The National Register. — London, England, 1822-12-02 00:00:00

the name of the owner of the carriage. Mr. Wayte then de clared if be could not get the mune of the owner from the ger. •ants, he sheold apply to the ladies. The plaintir finally laid bold of the carriage door, on which Mr. Pereeval exclaimed, Sir, Sir! The plaintiff appeared •ery much agitated, but after Mr. Perceval gave hit name he went *way. The repair • . of the chaise cost 221. aid the apothecary's bill was SI. 18s. After the above fasts had been proved, Mr. Searlett address ed die Jury for the defeadant, and contended that the accident was anavoidable—no blame could attach to the defeudant's servants. The Learued Counsel called the coachman, the foot man ,and Mr. Perceval, who described the gig as c 1111 l jug upon the carriage enperceived, and that the very act of pulling np the horses in the carriage, to avoid the accident, occasioned the pole to strike the chaise, and overturn it. The Lord Chief Justice, in his charge to the Jury, said, if they were of opinion that the accident happened without i'ault on either side, the plaintiff would not he entitled to recover. The Jury retired, and on their return to Court, pronounced a verdict for the defendant. Their Foreman at the same time stated, that the Jury were of opinion the injury was occasioned by mere accident, without fault on either side. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. MONDAY, NOV. 25. CRAMP v. sIMONS. Sergeant Lens moved for a rule to thew rause why an arbi tration made by Doctor Lushington should not be set &aide, on the ground of its being against the law. The learned Sergeant stated, that the matter referred to Dr. Lushington was, whether the plaintiff, who wa► rector of a parish, was entitled to recover back from the defendant, who was ♦icar of the same parish, certain fees that had been paid for the burial of a person in the chancel of the church. The parties were entirely agreed as to the facts of the case, that the burial had taken place that fees had been paid to the vicar, &c.—and that they mutually agreed to refer the whole miter to Doctor Lushington, who had de cided that the vicar had a right to the fees, and that the rector had no cause of action. With this decision the rector was dis satisfied ; and he wished to have a line drawn by s decision of the court that would prevent any future differences on the subject. The C .ief Justice said, the parties had mutually agreed to the cause out of court, and to refer it to another decision ; and when that decision is made by a perfectly competent arbitrator of their own appointment, •ne of them being diasatis6ed, calls upon the court to set it aside ; and it was • case in which the court could nut interfere, unless it was manifest, on the face of the award, that it was contrary to law, which was by no means the case here. On the contrary, the court must suppose, from the competence of the arbitrator, that it was conformable to law. Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Justice Burrongh's concurred in this opinion.—Rule refused. TUESDAY, NOY. 20. IN RE ISAACSON, CLARKE, AND BROOKES. This was an application to strike the two first named persons ofr the rolls of the court, and to call upon the third to answer for certain matters alleged in the affidavit. Sergeant Pell was beard to-day against the rale. Sergeant Vaughan was in part beArd in support of its being made absolute. The farther bear ing of the cum was postponed till to-morrow. We forbear noticing the case further, until the arguments tin both sides are concluded, and the judgment given. EDMESDAY, NOV. 27. IN THE MATTER OF - ISAACSON, THOMAS CLARK, AND J. B. BROOKS. In the course of the last term, Mr. Sergeant Vaughan oh. Seined a rule to sliew cause why Isaacson and Clarke, attornies of this court, should not be struck off the rolls, for improper conduct in having permitted • person named John Benjamin Brooks to act as an attorney in their names ; and why the said Brooks should not be committed to the Fleet prison for having as acted ; and further, why the said parties should not answer certain other matters contained iu the affidavits on which the ap plication was made ; and also why they should not pay the costs of this application. The motion arose out of the followin4 circumstances :--In the course of the month of Juue last, a per son named William Clarke instituted an action against Brooks, for the recovery of a aunt of money, which it was alleged lie ( Brooks) had received on Clarke's account, from • person named Seeger. The plaintiff in that case proved that be called on Brooks, at his oilier, in Broad-ccurt, Drury-lane, and employed him as his attorney, to proceed in au action against Seeger, from whom lie (Brooks) subsequently received the money. Time defence set up by Brooks was, that he received the money as the clerk of Isaacson, in whose name the cause had proceeded, and to whom he paid it over. The Jury by which the cause was tried were of opinion, that there was evidence of Brooks having in his own person acted ■s the attorney of Clarke, and had, without any just pretensions, assumed that character. They therefore found a verdict for the plaintiff, and they added the words, " with all costs." It haying appeared on