The National Register. — London, England, 1823-01-19 00:00:00

- 1,6 -lir • • . I • '~ Il 1 1 41. 18 PROM lAY NIGIS • ,GAZETTE. BANKRUPTS. .1. Beverley, Barge Vaud. Bucklersbury, merchant. Solicitor, Mr. Farren, King's Arms Yard, Coleman Stnet. T. Hail, Old Compton Street, Soho, woollen draper. Sols. Messrs. Bartow and Co. Rasinghall Street. DIVIDKNI)S. Jan. 21, J. G-een, Oxford Street, smith-Feb. 4, W. Thorpe, Upping, hawker-8. J. Hooper, 'Tuley Street, Southwark, chymtst-4. W. Durrant, Castle Street, Finsbury, tailur-8, T. W alls. Webber Street, Lambeth Marsh, hat manufecturer-4. P. and J. Oahe , t„ London, merchams-5, W. Wright, Tewkesbury, linen draper-4, W. Welsf ad, Tower Hill, mer chant-5, I'. Arthur, North. G shopkeeper -10, A. Holmes, 11. White, and T. 71ndsd, Chesterfield, bat menu. facturets-15. T. Griffith, 11.11morton, Warwickshire, victualler. CERTIFICATES to be granted Feb. 4 J. Craney, Snowhill, grocer—J. Robertson, Old Broad Street, merchant-I. Passman, Old Street Road, me•chant- J. Aghwell. Nottingham, ironmonger—J. Thurtell. Bradwell. Suffolk, inerehati•-M. Douglas. Sunderland, coal fitter-4. 1. and P. Cosset.., Cl,..ient's Lane. wine merchants.-T. Jacks, lirshopsgate Street Without, Hour factor-J. Beattie. Purtsea, victualler-F. Robinson. Aston, Warwickshire, dealer. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. M.INDAY, JAN. IS. lIFAILAY N. AITARING._ This wax an action brought by the plaintiff to recover of the defendant 4701. 10s., which the plaintiff had lent, an I the de- Ilanelent had promised to repay. The plea was, that no such 'sorry haul ever been leut to the defendant, but that it had been paid over to lum by the plaintiff in discharge of different sums of money which the plaintiff had lost to him at play. flu this point issue was joined. The find witness coded wan John Bewley, a brother of the plaintiff. He stated, that the plaintiff was • dealer in 111101 . SA tobacco, residing at N 0.49, in the Strand, and tied the de fendant is a clerk in alianking-house, and also carries on busi sines* as a coal-merelent. On the 29th of May, 1820, the defendant came to his brother's shop, and asked him for a loan of 1001. Ilia broth:or replied, that he could not then spare 1031., but that he world let him hove 701 ; and he was actually drawing a cheek for that sum upon his hankers, when the defendant said, that lie wanted • few shillings for some purpose or other, and desired that the check might be made out fur 701. 10e. This was Letordingly done. On the 7th •f June, in the same year, the defendant again called upon his brother, and said he wanted 3091., hut that he did not know a person cacept the plaintiff to whom he could apply for such a loan. His brother, after some con% ereation, gave him a cheek on lis booker for that sum also. On the 2d or October, 1820, the defendant again called upon his brother, said that he wanted Money to pay for some costa, an h asked the plaintiff to lend him 1031. for that purpose. His brother replied, that lie had not that sum by him to spree, hut that lie a , uld give him a check for 501., and accept • bill of recitals e to ft • sante amount for I int, payable three or four months after del*. The defendant said, that this would do ; and the check awl the hill of ex elienge were immediately handed to him. 4,n his promise to dis charge at the following Christmas all the money which bad been lent him. Subsequently to that period his brother again asked the defendant is his hearing to repay the sums which hail beet 'deemed tl him. The defendant promised to do so, as soon as •ver he (meld ; and added, that if he had had back all that had been lost to bin (the plaintiff) at play, the plaintiff would owe him money. Cross examiner) by Mr. Scarlett.—Before the 29th of May, he had seen the defendant once or twice, did not think oftener, at his brother's house, in the Stetted. Ile aas acci dentally at one time in the shop, at another time in the counting house, when the defendant called on his brother about these loans ; it was thus that he had overheard the conversations which be bad detailed to the Jury. His brother was not in the habit &lending moneywilbout taking an acknowledgment for it ; he did it, however, to two or three individuals. Ile knew that his brother entered the 701. 