The National Register. — London, England, 1822-12-09 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED. J. Day, Penchi/len Street, machara, from Nov. 30 to Jan.lll. BANKRUPTS. J. Wheeler, Frome sclwood. Somerset, clothier. Solicitor, Mr. tilts. Holborn Court. Grad's Inn. .1. Saiger, sen. Keytorn.S.nnersetshire, clothier. Solve. Messrs. Bridges and Co. Red Lion Square. F. Lee, tricking, Essex, ere:nailer. Sols. Messrs. Taylor and Co. Temple. 1. Ball, Poultry, ironmonger. Sol. Mr. James, Bucklersbury. C. Le Roy, Pall Mall, LaberJasher. Sol. Mr. Leigh, Char— lotte Row. Alans'on House. J. Bowker, lioltun le .Moots, grocer. Sols. Messrs. Adlingtoc and Co. Bedford Row. J. South, Cardiff. IronmonLer. &:r. Altana. Poole and Co. Gray'. lan Square. J. Chaplin, Lis on Grove, Marylcbone, bricklayer. Sol. Mr. Carlon, (fish Street, M.ry:ebtme, dt VII)N:N DS. Dec. 14, T. Lynn, JerusaleMC4,ehouse,Cornhill, merchant —l4, H. Thompson and T. k'araultee How, Huthethithe, w tklercinuu.-7, J. Hassell. ItLehurd Street, Islington, print bener-31,1'. I3 s akin and T. Dyer, Iliimingham, dealers-26, .1. Knight, 11./21017 under Needwooo, Staltimishire, draper-2N, .1. H. lietuam, Anther): Nice, Finsbury Square, merchant-7, J. Hunter, Barge Yaid. Budd. rsbmy, merchant—). J. Urr. Barge Yar d, Buckler.buty, merchant.-Jan.lo, W. Kemp, Bath, banker. LAM lATELLICiENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MOSDAY, DEC. 2. bejuts the Lull! Chief Jaialite.) CAttLILE V. PARRINS. This action was hrim4ht by Ricbard Cathie against the defen dant, one of the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, to recover • compensation for loss sustained, in consequence of not selling certain books v,bi h We Sheriffs seized under a writ of lerviari jacias, in plyment of a due imposed un the plaintiff by this court. Mr. Scarlett stated the circumstances to the Jury. It was tin action brought by the plaimilt against the defendant, as .ate Of the late Sheriffs of London, to recover compensation in 4141118ga-is for a loss sustained by the plaiutitf.o consequence of t i.e latter Lae ing negie , oed to sell certain property, seized by boil under a writ of lailior i fit;i4ts, issued from this court iii November, Ibl'. The simple question fur their coosideratioe end determination was, wbether‘the Sheriff had a right to seize the property of the plaintiff— to Jeep the property in his own 1. 1.....5, and never brio' it to sa!e, thus depriving the ualurtunate loan of those iesoorces to which be looked for the liquidation 11.1 a hoe to which be bad been sentenced, and consigning him t•. prison for life. He bid received sentence of imprisonment two years, and was also ordered to pay a hue of 1,0001. a... 1 to be further imprisoned till such fine he paid. Inoue i:itately on the passing of this sentence a writ of lussiori facia, se es issued, directed to the then Sheriffs, Mr. Bothwell, who had since died, and Mn. Parkins. the present defendant. In orderthat toe July might see the duty which Cats writ imposed, he would now tase the liberty of reading it. It cumananded the said Sheriff: the goods amid chattels,and teneinents of iticli.rd Carlile 1 , .) state, stud to cause to be levied thereon the suns of 1,0001. se high it further commanded theta to bring into court, at 11 est viiiister, before a certain day in the ensuing term. Under this M. at time duty of the Sheriffs was plain and simple. They ought h.ive laid bold of the property of Mr. Carlile—have cunt es led it into money, and have paid that mosey into court at the time stipulated.—Tbey had nu business to exercise any sort of judg hielat us to whether it was propel to sell or taut to sell :—They had nu right to exercise any discretion of their own. HI this instance the Slienffs pi oceeded to take the whole of this man's piopem ty. They afterwards sold a very small portion of it, and time remainder they kept in their possession tiff the present mo ment. The return which they made to the writ of leisimri fueuts was this," Toey bad levied certain goods and chattels mat Richard Cathie, amid sold some fur 541. ls.-211. Gs. of which they had paid for two gnat tern d iekVll, ■std 31. 