would be thus pretty well secured in regard to costs. ___ _ _ LONDON BLGGARS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. SIR-1 scarcely ever meet a beggar in the streets, but I feel my risible muscles strongly excited, as / mentally exclaim, " That woman is an excellenum tt o edian ; or, " That man is a very clever low cone durn." The character which the fraternity bore in the days of Homer, the oldest heathen Poet on re cord, they have maintained ever since: ' 4 A surly vagrant of the giant kind, The stain of manhood, of a coward mind; From feast to feast insatiate to devour He dew, atundant on the genial hour!" rotes MUM. Such as was Homer's Irus, such was Shakspeare's Bedlam Beggar, and the same description may serve those of the present day. If ever Shaks r eare's maxim, that All the Worlds a Stage,' was exempli fied, it is to be found among the mendicant tribes, who Proteus like, assume every shape, gesture, and tone of voice, that may incite to pity, and some even extort charity by tales of horror, and exposure of self inflicted wounds, horrible and ghastly to the , fight. The tragic actress, with a couple of borrowed chil dren, and a plaintive tale ; the hale vagrant, with his borrowed grey hairs, his artificially-furrowed face, and his story of having seen better days, and being reduced by fire, flood, or any other moving accident, are very natural performers. However frequently we may be offended with an ill-dressed character — an unappropriate costume, we seldom see a mendi cant who does not suit his dress to his assumed cha racter, and his voice and gesture to the tenour of his tale. This is an invariable rule with them, as their success chiefly depends on the observance of it. One of the tatters of a beggar's patched coat got entangled in a Gentleman's button, as they happened to be passing each other in the street, and (as is ge nerally the case when the weak come into contact with the strong) the beggar's coat got the worst of it, and some of the tatters fell to the ground. The Gen tleman expressed his regret at the accident. " Bless your Honour—no consequence; only I must not lose it: 'tis a little bit of my property," said the beggar, stooping to pick up the dismembered fiagment.--- " You shall have another suit," said the Gentleman. " Your Honour's all goodness, but that would be my ruin. Every rag about me, at a moderate compu tation, is worth a guinea." This shews that 'eats are still of some value ! The life of a beggar is, therefore, not that extreme of wretchedness, neither is it so poor a trade as a casual observer niay ima gine. On the contrary, they have their enjoyments, nay, their luxuries! The late new invention of the Tread-mill is a terrible check upon the genius of these sporters upon the miseries of human life. He could have been no friend to the stage, who could have the heart to conceive the idea of- making the principal -performers tread the wheel cf hard labour; and upon the remark being made to an eld mumper, he teel ingly exclaimed—" May he reap the fruits of his in genuity for his pains !" In short, there is no employ ment in life in which one man does nut tread upon the heels of another, beggars and authors not-excepted. 1)IRD. Oct. 24, at Richmond, Virginia, in the prime of life, Mr. John Alien, formerly of Byker, near Newcastle. Nov. 9, at Dundee, Dr. Andrew Roes, physician, aged 71. Nov.. 25, at South Shields, Mr. Thompson Pearson, si.T wriest, inventor and patentee of the sliding rudder. At York, lately, aged 6s, Mrs. Harrison. Her death wzs caused by a pin running into her thumb, whilst washing, which brought on a mortification. At Penrith, Mr. Thomas Lewis, Bailiff to the Duke of Devon shire, for the Hopour of Penrith, aged 70. At Recleston, near Garstang, Cumberland, Thomas Bartow, Rau. R. A. aged $4, formerly a portrait painter of great in the metropolis. HIG H. W ATZIt at LONDON II ILIDGN TO- MOM tt.o Morning . . 7 minutes altar Afternoon .t6 usinutes due LoN DON rniArd and pubbAhreltql Lion k -11,44a t Ow, "limple-lac. JI A 1 La •aa. DU R. ♦,ar. au& Dublin 1 0 France 1 0 Watorford - II 0 Harnburgi 0 b Ciuesasoy and Jersey • 0 0 Flanders 1 0 ,Li s boa 0 0 Malta 0 0 Holland 0 1 Gottenbursh 0 1 -------r ~`' F M 'i ~~. "~i ~~