10s. iu his books as money lent to the defendant. John Willis, a clerk in a banking-house, proved that the bill of exchange for 501., drawn by the defendant, and accepted by the plaintiff, bad been paid iuto their house by Messrs. Hall and Bevan, coa'-nierehante. The paymente of the cheeks by the plaintiff's bankers, and the lodgment of the proceeds in the hinds of the defendant's bakers, was admitted by the defendant's Counsel. The plaintiff's ease then closed. Sir. Scarlett, for the defeuoe, charged the witness Bewley with flat unqualified perjury, committed for the purpose of re covering front his client a sum of money which the pleintill had paid to hint as a compromise fur certain greater SUMS which be bad lost at pley. After commenting upoo the iniprobahility of the plaintiff's lemliii; such a suns of money, without taking an acknowledgment fur it, to a person whom his own brother proved never to here been in his house more than two or three twice, and also upon the likelihood, supposing ills money to have been actually lent, of his having allowed two years to el eine: before lie made any effort to recover it, the Learned GbaniMman proceeded to detail the circumstances on which he rested his defence, and which will be beat übtlerstood by the re.daa me he called to substantiate it. ' Joseph William Cooper, of the East Kent Militia, stated, that on the 22u1 of May, Iti2ll, he dined at the Pineza Coffee-house, by invitation of Mr. Houlgive , who then kept it. On that day he met at dinner Mr. Waterman, of Eases -street, Strand, Mr. Bewley amid Mr: Sparring. Mr. Bewley he know before ; Mr. Spurring he did not. It appeared to him from their cantina, at that time, that Mr. Healey and Mr. Spurring were complete els-augers to each oilier. In the course of the evening curds were itorielneed, and all the party played except Mr. Waterman ; lottery was the game played. At the begin-' wing the stakes were only shillings ; but Mr. Bewley noon pro• posed higher stakes, and, with the eve ption of the witness, half-crowns, crowns, pounds, and as forth, were anon staked by all the patties. 1. 0. U's, and small pieces of cards, were weed instead of money. Mr. Bewley was the loser ; witness thought that 51r. Henley owned that lie was a loser to the amount of 301. or tool. Iluidgsion and Spurring were, lie also thought, both wino , is. No settlement was made that evening, at least in his presence. Houleuon invited the same party to diva at his Omni:Jere, in Clensent's-sun, on the ensuing Friday, the 2lith of Slay. They (hued there accordingly ; a lady dined there with them. Play was introduced there atm, in the even lag. Tie witness [dived a little higher titan he did before played Grown stakes. There was WO play between Mr. Bewley and Mr. Spurring, out at *hose suggestion he could sot tell. I. 0. U's were again used. Berme tiepin., the de fendant was going away ; he first event to the plaintiff, who was mending near the tire, and said, " It is a large sum you have Imo to-night." Willies,. dieu 4 lit that lie said rather more this 10 Mr. Dewily Willa reui.ul end said, '• l hope Le tot uueasj J it tma will call nu we ta MOKIOW, I %ill gie . S ---. ~,~ -• Y . • • I. ' V ••• .111. • 9. 414 • T TIE NI Ama %I t 71 k 7 ‘.• MIONAL It you part of the muney in cask and a good bill for about 5031. 14'3001." The witness then proceeded to mate, that about eight or nine days afterwards be ,aw Mr. Bewley a•nin, told hint that be bad settled his business with Mr. Spurring, Ile said that Spuag bad given him back a bill for Vol, which was as geed as the Bank, mid had taken 31101. cash fur it. This be looked 1...111 as such handsome imoduct, that he its tended to give Sparriii,i the handsomest snull*.bot that he had in his shop. On the 12th of bill., telce tile same parties dined together, tha witness paw on Mr. Sparring's mantle-piece the tuna-box which Mr. Bewlay had presented him with. On tee 12th of June, however, which was the day before, Bewlay, and Spurring met at his house. Bewley said--" Mr. Spiir• ricg, ion owe me a dinner." Spurring replied—" I do, and tun ready to give you th.: very best dinner the Pima cant alford." " No," replied Bewlay—" I'll not dine there ; I would rather dine at your own house." They dined accord ingly at Mr. Spurring 's lodging., in Seymour place, New roue. After dinner, Mr. Bewley and Mr. Hodgson cut the cards for sums so large that the witness said—" Good God ! Bewley, what are you at?" and received in consequence such a retied' as made him hold his tongue for the future. About one or two o'clock iii the morning," continued the witness, just as we were going away, Bewlay said to Spurring —" Cowie, Sparring, you must give my revenge." They cut the card.; in consequence, and a matter ended in a few minutes by Sparring's winning 3001. Bewley then said, Gentleman, I can't pay you, for lam at this mo.nent exchequered for 1,0001. You mut not uk me for motley for ive or six months to come."