The National Register. — London, England, 1821-12-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MONDAY, DEC. 3. DAVIS e. DlNDaltr. The parties in this case were clicesemongers, the plain tiff residing in Vere-street, Clare-market, and the defen dant in Gray's-inn-lane, sad the action was brought to recover damages for a l oss sustained by giving credit to a person stained Ford, in consequence of a false character which the defendant gave that individual, for the alleged purpose of enabling him thereby to discharge a debt due from hint to the defendant. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff proved, that in July, 184`0, Ford applied to Davis to be supplied with goods, stating that tip to 11tat time he had dealt with [Lindley, but in consequence of' Ilindley not having suffi cieut stork to supply him, he wished to purchase goods of the plaintiff. He referred to Hintlley for character, who climb' sued all that he bad stated. In reply to the plaintiff's inquiries Ilintlicy said, there was no standing account bete cell hum stud Find, and that Ford only owed him for two tut , of butter, -clutch were to be paid for the Monday following. lie addial, that Ford was trust-worthy. Upon this rep est niation the plaintiff was induced to give him credit to a cousiderable amount. In December following Ford was arrested by a creditor, and ultimately, on the gib of Match, went up to take the benefit alike Insolvent Act, when he was adjudged by Vise Court to be liberated after eighteen months' imprisonment. At that time the defendant claimed to be creditor to the amount of tO6I. and flit tier acknowledged that the debt was due at the time lie was represented to have said Ford owed him nothing evo•ept tor two tubs of huller. The balance due front Ford to the plaintiff was 1771. and that sum lie sough I to I CeilVt•l 110111 the defendant in this action. Mr. Alm rpm, for the defendant, contended that his client had never given Fold the character here repre sented, and also that et edit hail not been given Ford upon what the defendant said. 'flue plaintiff called on a tradesmau named flemmines, with whom Ford also dealt, to ascertain his character foul that person.—That pay ment to the amount of had been made by Ford to the plaiiititi at dittieseal times between July and December, and thot in tact. file JosV,, alter lirariug the evidence and the summing UV (CUM hit! Judge, found a verdict fur the elaiutiff— Damages 12:1. TUr.I.DAY, DEC. 4. CIIIIIUTIE U. CLARE. This was rim action to recover 1401. toe amount of credit Rtcea to a person named Knight, by the plaintia; uu the improve, t hararter given hint by defendant. It appeared that at the time Clark recommended Knight, 25a titim-n arta? persim, he knew hint to be deeply invoked n debt, and that tie in fact was a creditor to a coni.i.lernble amount. Witnesses were c died to contradict this statement; but the Jury found fur the iges 1401. IT•SLEY U. DODD. This was t: gni tam action on the statute of the faith of t h e late King, it such provides that any Ov. rsee r, Gisaidian, ur Governor of the Poor, nr coy other person, directly or tu directly, concerned to the expenditure of the parish money, who should foruith any article unsaid, the supply of the poor, with u view to profit, should become thereby liable to a penalty of lOW. This defendant sus an inhabitant lot Bethnal Green, a cow keeps r, and the eh irge against him was, that he beings' qualified governor of the poor, had furnished the poor house with milk. It appeared from the evidence, that by the local-act for the regulation of the poor of t h at parish, any pari-hioner bolding to the amount 01801. per annum, might, on sending in xis qualificatiou to the i•estr clerk, become and act as a governor of the poor. The defendant hid been so o•lahlied, hut had not acted for the last I wu years, ■nd it was noo loosed !hot the master of the o (irk hou-e had sent one of the proper: , daily to the defendant': llmbe, for about six months of the time, for two tout , . of milk for the use of the pauper children, which was paid tut quarterly by the parish. This was the breach of tee act alleged against the defendant. A tin miser of witnesses were called, among whom was the master of the work house, is 110 stated, that i.s it was di,crtli o omey with him to send where he pleased, he had sent to the defendant, because he had got the milk cheaper and better. The ChiefJustiee said, the net in question was a most wise one; but, in his opinion, this case was nut Within its meaning. There au► tilt contract, on the contrary, a person omit to purchase of the defend tit, without any solicitation on his part t and it would he a hard matter indeed to suliject a tradesman to a penalty of MI. because he, bring a qualified governor, might inadvertently serve a pauper with a poun d of cheese or au cause of tea. His Lordship also marls doubted w hether thr defelotant, not having acted for the last two year., could be considered as a governor at all.