4s. fur expence of ale. The rest piffle goods (they added) they did nut feel niselves justified in selling, and they remained in their hands to be disposed of as the court should direct." Amongst other vs marks were 23 copies of the Bishop of Llaudall's Defence of toe. Bahia, than which a more pious or a more useful work in support of the Christian religion did nut exist. It was an answer in fact to the celebrated work of Thomas Paine, and contained ar:unieuts of the purest ■nd most unobjectionable nature.— There were several other works squally free from question, and the whole was of the value of two thousand parotids, had they been sold at the time of seizure. Haring retained the :overly in his own hands, and hating thereby deprived the plam.itt of the means of paying time penalty imposed upon him, I.e t Mr. S.) felt a confident hope that the Jury would, by their vet diet, 'liter loin that he had acted in oppusitiou to ht► own interests as well as to the law of time land. Mr. Hayward the pl‘intili 's attorney. was then railed, and produced so elLaitotted copy of the writ oi laviari facias, cireetvd to the defendant, and also a city of his return. Chiorles Brown poled the baltllfe of the plaintiff's property in November, 1819. Mr. Janice Griffiths, bookseller, had examined the schedule annexed to the !Olefin's return, and valued the books there described at 14401. He excluded in this tolnation the works which hod been prosecuted us libellous. Many of these *mks were celebrated in the annals of 11;eiitrue, awl were to he found in every huokseller's shop in Lonro.. This was the plaintilrls Case. Mr. H.Cooper add d the Jury on the part of the defen &tut, contending that the plaiutill hail no tight to recover, as to he kid laid Ly without taking any steps, %OHM, he ought to Lave done, to accelerate t.e ale by the Shetill". The eu iiiiii on iid ordinary proceeding in midi a (*SC was to ripply to the court for the writ Venda/tone eapcarts, which would hate compelled the :theta, to NO. Nu v., nra,es were calh,d for the defendant. The Chief Justice t 4 .1.1 tht Juo, th.a sr the Sherili delayed a salt, %beech! the goods weer deteriorated in value, lie was unduubteftly linl.le io an action, unless rcaannable cause could bc an folbutue to sell. It wan lot the THE NATIONAL Ri rISTER Jury to decide, looking at the schedule of the works, wheth I.: 'there was such reasonable ground. The Jury retired, and returned a verdict foe the plaintiff— ighD es, oaf skating . ; Sua g l:tift,l shillings. %, fiCetrr m W AMMAN AND WILLIAMS. This action was brought against the defendants, who filled the Ohm. of Sheriffs of London and Middlesex in Inlo, to recover a loss sustained by neglect, on the part of the Sheriff's officer, to take good securities to a replevin bond. The plaintiff, • broker, WAS employed by a Indy, named Woolf, to deatrain at premises occupied by a Mr. Magrath, in Widbee.k-street, for arrears of rent, amounting to 221. The goods were accordingly uistrained to the amount of 701. and the defendant sued out a replevin. The plaintiff having traversed, obtained judgment for Mrs. Woolf. He then applied to the Sheriff's officer for delivery of the good., or the bond taken by the defendants. They handed over the bond, having Mr. Haynes, a tide-waiter, at fuer shillings per day, wages, and Mr. Mabberley, coach-maker, securities to the amount of HRH. The plaintiff refused to take bond, considering the securities not in a state of solvency, and brought this action. Several witnesses proved that Mr. Mahherley's credit was not good soon after his name was attached to the bond. Mr. Marryatt, for the defendant contended that the Sheriff's officer Gill, who teJk the bond, bad no reason to suppose, in 11119, that Mr. Matibeley's credit was laid, and therefore he was justified in taking the bond. The Lord Chief Justice held, that if a Sheriff's officer does not nee diligence in taking good securities to a bond, the Sheriff is liable. