The National Register. — London, England, 1822-02-24 00:00:00

t that the references to the places from whence they had been quoted were not—and on this variance the plaintiff was nousuited. TUC-ntY, Fill. 19. SPORTING CAUsE.--WOOOROFVE V. lIELPS The plaintiff, a loss student, residitr.; in I.,.icesterslitre, brought his ae.loll against the defend:on, a dealer in dre:,,, residnig i.e Edgeware-rued, to recover the slim of 1:1l. pant fur a setter doe, named lionaur, which tile deicudaut crud muted true bred. 'Elie ease was stated by Mr. Gurney, who called several witnesses to move the dog was not stautieli. The warranty of the. dog was admitted. Mr. Scarlett, fur the defendant, contended that the dog in question was trite lured at the time he was sold, and called the following witnesses : John Smith, fOrint . l I y a servant to the plahnilf, said he remembered the iloig cot ,to Dee by, with Ills master, nit the Bth of April. They omit out to Icy the dog, witiifour others. Ilunour behaved well. They found three or l our brace of parreideo, and the dog pointed out live times in the cour.e of day. lle went with Captain Allen, a s porting the ' who took Monate, tied three utter dugs. They found several coves, anti although the tither dogs ran assay from the birds, Mintier remained steady. The wit new was present when the do,g ass pthchaseti of the defen dant. 11. s coaster neat out shouting ono other geini:nevn, i t ud tou k the dog with thin, In the opinion of the oitueLs It was us guild a dos as ever wes sliJI over. captain Allen, net officer, who had been accustomed to the sports of the held from the time he was able to bear a gun, stated, that lie weet not with the plaintiff, Juhei Smith, and others, to try tea: deg.—llonour appeal. d to him to be ft well broke in dog. Honey Adams, under gamekeeper to Lord Searborongli, said, be broke in the dog which WAS the subject of the action. The dog was as good as any in England. lie went from the witness to one Mattocks, who cave him to a boatman at Derby, from whom he went to the defend ant. Mr. Gurney in reply, contended, that the question was, whether he was a staunch setter tel the (low the plaintiff bungld him. If he was tint, lie did not attswer the war ranty, and the plaiutaf WAY entitled to recover back the money paid. The Lord Chief Justice called the attention of the Jury to the question, whether reasonable-notice had been given, and set Oliiily, whether it appeared upon the evidence that the dog was su well Woke in as to be able to point well with strange dogs ? if they thought, tinder all the Mr. stances, that the dog answered the warranty, they ought to find a verdict for the defendant; if it did nut, the litaintitY would be entitled to recover. The Jury found a verdict for pl. ' •ff—Damages 181. WtONESDAY, FE8.20. WOW) V. aIItEET, JUNIOR. This was an action bronglit by the plaintiff to recover a compensation in damages for a serious loss, occasioned by now•pec lot matter: of an agreement. Mr. Williams lead the declaration, by which it appeared that the deri admit promised for a Certain consideration, to employ the plaintif f as printer of a certain newspaper, for a ceel.llll lime, at a stipulated price. It went on to state, that although the plaintiff was really to do the business accui ding to agreement, the defendant ceased to employ Min.—Tutu defendant rictus J that he made the above prontise. On the r e commendation of the Lord Chief Justice, the parties finally agreed to icier the question to a gentleman at the bar. 'flee Jury under the direction of the Judge, found a verdict fur the plaintif f , with 4.1001. damages, subject to refeteuce. RATS V. MESSRS. HODGES. This action was brought by Anise Hate, widow, agates Messrs. Hodges, respectable distillers, to recover Use sum of bi. 13s. 3d. Ming ass over payment of money she had paid to the clerk of the del cud:nits fur goods sold by theist for her use. The question was, whether she had paid 251. of the money on account of a debt due front her deceased hus band, or whether she paid it on account of goods which were to be supplied to herself. Mr. Searlett stated the ease. The plaintiff was the wi dow of a victualler, who kept a politic house, in White Lion-street, Seven Dials, anti the defendants supplied her late husband with spit its. Her husband having been backward in Isis payments, his credit with the defendants was restricted, and they gave notice they could supply no souse goods without cash. Mr. Bate stied some time since, leaving a person, nanted Csowder, Isis executor, who finding her ill bad circumstances, lent her *451. to go on with the business on her own account. Knowing the defendants would not supply her without cash, site took the money to the desk of the defendants. They took the cash and sent her a supply of goods, but hi the course of her pay smuts 'erased to !end goods fur 81. odd shillings. alleging that vise had made the first payment of '5l. not on her own accuitiit, but on account of her bus band's debt. The Lord Chief Justice left the Jury to consider vs !te ther the plaintiff did yr did Rut pit) Die Yak. on her de cs slut husband's account. The J ury.fuund a-verdict for the defendants. THURSDAY, FEB. 25. STREET W. SMITH AND OTDERS. This was an action against the Hundred of o,sulstone, to re cover in . 