—Plain tillnun-suited. WEDNISDAY, DEC. S. Roams V. BARTON. This was an action to recover bBl. 10'. for work and labour. The defendant paid 501. into Court. Tie plain titi, au auctioneer, was, in Ito 3, applied to by the defen dent's solicitor to know what would be the eavense of putting up an estate, sheeted its Gloucester, the property or the defend:int, to auction in London. The plaintiff stated, that to do the thing properly, ndtertising, &c. in cluded, woosid he 101. besides Isis coniiiiission; tint should the estate l;c bought in, be should charge as low as pos sible. This statement of the plaintiff's was made known to the defeudant, and the advertisements, particulars, &e. were published. The plaintiff afterwards stigge•ted that it was desirable he should see the property, but the deft agent objected to the expellee of a journey down. The plaintitr, however, said the expesice would be but trifling us he was going to that part of the country, and would turn a.i Iv and look at the property. He at Curilingly did au, bu t ultimately the property was not sold b', him. Soon atter the plaintiff tran.mitted his account, amounting to btil, I is. to the defendant's agent, and re min ded him the account was out settled. In reply to this letter he hail one from the defendant, apologising for killing suffered the account to stand over so long, but said it was owing to the delay and disappottit meat he had et.perienced in getting the perallase moues for the estate in question, but that he expected tOOll in Ile in town, and would then settle it. Defendant afterward, came to town, aid plitintitr 's son called 011 hint ; he again offered the saute exeitse, but said he would pay the bill its 110{111 as 1112ibill, and Ai length the Oriental brought the present action. The defence set sip was ► that the plaintiff's bill was an oiercharge. He 114t1 said that the *:pence wohld THE NATIONAL REGISTER exceed 401. and defendant had now paid 501. into Court, the additional 101. being to defray the charge of 'plaintiff's going down to view the estate. The Chief Jnstice left it to the Jury to say, whether the defendant had not, by his repented promise to pay, ad. nutted the plaintiff's demand of &A. I Is. If not, they would say what was ■ fair rem u neration to the plaintiff for his trouble. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 701. ss. costs 40s. sugamoon e. ciAns. The plaintifi, a parson in trade, biought his action against the defendant, to recover damages for a loss sus tained by a false character given a person named Williams by the defendant. It appeared that the defendant described the said Wil liams to be an honest man. and trust worthy, in conse quence of which the plaintiff was induced to give him credit fur goods. 'flue plaintiff lost his debt, and lie now undertook to prove that the defendant knew, at the time lie gave the character, that Willi:1111A had been a bankrupt. The concealment of that fact had occasioned the plaintiff's loss, and it became a question fin the consideration of the Jury, uliether the defendant had concealed the fact from fraudulent mutivet. . . the Jul', tinder all the circumstances, found a verdict for the plaintitt—Damages, I till. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONDAY, DEC. S. BLAKE U. ohnoitse. This was an action to recover back SS guineas paid by This was an action to recover back 35 g as paid by the plaintiff, a,t attorney, residing in Essex-street, in the Strand, to the defendant, a livery stahle keeper, for ■ horse, warranted soimil, which afterwards proved un sound. The plaintiff purchased the horse at the &feu dant's stables on the 2let of September last. A gentleman, named Best, who was with the plaintiff, observed at the time that the horse was a screw (lame) in the near fore leg. The defendant said it was of no cotiseopience, the horse was sound, and if the plaintiff did not like hint, lie might return him any time within six months, and he would give him I t guineas for him. Upon this represent ation the plaintiff became the purchaser, and took the horse first a journey into Essex, and afterwards into Sussex, when the *Monal tinned out to be lame. The plaintiff returned the horse on the filet of October, having previously ascertained from Mr. Sews", the veterinary surgeon, that lie sets lame at the time of sale. The defence was, that the plaintiff had not returned the horse in s:x days, according to certain conditions of sale put tip in his yard. The Chief Justice left the tpiestion to the Jury on this point, namely, whether the trans.oction had been an abso lute sale, or a contract binding the plaintiff to return the horse within the time named. . The July,under all the circumstances, found a verdict for the pinigititi. Damages 40:. costs 40s. LURED VW, nue. 4. CHIN. COY.-PENNIN•TON V. LOWE. 111 r. F. Pollock imentil the pletrum4s. He said this action was brought by the plaionlf, Heneage Oglevie Pennington, rigaimi Joseph Palmer Lowe, to recover damages fur crimi nal conversat 1111 l with the plan.int's wife. Sergeast Pell suited theca-e. 'flue-Jury had heard from his Learned Friend that the union was brought by the plaint ilLigainsi Mr. Lowe, the defendant; to recover damages fur csiminal coovergition with his wife. 'Elie situation of the plaintill• of bite years had been very distressing, null the injury he complained of had been aggravated by the advans taken 01;1111, Utifilli.Utiale slate. 