— On my return Irons Canterbury in the October following, Bewley told me that he had settled with Spurring ; he said that he had given him a check on his bankers for 501., and accepted a bill of exchange for 501. more at three or four months. He likewise said th t Spurring was not to ask him for any more money till it was convenient for him to pay it. continued my visits to Ilewlay for some length of time after thin transaction. I never heard him at thai time say that he hail lent Spurring money. lie tint told me so in last May. lie always raid how well Spurring had behaved to iiiin." Cross-emoninni by Mr. Marryatt.—Though I have often been at Mr. llewlay'si lupine, I never saw him play for large stakes heron the 20th of Kay. I have not seen liodgauu for a month, and I do not know where he is. lie does not keep the Piaci& Colfee-house at present, but his brother does. Has Hodgson been a bankrupt!—Of course he hu. The Lord Chief Justice.—l think, r. Marryatt, the witness has given you a very proper answer. lie says, of course, he has.—(A laugh.) The witness's cross-essminstion continued.—Hodgson bad been married, bat his wife is dead. The lady who dined with us at his chambers, in Clement's-inn, was called Smith. I be lieve she lived there. I do not know where she lives at pre sent. I only know a little of Hodgson, I knew him from going to the Pisitas Coffee-Louse, where I was a member of a card club. This was the easoonthe part of the defendant. Mr. Marryatt replied, and contended that the witness whom he had produced was fully an worthy of credit as the witness produced by the other side. The Lord Chief Justice summed up the evidence, and left it to the Jury to decide which of the witnesses was most deserv ing of credit. The Jury, witbaat hesitation, returned a verdict for the defesitlants PERJURY—THE KING C. HARRIS. or-General stated, that this was an indictment fn perjury. The parties were both clergymen ; Mr. Harris wan Lessee under the Crown of the Chapel in Spring gardens, and bad let it to the Rev. George Masters, the present prosecutor, at a rent of 2501. a year. This under lease was granted at Lady-Day 1b21., end at Michaelmas following the first Valf year's rent, 1201. became due, and was applied fur by Mr. Harris. Mr. Masters claimed certain deductions under a !ease for repairs, &c. which reduced the sum, as he contended, to 921. 2s. lid. and that sum he tendered, but it was refused.— Mr. Barris afterwards made an affidavit of debt, for the pur pose of issuing • writ against Mr. Masters, and in that affida vit he swore that 1001. was due to him, and that no tender of the same had been made to him. Upon that affidavit a writ issued, and Mr. Masters was arrested ; he now In his turn pre ferre,! this indictment for perjury, the perjury being alleged upon LLIOAB parts of the affidavit which swore to 100/. as the sum due, and to no tender having been made. The prosecu tor also urged, as a proof of malice, that Mr. Harris had en deavoured to procure his arrest on the Saturday night, with an intent to prevent his performing Divine Service in the Chapel on the following Sunday, as by tenting to do au his lease would have become forfeit. The Jury, after hearing the evidence in support of the in dictment, and on observatinn from the Chief Justice, that the whole was a matter of account, and might reasonably be in ferre.l to have arisen from mistake, rather Vain an intention to commit wilful and corrupt perjury, found the defendant Nut Guilty. _ Ter.sunr, JAN. 14. MEDICAL RIVALS.