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 701. TIM KING V. BUST. This was an indictment against the defendant, for assaulting Henry Augbfie, on the eleventh of April last. According to the evidence the prosecutor, who bad some dealing with the defendant in the corn line, went to hie shop in Holborn, where Burt carries on the business of a maker of straw bonnets. He saw him in a back parlour. Aughtie said be wanted a proper bill ; there was something wrong opal the face of that which he had. The defendant then took him by the collar and violent.y drove him out to the street under the hack ney coaches. The witness got up again, went to the door, and said, "Is this all I get when I apply for my right 1" The defendant then seized him again, and struck him several blows in various parts of the body. His mouth bled, and be was so much injured that lie could not follow his business for seven weeks; he was obliged to walk with a stick. The defendant was as big a man as Gregson the boxer. Cross-examined by Mr. Andrews.—He was sober. He did not say, " Tom Burt, you are a awindler." He did not put himself in a fighting posture, nor accuse the defendant of be longing to an infernal gang in Bridge street. John Jones, a porter at th.: George and Blue Boar, said he saw the defendant pushing the prosecutor into the street. The prosecutor fell, and the defendant lell on him. He did not hea Aughtie use any abusive language. Mr. Andrews addressed the Jury for the defendant, and con tended his client was justified in what be had done. Elizabeth York, the defendant's set vent, proved that Aughtie was drunk when he came into the shop. He asked for a proper hill. The defendant told him to go to his aline and examine the books. Aughtie called Lim a cheat and a scoundrel, and re • fused to go oat when ordered to leave the house. He went up to the tea table, and struck the defendant. Mr. Bart then took him by the collar and turned him out of the parlour into the shop. The prosecutor was afterwards into the strett. Garlic, the defendant's shopman, end li ettred to prove that Aughtie bad made him promise to give a false account of the transaction, saying, lie would make him a present for so doing. The witneins added, that lie signed • paper, (produced) which was dictated by Aughtie. He however, declared the whole contents of the paper to be false. The witness was severely censured by the Judge for signing what he knew to be lase. Aughtie heing called again, declared that he had never dic tated the contents of the paper. The Jury found the defendant guilty. WEDNESDAY, DEC. 4. COOPER V. GARRAT, ESQ. D ANOTHER. . This was an action by the plaintiff, a coach-maker, residing in Oxford-street, against the late Sheriffs of London and Mid dlesex. It appeared that the plaintiff bad let to hire, in May, 1820, ■ batuuclie to a man named Ashby, a stable-keeper, against whom ao execotion having issued, this carriage a as taken along with Ashby's goods. and sold by auction, notwithstanding no tice had been given by the plaintiff to the auctioneer that the carriage:was his property. Evidence was called to prove tbet Ashby hal hired the car riage. and bad made stveral payments on account. The Jury, tinder his Lordship's direction, found a verdict for the plaintiff —Damages, 211.105. S 3 FROM TUESDAY A'IGHT`S GAZETTE. WHITSHAI.I.. DEC. 3. ••• It • The King has been pleased to nominate and appoint theaoder mentioned Officers to be Knights Coomenders of tbs ure Honourable Military Ofeervi 114 80ah1... • ie - 14;MeGeviemd Su William Rear Grium Mayor General James Camph...ll, la.e of the 94th Regiment of Foot. Nlejor General Lionel Smith. of the f.Stli Regiment of Foot. Maor General 1 heophilus Primer, of the 13th Regiment of Light Dnoprons. CROWN OEPICE. MEMBER returned to serve in this present PARLIAMENT. University in Cambridge.—Wm. Julio Hamm., Esq. in the room of John Henry south, U. Q. deceased. YOVNG V. HARLING. This action was !nought by the plaintiff, a widow and admi nistratrix, to ricover 501. alleged to have been Nut by her deceased husband to (he defendant. Wells, the plaintiff's father, an old man, proved that the husband had made his daughter, the plaintif, pencil down what ►ums were owing to the deceased. On his cross-examination by Mr. Gurney, this witness ad mitted that his daughter, the plaintiff, was served for several years to James Young, the deceased, who, being eitremely ill, came to London, and was married to witness's daughter only 24 hours before be died. Mr.Cuiney, fur the defendant, contended that this was no thing hut a conspiracy between the father and daughter. The Lord Chief Justice observed, the question for the lacy was, the credit they would give to the evidence of t►e father of the deceued, as opposed to the testimony of thin father of the widow. The interest of both the fathers in the cause; his Lordship observed, was nearly equal; and the one was as likely to be biassed in his testimony as the other. The Jury would say to which of the stories credit attached. The Jury, without hesitation, found for the plaintiff.