that trial that Brooks bad practised as an attorney without being duly qualified, the present motion was made, and affidavits filed from several persons to show that be had acted for them as an attorney, on sericite occasions, having at one time used the name of Clarke, and at another that of Isaacson. Out Monday last, Mr. Sergeant Peel showed cause against the rule, and produced affidavits from Isaacson and Clarke, in which they positively swore that they had employed Brooks as their clerk, at are ,ular salary. The affidavits added, that they never, on any occasion; gave him permission to use their names, or either of them on his own behalf, or ever divided the profits of their business with him. An affidavit was then produced from Brooks, corroborating the statement made by Isaacson and Clarke, as to his having on all occasions acted as their clerk, and in no other capacity whatsoever. Sergeant Vaughan was proceeding to argue in support of the rule, when the court rose. This day the learned Sergeant resumed his arguments, and commented on the manner in which the affidavits of the parties were drawn up. He contended that they by no means gave an answer to the matters charged. Sergeant Onvlow followed on the same side. Lord Chief Justice Dallas, after consulting with the other Judges for a short time observed, in the case now hefore the ' court, I will nut say that the statement made by those parties is incredible ; but it is not going too far to say that it is Morro liable. I ant anxious, therefore, that the court should have farther information upon the subject, for it is quite clear that Brooks acted as an astorney, and he should show to the satisfac tion of the cowl, that lie had so acted merely for the henelit of Clarke and Isaacson, and not for his own advantage. The court in the present case will older an attachment to issue against the parties, and that they give hail to answer certain interrogatories which shall be forthwith hled ; and an early day appointed in the next term for receiving the answers to them, upon which answers the Prothonotary of the court shall report. The other Judges concurred with his Lordship, and on at lachment was ordered to be isen,d, on which the parties were THE NATIONAL ItE6L required to give bail in the amount of 1001. and two sureties for 501. for eaoh respectively. The court then ordered that they should stand committed, finless the parties making the applicatiou would consent to their undertaking to appear to give bail. Mr. Sergeant Vaughan said be would not press their being committed, but he should expect doe notice of bail. EXPARTI BROOKS, IN RE HILL, AN ATTORNEY. Mr. Strgeant Pell said he had a motion to submit to the Court in behalf of Brooks, (nue of the parties to the case which bad been just before under their Lordships considera tion). It was for a rule to chew cause why Mr. Hill, who was au attorney of that Court, should not be ordered to pay to Brooks, or to the officer of the Court, to be by him paid, the sum of 1401. money of Brooks's, which had got into his (Hill's) possession ander the following circumstances :—ln the Old Bailey Sessions before the last, Brooks stood indicted for a felony in having forged the name of a Mr. Clarke to a cheek, some time before his trial, Clarke called upon bin) iu Cold bath-fields prison, and in the course of conversation said that be h-d no wish to appear against him on the trial, but that his attorney (Hill) would proceed with the indictment, unless he (Cla.ke) would pay him his costs, which he was unable to do. It was then proposed that Brooks should advance the money to cover the costs, amd that the trial should not be proceeded with. Mr. Hanson, Brooks's attorney. wile present at • part of this transaction, and be strongly advised him not to consent to any such compromise; that it was highly improper, and that he (Hanson) would have nothing whatever to do with it; and on saying this, Mr. Hanson went away, and would hear no more on the subject. Brooks. however, gave 1501-501. of which found its way into Hill's hands before the trial, and 001. af terwards. Brooks in his affidavit now stated, that lie gave the money under an impression that his life was in danger from his knowledge of the parties opposed to him, though be positively swote ithat be was innocent of the crime of which he then stood accused, and of wh ch be was since acquitted—be therefore moved that Hill he compelled to return the 1101. which be had unjustly received. Lord Chief Justice Dallas said, it is almost unnecessary to say, that to attempt to compound a felony is a misdemeanour, and a very high one ; and subjects the party an acting to • heavy punishment. The party here has confessed that he has done that, and now seeks to recover the money by means of which he attempted to commit the offence. This is the first time I ever heard of such an application made in Court; amid if the Court were to interfere in the manner required, they would be sanctioning a very high crime. I see no claim whatsoever which this party bas to our interference ; and therefore I am of opinion that this rule must be refused. Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Jnstice Burroogh expressed their concurrence in the opinion of his Lordship.