-lILNTLK v. HUNTER. Mr. Pollock. stated, that this was a proceeding II :tire farias, that the detentlaut, under a penalty of 20001. should nut practice physic within two miles of Tower•street, in the city. The de fendant had sulfured judgment by default, and the Jury were here called on to awe ma the damages. Mr. Searlett stated, that Mr. Hunter, the plaintiff, is a man with a large family, of high professional respectability ; the de fendant, his nephew. Ihe Jury would find the benificence of the plaintill . had not only extended to the defendant, but to his broCier and mother, for which the defendant had at an early period expressed hie heartfelt gratitude. The plaintiff bail educated and brought op tue defendant to bin profession, and allowed him Md. as his assistant. A very alrecUng letter ratite defendant's WIIA here referred to; it was addressed to his father, and written in 11310, expressing boundless gratitude and alfection to hie uncle for the benefits lie had received from him, mid invoking a thousand blessings on him and his family. His apprenticeship having expired, the plaintiff engaged him as assistant for seven rears ; he accordingly entered into thin bond, not only voluntarily Out cheerfully. Six years having ex pired, the plaintiff* proposed a partnership between himself, his lion, and the defendant.. The defendant first agreed, but atter vomds dissented. Another letter was referred to, written by the defendant to the plaintiff, exprew,ing the strongest feeling.. of gratitude and affection. Iu t 420, the defendant took a shop within two or three doors (Whitt uncle, Netting up for himself, and carrying awry Lis uncle's practice ; haring brought his action fur a breach of totenant on a former occarion, his U11%1,6114) seeing it war between near re lation*, proposed a reference, which took uncle was more ■tt'ected by the defoiiiinnt's ingratitude, than any eon aii!eration of penally of the bond ; the defendant's baseness was such, that after this reference, which caused him to icniove, be • nil kept up the competition, through the medium of another .... lb ' person ; and then he himself elute back sod carried oe the fluidness in the same place as before. So great was the injury Mr. Hunter, the phentilt, had mama, he cou d neither procure a partner or an apprentice with a premium ; because the answer was, your nephew carries on the busiuess next door, anti hero is an effectnal competition. it was a painful delicacy Mr. Hunter, the plaintiff, woeld be ender to prune special tlante.,er, as that several of the uncle's patients bad ten him, sud gone to his nephew ; but the Jury would assess the damages from the general estimate of injury sustained. Mr, Charles Simpson, attorney, produced defendant's letters, which were put is in evidence. Witness prepared articles of partnership between the par ties in 1819, with which the defendant expressed biterelf satisfied. Defendant was to have a fourth share for fourteen years—objections afterwards came from the defendant, Who wanted to be second partner in the firm instead of third. The treaty commenced in June, 1820. The plaintiff finding de fendant practising in competition, desired wattles to write kits a letter for the forfeiture of his bond. [The letter was here put in, threatening to put the hood in force, unless lie removed from the neighbourhood.] Witness received no answer. Cruses-exantined by Mr. Wilde.--The plaintiff carries on business in Mincing-lane, corner of Tower-street—defendant in the next street, which is Crotched-friars. The bond recites, that in case of the death of Mr. Hooter, sen. the business was to be divided into three shares; one of which plaintiff was to dispose of by will, the other two between son and nephew.— Witness believes defendant quitted his uncle not by hie desire, but even without taking leave. In the last cause the vihi trator awarded about 3001. damages and costs. Re-examined.—The defendant by the articles was placed on the ante fooling as plaintiffs son. Robert Coots was servant to Mr. Thomas !tenter, of Crotched-friars, not the assistant, only to make hiateetf useful . waited at table. Mr. Scarlett.—Did you carry out medicines ?—I doe% know whether they were medicines. Mr. Searlett.—Did you carry out parcels which were sup posed to contain medicines ?-1 can't swear that they conta:ned medicines ; I won't swear that. Mr. Searlett.--Your evidence is the more valuable. that you swear with su much caution. Witness carried out parcels supposed to contain medicine. to shout a dozen, or nut so many. (Examined as to different patients to whom be carried what he suppose I to he inedicinee.) Mr. Thomas Hunter kept books, in which be wrote himself. bat witness ;mild not read the language, it was not for witness's scholarship. There were various sorts of things iii that shop that witness did not like—things that imitated medicines, gal lipots, jars, bottles, &o. His master's shop was mere lam an apothecary's inside than out ; can't say whether it was an apothecary's shop or not ; has seen things taken out of large into small bottles, ad witness has worked a pestle and /neuter. Thomas Hunter wits en the door, and a night bell which wee occasionally rung in the night. Cross-examined.