—Da mages 451. and costs. WADE •. DEVALS. This was an action against the defendant for assiatiag Is a fraudulent removal of goods. The statute of Geo. 11. pro vides, that any person fraudulently removing goods, or mist in the removal of goods to evade payment of feat, shall be liable to pay double the value of the gouda so remover]. The defendant's son bad rented a house belonging to the laiutdr, iu the oighbourbood of Burton Crescent. Arresetv of rent being due, the landlord was preparing to diet's* sad Mr. Detail thought proper to remove the goods claadeatiatly. A rail drew up to his doer, at five in the morning, and War loaded was thawing The watchman refused to allow the an to proceed, and knocked up a broker in the neighbourbond, supposing he had some claim for parish rates. The broker had no orders to stop the goods, but knowing the plaiutilf, he fol lowed the van to Danube°, where the goods were received by the defendant, and placed in a loft. The plaintiff followed the goods to distrain and the defendant denied they were in his house. T IllritiblffAsir were 'lowlier discovered, and so ld for 141. rest Le btlimelMacit'st,°Mn.r. Marrystt said th e 'pl was entitled to double the v a l ue o f th e goo d s ; but if the de f rodent agreed to pay the arrears of rent, amounting to 271 a verdict for that sum was all the plaintiff required. Mr. Gurney on the part of the defendant. consented to that proposal, and the Jury found a verdict for Ibl. which included money paid by the landlord fur tales. •ILLS Y. HURST. The plaintiff, who keeps a lodging. house in Mortimer-street, Cavendish-square, brought his action to recover 751. for lodg ings. Iliquors, and provisions supplied to the defendant. It appeared by the defence to the action, that the whole of this demand occurred at a period when the defendant was under age, and the right of the plaintiff to recover, word spun thy credit due to the plaintiff s housekeeper, who proved a pro• mire on the part of the defendant to pay when he came of age.. - The Learned Judge left the Jury to decide on the question, whether a promise was made to pay after the defendant came of age. _ _ The Jury found a verdict for the plaintilT—Diouages EVERY V. FLIGHT. This action was brought by the plaintiff, who was a linen draper in Marchmont-street, Russell-square, to recover from the defendant, a livery•stable keeper, a born of 621. for goods delivered to his wife. Mr. Flight had turned his wife out of doors, and refused even to deliver her clothes to her friends who applied for them, and therefore she was obliged to provide herself with more, fur which the law made her husband The defence was, that the wife had forfeited her claim to prusi ■ion from her husband by adultery. The !iord Chief Justice said that it was absolutely necessary for the plaintiff to show that the wile was excluded from her husband's house, without clothes: because otherwise this large quantity could not be necessaries, for which alone, in my case, the husband would be liable. There were only two cases in which a man was liable for goods rupplied to his wife ; one was the ordinary case where the parties were living together, at,d the goods ordered by the wife were sent home, in which case assent was presumed ; and the other was, where the husband turned his wife away without cause, and then made biniself liable for necee..aries suitable to her station. Now, to show a prima facie liability, the evidence of Mr Chambers was neces sary; and that evidence must be taken altogether, as disclosing the cause for which Mr. Flight excluded his wife from his house, and refused to pay the debt she had contracted. The plaintiff was nonsuited. BUNN V. DUNKIN. This action was brought to recover the sum of 391.75. 