111 180:1, the plaintiff, being a widower, without children, married the lady whose euiseimiloct gave rive 10 the at iioll. She War the daughter of a gentleman intuited Al will. Mr. Pennington was $4, and his wife SE They lived together several years in domestic happiness. It happened untOrtuuately (hut Mr. Pennington entered into she connexion without the consent of his Nile'. father, and the jury would find the family dislike continued to the year I 8 1 I.—They had four or live children, and 5)111 of them wus owned Ellen Lowe Pennington. 'file plaintiff ofter his marriage, curried on the business of a coat-merchant, with peat credit to himself; but he became unfortunate; his badness failed, and he became involved in difficulties.— At that time he was living in perfect Igirmony with wife, and upplicut• rag made to her father, Mr. Alain, for assistailer. He aus willing to assist him, hut only on one condition, namely, that Mr. Peimiugton and his wife should no longer live together. At that time Mr. Lowe had not only become intimate with Mr. Peniiington, but professed to be 11th friend. Ile had h e. it uti :Lb.311.1.011 at a 6C:1001, is nes ehe became ncquainted with Mr. Ala in , the bi other of Mrs. Pennington, lay wham he was introduced to the piano lit 1I is manners being those Of a gentleman, he front it common at quaintniice became It triend and sistor of Mr. Pennington. lit 1612 the plaiindf and 1115 wife lived sepa iterate from each other. lianntitititely on their icirtiliA, Mrs. Pennington lived in a house belonging ti, her hither, ill Batterseuvlields. After resitlie4 there• mune time her father died, and iu ISIS, she remised to Ounsime-place. in the Wandsworth road. She again reitimed to Woodford, a here she h►ed with her MO( her. Mud) about this lime it was ola served that Mr. Lowe had tie-inns un Mrs. Pennington, hos tile to her peace, mid in eini-entience of what had passed at the house of Mts. Alsviu, that lady was so digvutisfied, that she would not permit her to reside in the hOuse. She Weal to reside lit Thayden 1101,, near Epping, in IS Is.— Mrs. Pennington there declared her intention to go to Southend, for the ben tit of her health. She left Thasclen Bois accuritimly, and on her return on the Sd Nov. 1519, she had an Imam child. Ili coincquence of some motion obtained ftinn the maid servant who had been employed ht Thay den 130 . 0 by Mir. Pennington and Mr. Lowe, the plaintiff was led to the clearest proof of the adultery. It would appear that alto leaving Thayden Bois, where she lived a ith AL s. Pennington, instead of lu oceeding to Southend, she a ithelrew to a Slll4ll house el Wanstedii, at no great distance from the residence She bad quitted, and there was delivered of the child she had carried home, on the Sd of November. It would be in proof that Mr. Lowe, the defendant, took the house at Wanstead. He passed for an officer on lialipay, and the husband of Mrs. Pennington, mid in that very honse, wi der Isis protection, Mrs. Pennington was delivered. It would be proved that at this house the parties slept to gether as wife, au that there could be no doubt Mr. Lowe had effected his purpose. The circumstances which led to a more minute discovery of the adultery were of a curious description. It the•ned that *here guilt existed, it %sunlit be brought to light. The medical gentleman, who attended Mrs.l eemingion thultglit he had ecru that Isily some ,here, but could net tell where:—' Not lot g after her delivery, as he was walking through, . . Epping Forest. lie met the plaintiff, who on bearing that his wife had miscusiduted herself with the defendant, was endeavouring to get sonic intelligence with respect to her residence. A erinversation ensued, and Mr. Mae. done!, the medical gentleman, knew that the lady wa. Mrs. Y gton. He recolketed having attended her when she was mister the protection of her husband. Im mediately after Mr. Pennington obtained clear proof of his wife's infidelity, lie commenced proceedings which terminated in the inquiry before the jury this day.— Within forty eight hours after he bad brought his action, the defendant hail the impudence, as well as the cruelty, to line the injured husband for a pretended debt of 1114 fur necessaries supplied his four children whilst the aife lead been living with him, a ithout the least knowledge on the hart of the bustiand of the fast. The jury might picture to themselves what must be the feeling of a hus band alien lie found 1111111dr ari eqed by an adulterer, fur so large a sum as 1111. This tieing the nature of the case, he had only to say a few surds on the subject of the in gully. He had said in the onset, that the parties were nut living together, and it had been a question of slight importance, whether an action or tills description could he maintained by a husband separated from his wife.