14s. the amount of damage done to the office of the Cwurier newspaper, by a tUßlllitallS IVA, which assembled when the 11:11 of Pains and l'euilties against her late Majesty was given up in the !louse of Lords. The breaking of the windows at the Courier office by the mob, had the amount of this repairs b,ing proved, the Jury found a verdict lot the pluintiff—Dainages 551. 14a. cuaral. AND ANOTHER V. TUE INCORPORATED SALE- DON lAN SOCIETY. The plaintiM brow ght their action against the defendant to recover 2711. for minting and publishing some select music. It appeared that a dinner was given at the Freemason's Tavern, is 1015, to promote a charitable institution culled the Caledonian Society, and on that occasion the company were entertained with music. It was arranged soon after that the music should be published and sold for the benefit of the widows and children of Seutchtnen, who were the immediate objects of the Oarity.— The Secretary of the Society accordingly gave the plaintiffs an order to publish it, and after it was done the Society refused to defray the expellee, taking no more than 25 copies of the work. It became a question whether the order hid been given with the concurrence of the Society, and us the plaintiff could not produce evidence to make them liable, he was conauited• FRIDAY, FEB 22. THE KING V. DOLBY. A new Special Jury Navin% bcen uruck by the cow the cause a:auds for :nal first on Tuesday to THE NATIONAL REGISTER The defendant is prosecuted by the Bridge-street Al5O - for the publication of au alleged seditious libel. The case of the King v. Howard and Gibbs was post poned ; as was also the {ins v. Clarke, for the publica tion of Queen Nlab. lit the case of the King v. Lodge and alioilicr, truss-- makers, in the Stroud, fur the repeal of their p,o?ltt for trusses, the prosecutors, Messrs. 54111,101104 nod Co. withdrew the record. RIVERS V. ottlemns. This teas an action to recover a demand fur goods sold and delivered. This question arose ;—first whether a larger sum than 41. 7s, tid, was due to the plaintiff ; and secondly whether the plaintiff demanded payment of more than the sum when the defendant tcnder'd it? The defendant, it appeared, tendered 41. 7s. 6d. and the plaintiff refused it, without demanding any specific sum. Ile merely demanded the balance of Ins account. —lit the pleadings the plaintiff replied, there was no tender, inasmuch as the defendant did not tender the balance, hut 41.75. 6.1. Upon this point the Lord Chief Justice held that the plaintiff should have made a demand tor a specific and as that demand was not made, 1w considered the tender good, quival the unless he could prove a greater sum was due. Mr. Campbell contended that a demand fur the balance due was equivalent to a demand for a specific stun. The Lord Chief Justice.—Mr. Campbell, 1 think otherwise. The learned Jolge. under all the circumstances of the case, left the dory to consider whether the plaintiff had proved he was entitled to more than 41. 7s. 63. If they should be of opinio❑ more than that 5111(1 was due, they ought to find tor the plaintiff. le case no claim was made out to more than that sum, the tender was good, . and the defendant entitled to his verdict. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant. 'lids day the Sonial JuryCanses fixedifur trial afford ed nu information of importance. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. WEDNKSDAY, FEB. 20. EXTRAORDINARY FEUDAL CLAIII.-NATIIANIEL GAR LAND, ESQ. u. JOSEPH JI:KYLL AND TLIOMAS CUM ESQRS. TUE EXECUTORS OF SIR CHARLES fIuNHUttV. This was an action 'iron .:Itt by the plaintiff its Lord of a Manor in F. -es, to It:cover 2,6001. the value ut fourteen hones, which he claimed to be doe 10 hint, VII tltn lit Lail of the late Sir Charles Buttinot y, ii.trt. a• io's. --- Sergeant Pell. fur the plaintiff, (welled the case, and from the evidence it a vile*red Drat the late Sir C. linnhary, of sporting celehtity, held the manor of Wiels's Park, Essex, as cam holder under the plaintiff, who is the Lied of the Manor, and by the feudal customs of it was entitled to the best 'least of the ten,lit on his demise, as a tic riot. It was contended, and evidence adduced, to show that by the divi sion of the Manor the par.s divided became separate estates, swirl that the heriots due an the Curd hail been multiplied, as the estates was separated. The whole h Imo ever, I alten to Sir Charles liuu•aury ; hut it was contended, that the light of the Lord to htn(ls for each of the parts that had been divided still remained the same,-0.1 the death of Sir Charles Ilunbury, in