6d. had and received by the defendant to the plaintiff's use. It appeared in evidence, that in Ibl4 Miss Dunkin, the de• readmit kept a school at Maidstone, the terms of which were '46 guineas a year. To which school Mrs. Burn sent tette of her daughters, and for some reason which did not appear, paid 50 guineas in advance for two years. After Miss Burn bad re mained biz 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 bearing the alarm. She found the canaille in Limes, and was so alarmed that she was taken ill of a fever, wet.: home, and ►hortly after died. This action was now brought to recover a proportionate part of the 50 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 fur which the money was ad vanced bad nut wholly failed, the plaintiff could nut recover at in this forts of action ; and he referred in support of his objt c lion, to the case of " Taylor •. Hare," 1 Bus. and Pul. hew Melt. 260. The Lord Chief Justice observed that the payments for hoard and instruction at *shoo' were made at regular intervals, aid therefore, in his judgment, were so divisible as to support the action in its present form. lie would however, take the opinion of the Jury on the question of .act, whether the agreement was for two years at all events, or for two years if the parties sLould live. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 391. 7s. 6d. The Lord Chief Justice did not rise till fire o'clock, and in timated, Thai in consequence of the arrear of business. and its slow progress, he should continue to take causes to that hour on future days. It was also suggested that the rem t would sit at nine, iu the sittings alter the summer term. THURSDAY, DEC, 5. CO/FEE-HOUsE NAITERY.—PAGE V. E ACKF.T T. The Common Sergeant stated, that the defendant is propriefinr of the Cocoa Tree, in St. J 111110 6 .11 street. This kenos' was brought by the plaintiff as bead-waiter, to recover fur amt and labour the sum of 401. odd. It would appear that the agreement was, that the plaintiff should babe 1001. per &maim for Lis situation, and receive a shillth; from each gentleman of the club who dint.: there. It was a part of the agreement that the plaintiff should be at liberty to attend the races, dc. James Long—Has now succeeded as head-waiter at the Cocoa Tree, in the room of the pleintiff; does not know what Page's salary was; witness has a guinea ■ week ; has heard Hackett say he paid Page 1001. a year. During the time Page was there witness never knew him 'sr go to diewmarket, but has known him to go to Doucaster for a week or ten days.— Remembers in November last his going to Brighton, he had not been that year to any races. During hi■ absence witness became bead-waiter. About seven weeks after Page returned from Brighton to the Cocoa Tree. and saw Mr. Hackett.— Beside:. the 1001. a year, witness and he dit ided the shillings,. Each subscriber paid the master ten guineas a year; the master charged the shillings in his bill ; when Page left there were 320 shillings due to him. Cross examined by Mr. Scatlett.s—The plaintiff west to Brighton, in the service of some gentlemen of the club ; for this lie received a guinea a day—it was to set up • public-house at Brighton ; and if it succeeded he was to have • genera a day. lie was going to keep, not a liszard-table or gaming-house, het what witness called • Fremeh horse. The master did not pay the waiters their shilliugs until the gentlemen paid their bilk. Witness collected some of the mosey from Hackett ; but plain tiff could slut receive a part. Sonic payments had been re ceived, amounting to 50s. i this reduced the account doe. 1 he 320 shillings were calculated liom the books. William Wakeland was porter at the Cocoa Tree—was present when the plaintiff returned from Brighton—heard Mr. Itsckett call on him to bring his account, and Mit he had no further occasion for his services, adding that lie lied g iven hint leave to go to the country, but did not mean he should come back again. James Bush, another wailer at the Cocoa Tree, rein, inherit plaintiff bringing his account, but did not hear w hat Defendant said be gave trim leave to go to Brighton, but did not give qini Lave to come back. The Lord Chief Justice.—The shallop are out order question. f t