—lhiuks it was in Octeber or Nov. 1820. when witness caine into the defendant's service; left about a year and three quarters ago. Francis Henry Moxey remembered defendant being tenant to witness's mother in 18211—bas seen the medicine-bottlea in the shop, and the name of " Surgeon" on the door—a itnesa learned from the defendant that he had burned or destroyed hiss b • ties within the six months—the shop was shut at the time the atbitration was finished, but cannot speak to dates—sever saw any business carried on until defendant returned after the arbitration—the man that came in defendant's essence merely kept the house ; the cause was, he believes, tried in June. Re-examined by Mr. Scarlet'.—When the arbitrator was examiaing the shop remained as before, only the name taken off the door. Has heard that defendant left at the expiration of his bond. Mr. John Berridge lives in Tower-street—Mr. Hunter, the plaintiff, attended witness's family. The defendant attended generally as assistant—remembers his setting up for himself ; and not soliciting but succeeding his uncle's business in wit ness's family. From Nov. 1820, to May, 1821, witness paid him 351. 10s. When he Caine bark front the North be called on witness respecting a bil which defendant said he had mis laid. Witness has no doubt that at t:iis time he was attending patients generally. Mr. Wilde putt it to the Jury whether the defendant bad not made ample retnrn to his nncle for all the favours he had re ceived, by having served him faithrully rot so great a number of years. The defendant, having already paid 3001. damages. mast Litre had a great struggle, therefore, in the present in stance, that heavy damages he would never be able to pay. The Lord Chief Justice observed, the Jury bad not to try any question, but simply to assess damages for a breach of the agreement after November, 1820. It was impossible to pro- duce evidence of all the patients the defendants might have led away—the Jury, would, therefore, form a probable and general estimate from Octobar, 1820, to June, 1821, the loss of busi ness the plaintiff bad sustained. The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 501.--ecosts 40s WEDNESDAY, JAN. 15. PRICE AND OTHERS V. LICE. The Solicitor General stated, that this was an action to re cover I.it 1, for goods sold and delivered. Mr. William Percival was traveller to the plaintiff in Mare'', 1521, when he saw the defendant, Mr. Thomas Lee, of Kid derminster, carpet manufacturer, who ordered a yomility of cream of tartar mid lac.elye. Witness mentioned 7s. 3d. per pound. Mr. Lee offered Os. 9d. Witness made a memoran dum of the otter—observing, it Wan rather below witness's limits ; that was as to the lac dye. Witness informed the de fendant he should transmit his order—and, if he did not hear from the house, lie was to conclude the order would bo executed. Cross-examined.—There was no agreement to wait for the order being The Solicitor General observed, • verbal and conditional order in this case would out take it out of the Statute of Frauds. The Lord Ciiefluatice observed, a part acceptance would take it out of the Statute of Frauds,-The cream of tartar was an absolute order, the price being agreed upon on both sides, and the delivery was complete. Letter put in from defendant to the plaintiffs Gentlemen,—We cannot take the goods invoiced. Your traveller Nes to transmit the order, and you were to say it you accepted by return of post." . . . . . Ii wow admitted the defendant received the cream of tartar, bat refused the Inc dye Mr. Gurney observed, both parties in this CIAO were highly respectable, only the mistake arose on the plot of the plaintilrs traveller. The marks t prices of these articles were falling, and therefore it was important the pinintilTs should send an answer. No answer arriving, Mr. Lee could wait no longer, and there. fore purchased of another at rt. It was only titter the fall of the market the idaintids thought vrrper to supply the order. IPP" • .~ ,! L • 1 :11 ik 7 _ The a F 1 • 4 4