March last, the plaintdf sent his bailiff to Burton, 'war Ncisuouket, tile place where the stud he to Sir Charles was kept, to WlZ:.t wenty-two of the best of them ill satisfaction of lieriots, which he claimed to be h.s m iyht as the Lord. The celebrated horse S ttttt leosko, is Well was the property of Sir Charles, and valued at 13001. was at Yorkshire is hen the bailiff made Ile! SC , Ear e on t lie s•ad, of which lie masked down twenty-two; and a qui st •on arose, whether Sonoleoisko should be included in those to which the pluiotdCwas l odated. Tile Steward of the manor lead the records of the Court flaroio tor wove the ins...ion of the uutotir, and that r thin in lieu ill her•tots Mid been made by the tenants of aetC- rat part:: of thi• Sergeant Lent, for the deftffidant, (untended. tout the cust.iin ut time manor haul not t.een sufficiently pros,-(1, and that the Jot y should be rutty satanic/ liefint they would give a verdict for the on SO cauuwusa CLOW, made under such extraorthisaiy lie nr,:.ned that the plaintiff' was wily entitled to four beriott, and matt make hit election out a thin c JCIZ . 11:11 Barton, near ?imolai het, in which Smolensk° was nut included. A n it lie's, w ho had been griaiii to Sir C. Buubury, proved that in Ain it last the plaintiff's huddle:one down to Burton, and requested to stethe stud allieli view ;rreordingl) shun it him. W lieu he raw tweniy-two of lite bores, he-said that was enough, mid refuv•d to tee any more. He enquired about Smulentko, %Melt w.it that time in V orkshire,, Ser i :cant Pell called evidru, c in rep') , tool contended fur the pl. 'lt's right to 1•1 herioti. Alter a lung legal argument, it was agreed to refer to the J wisps, the question as to the number ut lieriots In which the plaintiff was entitled, nut to leave the Jury to decide whether the plaiutilf had not made his election nt liarl"" of the hoots he was to take, and had nut included Smo lensk°. The Jury, after some consultation, ;moot that the plain tiff had made his election it. Batton, and had excluded Smolt video. 14IURSUAY, FEE. Al, coN.—ii 'YES V. ➢OYUS. This was an action an which the plaintiff Chas. Hayes, sought to le:•Uver damages of the defendant, W. Bonus, f•.,r CI iiiiinal Couvelsat lOU allcs.•J to hove taken place between lain mid the wile of the platintith Damages were laid at 5001. Mr. Sergeant Lawes opened the case for the plaintiff' lie shl ULI prove the facts of the criminal intercourse, beyond h doubt, and that there could he ea pretence for saying the defendant had been seduced. The plaintiff was in comparatively very humble cfic.ini-talices,;iial was in the service of a bookseller as a lineman, anal I,y has business llCCeSSillily greatly from home. "Flue defendant was a mai opulent cheimistances, and was; far advanced in years. The defendant was au 51111) agent, and from his rank wa., reputed to have consideu tithe official influ ence. It would be, perhaps, said that the plaintiff had received pecuniary kindness from the defendant. Of this he (Mr. Sergeant Lawes) was nut aware but if it hbuttbi appear that lie had made pecuniary piesents to the wile ‘f lilt the knowledge of the bn,baud, ur had in ally way availed himcclt of his properly for the purpose of seduc ing her, doubtless the Jatr y wun ll consider it as tuatlbe of the most :.et ions aggi avation. ..1 rT - Q 8 The Rev. Millar Gibson, the curate of St. Mary, Lam beth, produced the register, to prove the mat riage of the plaintiff, Charles Hayes, to Llary Anne Hendessun, on the lith of June, 1614. Ceorge Hayes, father of the plaintiff, stated, that his son and Mary Anne Henderson lived for several years after their marriage happily and comfortably together as man and wife ought to du. The plaintiff was foreman to Messrs. Reed and Hunter, law. booksellers, in Bell.yard. —ln the course of his business he was very much from home. Ile and his wife lived at No. 6, South street, Lambeth, at the house of his wife's aunt, Mrs. A. Carter. His wife was now no more. Cress•ezamined by Mr. Berg. Vaughan,—For several years after the marriage the plaintitt's wife was consider ed as a woman of a very good character. The witness seldom visited them. He did nui know liar before her marriage. He had seen the defendant, who appeared to he at the time the witness saw him, 78 or 7-1 years of age. The plaintiff's sister was called, to prove that the plaintiff lived happily wits his wile fur a considerable time. Her brother lost his nose within the las twelve months. Mr. Hunter, the law-stationer, stated that the plaintiff was in his service tot three years, and was engaged from nine o'clock in the moming until night. Mr. Man, a friend of Mr. Bonus, the defendant, stated, that the latter was now living retired from his business as an army clothier, at Westmoreland. lie was still an at my clothier, and was reported to he a man of consider able property. lie was a widower, had three daughters, with whom lie resided when in