— He was of ()pillion the action might be sustained, but the Learned Jll.lO. %Mild slut deride that question. If the decision should be against the plaintiff the defendant would escape: but in case the action was maintainable, the jury would notunly leave him to the compunctious visiting. of conscience, but say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to receive. They wonld consider the de fendant standing in the situation of a false friend, and the the Inflict' of the four children:—damages to a large amount would be no compensation for the wound inflicted upon ti;s client. The Learned Sergeant then John Kilvingtun was present at the marriage of the plaintiff and his wife at Paddington church. He gave her away, He visited after they were married. They appeated to live happily. Mr. Raymond, the Parish Clerk, produced the Register of Paddington Parish, by which it appeared that the plaintiff and Miss Alwin were married on the 10th of January, 1806. Lieut. Franklin of the Royal Navy, said be bad been acquainted with the plaintiff from his infancy. In 1811, about three years after his marriage, he visited him, and no couple could appear to live happier. Mr. Pennington's conduct was that of a regular decent man. Mr. P. at this time was about 45. They lied four children living in the house. Mr. Francis Alwin, the brother of Mrs. Pennington, said his sister was about St when she married. Mr. P. was about 35; lie was a coal-merchant. His faintly con sisted of lune children, fwo boys and two gills. The youngest of the gills was named Ellen Lowe Pennington. Mr. Lowe was teacher at the school where witness was. Some tiara after witness left school lie met Mr. Lowe at Kennington ' and renewed his intimacy. lie introduced hint to his btother and sister, and his visits were conti nued to the time of the separation. Mr. and Mrs. Pen nington lived happily together. He lied seen Mr. P. in toxicated, but very seldom. When they separated, it was the separation of persons, who appeared to wish to come together again. Mrs. Pennington resided with the wit netts after the separation, and removed to Dun-sue-place. His fattier died a year after the separation. Mrs. P. then lived with her mot hex, at Woodford, about twelve months after she left her husband. Soon after the father's death the plaintiff wrote a letter to bring about a meeting with his wife. Ilia object was to live with her again. Ann Liltor said site lived at Watistead. Mr. Lowe, in August, 1820, engaged apartments in her lionse. It was the 12th of August. He took possession a week after. He took them as a married man. He cattle alone to take the lodging, and a week after he brought Mrs. Lowe, as he called her. He also brought a child, whom lie called Ellen. They slept together, said passed for man and wife. He came occasionally, and they went up stairs together. to one town. In September she was fictive' ed by a medi cal maii, named Macdoual. The little girl, Ellen, was between four and five years of age. Cross-examined by Sergeant Bosanquet.—The wlint as never saw them hi bed, but she sass him an out of the bed room in the inoining, atter reinaiiiing there all night. Mr. Alexander Nlaciloird, a surgeon at Wansteud, said he knew Mr. Lowe. Ile app,ord 10 witness, aheut the mom of September, 1820, to attend a lady, whom lie caltrel Mrs. Lon e. That person was delivered of a child, a gill. The witness undet stand the lady was his wife. The w ei nes. had see ti the lady before, but at lint did not know a here. lie saw the child Eller:. lie met .Ir. Pennington, in le bruary or Nlatch last, in the Fore,t, going to Walistead.— l'he witness recollected the lady was Nits. Pennington of Itanksidet he it id formerly attemled the family, in the at,. settee of Mt. owd, a medical man i.i Ulackfritirs road. This was the pl on ills r ase. Mr. Seagram Vaughan then addressed the Jury, but de• clown calling Liner Justice U.dlas, having, adverted to the facts of Cie case, observed, that the uniform good behaviour of the lolanda' to hi, ade had been proved by all I tie witnesses.— At the same lone the Jury had to comet., a hasher the e.,- cumstance of leaving a wife ea p o sed to the attacks of nth. r men did not reduce Ms !aim t., daatag.s ? The Jury retired from the Mix, and on their return found a verdict for iii.• plaintiff—Damages 2501. RVADNEADAII, DEC. 1. STAFFORD O. HAMSTUMI. This was an action brought by the Commissioners of Sewers, to tty the liability of the defendant, alto res.kles near Knighisurillgr, to pay his proportion of rates for making and cies its, the Kni4ltistsrulge and llrontplk it sewers, which run tit, mush Hyde Pat k. The cause It id been opened, and two a itnesses examined, alien Al r. Langley, of the Edgeware road, a es ntleknalk hetwk en s ) add 90, who was on the special Jnry, was taken ill. ik left the box, and endeavoured to recover himself wait ciently to it some his situation,hut was unable to Oct again as Juror. . _ Ihe learned Judge, with great humanity, dist.. ti , e I %%Oh the gentleman's (nutter attendance, ae.• and infirmities made him wloAly Until to 1111:111'0. as u jam,. %lr. Sergeant Leos, Counsel for the defendant, then offered to proceed with the eleven remaining .11trors, blot Sergeunt Hu!lurk, also cou,luetetl the case, it lasi,' In nice to that proposal. • I ' he Judgesaid he could not go on after thi. tefusul of the plaintiff to pi (weed. Cliiel * Joss:ier. 13.111 as then oidetud the Jury Id be di,. charged, al. er some cortycrsati. , n itlCi'tit CUIIIISeI, the cattle WAN 01‘111C.i to he tit,iJe u ren.ruciti fur ;1.41 1..• sitting* after neat 'lron. • S.