—Rele refused. The of of Brooks was ordered to be filed. The following notice appeared yesterday in this Court : TO SOLICITORS, PRACTISING IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, ♦ND TO ♦LL OTHERS. _ . " Take Notice—That after the present Michaelmas Term. the evening attendance of a Judge in Chambers in Term time will be discontinued ; and that, in all future terms, the attend ance will be every day, from ball an hour after three till lire o'clock." COURT OF EXCHEQUER. On Thersday the Lord Mayer, attended by the Recorder and the City Solicitor, went before the Harems of the Exchequer, to tender en account of his Mayoralty. The Recorder, in presenting the issues of the Mayoralty, addressed the court upon the subject of the merits of the late Lord Mayor. That meritorious individual had, he said, exerted himself upon every occasion to preserve the tranquillity of the Metropolis and to render the utmost facilities in the transaction of public business. It had fallen to him to meet with the dis tinguished honour of attending upon his Majesty as Conservator of the River Thames to the limits of the City jurisdiction, when the King went to visit his Northern dominions, alid also to re ceive his Majesty on his return. Upon those occasions the directions issued by the late Lord Mayor, for providing fa cilities at the royal embarkation, were deserving of the highest approbation, and had met with it already from his fellow citizens. The accounts were then given in, and the Barons having bowed to the late Lord Mayor, his Lordship left the court. This was the second instance within a century of • Lord Mayor having rendered op his Recounts on any other day than that preceding the 9th of November. LLOYD E. NEEDHAM. Mr. Jervais stated — tin; ;me. The plaintiff, he said was a widow, who brought the present action to recover compensation for the serious injury she had sustained by the defendant's neg ligence in driving his gig, the effects of which she would carry with her to the grave. The plaintiff's husband was formerly an extensive silk mercer in Crimbourn-court, hut being reduced in his circumstances, it became necessary for the plaintiff to as sist in their mutual support, by her own personal exertion,. On the evening of the 12th of August, the plaintiff and her husband went out to takes walk in the Regent's Park, and as they were crossing the rood in front of the park gate, the defendant in his gig drove furiously over them both, by which they were so grievously injured that the plaintiff's Itushiind died within the hour ; and the plaintiff herself. although she escapel with life, had suffered long and painfully, before ehe could leave her bed, having lost the use of her right arm. A coroner's inquest had been held on the body of the plaiutiff's husband ; a verdict of manslaughter had been given against the defendant ; on which charge lie had since been tried and acquitted at the Old Bailey. Bit the acquittal ou that trial was no answer to the prevent action, which was brought for compensation for the injury sustained by the plaintiff from the defendant's negligence. —They could not take into their consideration the loss of her husband , but they would consider the pain she bad suffered, and was likely still to suffer, the expense she was at, and the great and lasting injury she sustained in the loss of her arm, and consequen inability to procure her future support. itnesses proved the case as stated by the counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Adolphus addressed the Jury for the defendant at great length. Ile had at once offered to pay all the expences arising from him ; but he was not the opulent man he was re presented, mod bad • family of ten children to support, which put it out of his power to offer more. The Chief Baron charged the Jury, that whether the. defen dant was drunk or sober, made no difference in the case, if they believed the accident had been caused by his improper driving. It could be so justification of the defendant to pull up his horse just before the accident happened, if by his own improper con duct be had made it impossible then to stop him : and it was agreed by all the witnesses that just before he bad been driving turiously. The Jury,aller a short consultation, returned a vedict fer the plaintiff—Damages 2351. illey mentioned it was their wish to leave the defendant MI. after payment of the surgeon's bills, which were stated at 351. 1111://iT, NOT. 29. THE ATTORNEY-OENENAL N. LITT. .. This was a proceeding instigated for the condemnation of tree bales of silk, charged to have been smuggled. The Attorney General stated the case, which was afterwards more fully detailed in evidence. Mr. Beckwith, of the firm of Beckwith, Bamford, and Var nish, silk-mercers, is Matden•lane, near Clitimaide, deposed to the effect, that io the latter cud of August, lice defendant, Little, called at their warehouse, and asked for Mr. Bamford. The latter was not in the way, and the defend wit iutrodaced himself by saying that his name was Little, and that he had known Mr. Bamford betore. He desired that the foreman, Avery, and the shopho3. who were present, might retire.