town, at Whitehall. a% young woman, who stated herself to be the wife of a butcher, swore most positively to the fact of adultery. Miring taken place in her presence. Arno Carter stated, that she was the aunt of Mrs. Hayes, and that the defendant visited her fur tell or eleven years; and on those occasions might have seen her niece. lie first began to be particular in his riots to the latter, about two years ago, and on one occasion recently, the witness was sent out on an errand, whim, on her central in about half au hone, site discovered they had left the sitti n g room, and fount' them in bed tocilter. The a itness wuuld sco d her niece fur these goings on, when the deiendant would call her (the la knees) a foolish old woman, and tell her that it would tie better for her to be silent; that he would take care of her niece, and never let her want duria; has lite.— He dial sumetienes maks preseuts to her niece, who died aboot four months since. Mr. Hunter was re-examined in chief by the Court, when lie slated, that about six months ago he went to ,visit the plain d', whU was ill in bed, and solicited pecuniary assist ance rime the witness. Mrs. Hayes was there, and was so well dressed as to excite the astonishment of the witness. He it:walked the circumstance a , singular, and told the plaintiff thud he had already allowed lino his wages for a considerable time, and could not all'ord to keep him any longer.—Mrs.. Hayes said to her husband, in the course of some onservations —ln at little Ilme you'll see Mr. Bonus—the witness, in giving the plaintiff h I I. note, said, " Should you net apply to Mr. Bonus for assistance:" The plaintiff replied, " After all lie has doer, I am quite ashamed to apply to him." Sergeant Vaughan, on the part of the defendant, made a powerful reply, tit which he c mind on the detaiis of the case, which %sere, he %surd, the most revultiag that ever he had met with in the course of his experience its advocate. — The !cards I counsel concluded by declaring that he hoped the Jaly would treat it as it deserved. ChielJteitice Dallip, iu summitss rap, said it was imps sible to see that this aas nut aall attempt to get my; and he dalared that, opitiioa, it would be uwitife to be lieve the two mousses who deposed to the fact of the adultery. Tat Jury, vt ithout an instant's delibeiution, returned a verdict for the defendant. MONK os. HILL AND GREGG. This was action brought by the plaintiff, a watchman, to I,COVCI dalllageS from the deientlants for a desperate assault, witicit was alleged to have been committed oil Sergeant Lens conducted the case for the prosecution ; S;r4...aitts Pell and Vaughan for the defendants. Tue evidence stated, that on the night of the 15th of November last, the two defendants, who are respectable tradestuen, residing in Guodge-street, had been making merry, and were returning home rather fresh, in a part,. Tiley stood for some time near their residence to finish a dispute, which they continued so vociferously as to at:- tract the notice of the plaintiff, who was the watchman. He desir.3l 01011 1,0 go in, and not to disturb the peace.. able inhabitants. They called him an old rascal, and told hint to go about his business. Ile replied he hail done his do ty. Mr. Hill resented the admonition, and pushed him with such violence as knocked him down. W lien the watchman lose, Mr. Gregg pushed i down, and he fell with such siolence as to litrak his thigh. Mr. Hill, noon seeing what had taken place, as his Counsel expressed ti, " withdrew" front the disturb ance. Mr. Gtegg was extremely abusive to the• other watchmen who came up, and threatened to serve out the other WA/01111lell in the same way, if they did not be• have respectfully to him. The plaintiff, who is between 7J and 7 L years of ar. was conveyed to the linspital, where he remained for a considerable time without any benefit. The bandages unforiunately gave way, and the thigh bone still reniants ultsuoited. A sursaenii, who gave evidence, declared, he did not iltink it would es ur unite again, or that the plaiiititi %%m ild be fit to pereran any duty again, and that during the remainder of hi, life lie inti,t be a cripple.— T:te defendant, Mr. Hill, haul stitrtred judgment to go by default, but Mr. Gregg had pleaded not godly to the assault The Chief Justice said, the injury sustained by the plainuff could aiot be estimated, but the Jury must trite compensation to the pt , or mass, who had been disabled from ever getting a livelihood. .In this case they could waken() distinction in their verd.ct between the cases of the two defendants, if they thought both guilty, other. wise lie.sutuld have wished that the case of (e;regg should have linen marked for his conduct, in eittleavonring to w Mitt raw.from the consequences of that in which lie brad. participate:l. , Jury deliberated for • few utinsoes,,auil returned r. a verdict for the pl tintiff against Loth the tlefeutlauts. Datita6eut,.;:itiL I 1