— Thee did so, rad he then told the witness in the presence of his partner, Mr. Varnis'i, who remained, that he could sell them any quantity °rank they might want at a price the amount of the duty below the price in the market. tt Then the duty could not have been paid," the witness observed.—" The a shilling duty do I ever pay," replied the defendant, and the witness having, from the declaration, been made aware of the business of the defendant, asked him a variety of questions 114 to his mode of dealing, and with whom he dealt. The defen dant said he supplied persons in the trade with silk to the amoout of 20,0001. par annum, and that he supplied one-third of the cambrick to the amount of about 90,0001. per annum. He mentioned the names of houses at Turin, Leghorn, and Valen ciennes, from which he bought his silk. He offered the witness three bales of silk at 42a • pound, at the usual credit. The silk of the description which the defendant offered was at that time worth 4145. It was eubsequeutly agreed open by the witness and his partner to take the silk which the defendant offered at 40s. cash, as they did not choose to take credit in each s trans action. The defendant wished to send it next morning. The witness in the mean time went to the committee of the silk trade, and informed them who had bees with him, and what bad beendone. As it was arranged, he gate information at the custom-house, and Lawrence Ross, the officer, was appointed to he in waiting in the morning when the goods were sent. Mr. Varnish and Mr. Avery corroborated the testimony of Mr. Beckwith, and Lawrence Ross the custom-house officer, proved that be seized the three bales of silk, and that be went to the house of the defendant, where be found only I/ pieces of cambric, which were afterwards returned, as it was proved that the duty had been paid ; they tried a cellar door in the house, but could not open it. Evidence on the part of the Crown was called, to show that the price at that time was 4145. The Jury said they would not trouble the Attorney General to go any further iuto the case, and they immediately returned a verdict for the Crown. FROM TUESDAY K1G117"3 GAZETTE. CROWN OFFICE, No?. 4S. Days and Places appointed for holding the Winter Home Cir cuit, 1822, Via. : HOME CIRCUIT.—Mr. Baron Graham; Mr. Justice Bayley. Hertfordshire —Monday, Dec• 9, at Hertford, Essex —Wednesday, Dec. 11, at Chelmsford. Kent—Monday, Dec. 16, at Maidstone. Sussex—Monday, Dec. 23, at Lewes. Surrey—Monday, Dec. 30, at St. Mary, Newington. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. J. S. and A. K. Fowler, Liverpool, merchants. BANKRUPTS. H. Beams, Lordship Lane, Surrey, stock broker. Solicitors, Messrs. Fisher, Aldersgate Street. .1. ['Leaman. Old Street Road, merchant. Sol. Mr. Hodgson. Salisbuty Street, Strand. T. Fanclough, Liverpool, slater. Sole. Messrs. Blackstock and Co. Temple. A. Jardine, senior, Leatherhead, Surrey, draper. Sol. Mr. Lester. New Court. Crutchedfriars. R. Sowter, Water Street. Blitekfriars, merchant. Sol. Mr. Hodgson, Salisbury Street, Strand. T. Bailey, Shoreditch, scedsutan. Sol. Mr. Hodgson. Salis bury Street, Straad. DIVIDENDS. Dec. 30,.1. Sanders. Coventry, auctioneer-40. C. Carliell„ Bury St. Edmund's, carpenter—l 7, T. Paden, Both, mason -11. J. Dobai, Cranbruok, Kent, currier—le. K. Andrews. Worcester, bookseller-21, W. Lorigliunt, Touhridgr, Kent, ironmonger --41, G. M. Nlorgai, Qoeenliithe, wtiole•ale sta tioner-20, J.Cawson, Liverpsd. broker—l 7, J. Blond. Fen Court, insurance broker-19. B. learight. Liverpool, merchant -19, T. Parry, R. Seaton, and J. Aritidage. I.inclie-tr• cotton spinner;—ts, J. We h, 11icAin.kertoi,. 1.44 ea-hire. c.,tton cloth manufacturers-19, W. O•ire.try, S druggist. C kit 'Ft I , IC .I.TES to I.e Ile. 11. W. Cre,er, Baldwyn Street. C.ty gr.c.er—J. Barker, Great Tachfichl Streit, upholsterer—H. 11. iibatr. 'lriiro4•nor. ton Street, stock broker—S. Port r, L...d Lacey, Lyneombe and Wideaonbe. S.niesetshire. builder—R. S. Oldtield, upoo 11.11. maclicnt— I. Balmer, jun., South Ihitide, snip builder—G. So...cz, LtiCOUT. draper. AsssaLs. _~ SPECIAL GAOI. DELIVERY—(3d Gen. IV. ISM) Bout: CI nit/IT-ISL ..—e Sir It. G..ditai and Sir John Bayley. Hertfird•.l I.:y. /..c0n , ...r 9. tit llerttord. F.;5ex—W..111(.41..y. t'.::l r.' ~d. Kent—Nlonilq, Decroloer in, rt Savies--M•n.e.ay, arier . t Surrey.—Mooday, IJ c. SJ.:.I ae. \ I ay. Newington. —The above is experiment;,l, with a view to the general introduction in Quarterly As s izes, for the purpose of lesseisiag the county expences for sup porting the prisoners, and to diminish as much as possible the imprisonment, anterior to the trial, of hose committed. - - - - Recent letters from Havannalt mention the sail in;; of two vessels, having five transports with troops under convoy for Porto Rico, for the protec tion of the island, which was menaced by a party of adventurers from St. Bartholomew's. The expedi tion we have already noticed as having' sailed against the pirates, consisted of the Span6h scho , aicrs of war Clariia and Superior, tour launches with can non, and two armed boats under the command of Licut. D. Abaco Lasserna A letter from ConstantinoVe, dated the 25th of October, states—" The Govonment, on the 21st instant, ordered an augmentation of 20 per cent. on the value of the new coins, so that the 10 piastre pieces are now current at 12 piastres."