The National Register. — London, England, 1815-12-24 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER. The Court was occupied in hearing this case from ten o'clock in the morning till half past four. There were not less than 500 nersons in the Court and Hall; among whom were up mards of 50 fa- hionably-dressed females. COURT OF KING S BitNCII, Dec. 20. Sittings before Lord Ellenboroug4 and a Special Jury, at Guildhall, g/: w• .11i;chaelmas Term. JONES V. WITH. This was a special action upon the case, to recover from the defendant, who is a coach owner, damages for an injury sus • twined by the plaintiff, hay in been thrown from, the defendant's coach, through the negligence of his servant. Oe the part orthe plaintiff it was proved, that on the gist of August, the plaintiff, who is the, captain of a West India Ship, took a place on the outside of the Royal Alexander stage coach for 'Liverpool, the coach being to go by the 'way of Leicester. At ten o'clock in the evening the coach arrived at Leicester, where the inside passengers stopped, and those on, the outside were transferred to,A lighter coach,called the New Northampton. The guard „proceeded to place the luggage upon the new coach, but, in doing so, complained to a person named Gins by, who appeared to act as one of the owners, that the luggage could not all be placed upon the coach with safety ; hut the proprietor insisted upon its being put up, and h s of der was accordingly obeyed. The coach wit, then about to proceed without •lamps, when the outside passen gers remonstrated upon' the impropriety of pursuing the journey without lights, the night being very dark ; one of them, a Mr. Huhne, descended from the top, and remon strated with the owner, and told him that his wife and chil dren depended upon him for his support, and he could nut think of risking his life by proceeding without lamps. The proprietor said—" What have I to do with your wife and , children?" After some altercation between Mr. Gunsbv and, the coachman, the lamps of the first coach were fixed to the second. and lighted. The coachman then mounted the box, apparently in ill humour, and drove off with fury. Mr. Hulme turned to the guard, and said—" if the coach man drives at this rate, he will overturn us." TWo minutes had scarcely elapsed Lefore the prophesy was fulfil led; the coach was overturned—the plaintiff was thrown off with his head against the step of a door, and one of his arms was broken. After lingering a . considerable time, in consequence of the contusions and injuries he had received, he was obliged to proceed to sea. The present action was brought to recover damages for the negli , renet of the coach.' man, and for the amount of expense he had incurred for medical advice. The case being proved on the part of the plaintiff. The ATTORNEY GENERAL, on the part of the defendants, said, his clients were willing to make the plaintiff every reasonable recompense, and therefore consented that a verdict should be taken against them for 2001 with costs. A verdict for this sumwas cacordingly entered, COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—DEc. 23. SIR THOMAS PLUMER V. TAYLER AND OTHERS. This was an action brought by the Vice Chancellor against the assignees of Mr. Benjamin Walsh. a bankrupt, to recover various sums, amounting in all to 40001. had and received by them on account of thrPlaintiff. The Bankrupt, it will recollected, was the broker employed by Sir Thomas Phimer, on the sth of December, to purchase for ;,0001. fo r which purpose ling and Co. This sum the his own use fraudulently. I'lumcr hat, got back. and leter a luminous argument ‘ver, ether sums which had cud which were in fart a ztained by the Bankrupt Sit Thomas Plumer now stim of'4oo Lflent to Mr. Crete paid back to the 'misted Of debts paid by the alsivitoras DEC. e. Mr. Marryatt submitted far the Defendants, that there was a material difference between the soma now sought to be recovered by the Plaintiff, and that already obtained by him. In this case the. sums had been paid to bona fide creditors, with the exception of the 4001. lent to Mr. Clarke, and could not have been recovered in law by Sir Thomas Plumer. The assignees had only' recovered under the operation of the Bankrupt Laws. Evidence was submitted in support of the Plaintiff's case. Mr. Thomas Clarke proved that he had' received a 10001. note from the Bankrupt ; he gave him 6001. back, but retained 4001. as a loan. This was on the sth of December, 1811. He paid the -100 1. to the Defendants. Henry Ateride, clerk to Mr, B. Walsh, proved that he had got change of a 10001. note for I►is employer, 632 1. of which was lent. to Mr. Fry of Plymouth Dock. The assignees admitted the. reco covery of this nun. Mr. Joseph Walsh, brother to the Bankrupt proved, that on the. sth of December he had received three India bonds for 500 1. each, a 1000 1. Bank of England note, and a check for 1991. 11 s. d. from his brother on the sth of December. These sums had since been recovered from him by the assignees by action". Mr. Benjamin Walsh proved that the foregoing s►tms were the produce of the money which he had received from Sir Thomas. Plu►t►er. Lord Ellenborongh declared his opinion to be, that Sir Thomas Plunier could not recover back from the Assignees money which they had received under the operation of the bankrupt laws under a j►►dgment. The property became so blendid as to destroy all identity. Not so with respect to the 4001. lent to Mr. Clarke, which Sir Thomas was certainly entitled to receive, it being speci fically part of the 10001. note given by Walsh to Clarke. Verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 4001.—Costs 1001. him Exchequer Bills to the amount of 22,0 he gave him.bis check on Messrs. Gosling Eankrup, received. and appropriated to hi, A greattart of it, however, Sir Thomas Pt 'his right so to do had been established aft In lbs Court above.—There were, however s:iid!.;com to the hands of the assilomes, part rti Afint. frandulenily (let; 7 froni . • Comas Miner. Th o se stuns Si sough . t*toveo: ' They e.iln - Sistid of one Clarke, thelidWiStr. Wiitch M. assignees its devitirtaft :The Oh** stoat cog Air. W . alb!' with Sir Thomas's moral, rvhielt by actions under the Bankrirvt Laws. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 23. AUSTIN V. DREW. This was an action, of a novel nature, to recover damages fort injury sustained by accidental smoke. The Plaintiff is a sugar. baker at the East end of the town, and the defendant one of the Company of the Impel ial Fire Office. It appeared that seine time back the servant of the Plaintiff, in lighting the copper fire for the 'purpose of his master's business, had omitted to open the damps, which was down, and to shut certain other communications with the drying rooms in the other parts of the buil:ling. 'the conse quence of this was, that the smoke instead of evaporating by the chimney, found its way through . the flues intendod only to convey beat into the drying rooms, and the blacks falling on the loaves of sugar which were drying, completely discoloured them. The question brought before the Court was, whether this damage Caine within the terms of the policy filled by the Defendant, or whether it could be considered as an injury resulting from accidental fire. It was contended for the Plantar, first, that the Eagle and other offices had paid the loss ; and, next, that although the fire itself had done no mischief, yet as the smoke was produced by the tire, that Defendant was liable. Sir V. Gibbs was rather inclined to think that the offices were not liable, inasmuch as there was no accidental fire whatever. He. however, saved the point, and a verdict was found for the Defend, ant, subject to a case. LONDON ADJOURNED SESSIONS, Yesterday an adjourned sessions was held at Guiideal!. John Crowder was indicted for assalting William Ta).lor and two other poiice officers in the (*charge of their di'ty. The prose cutors were, on the day stated in the indictment, called to quell a riot in Holborn, when the prisoner thought proper to interfere, and on their attempting to secure him, he beat thin most v.olently. —Guilty.—Sentenced to six mouths imprisonment and to pay a flue of 501. • J. B, Boyle was indicted for an outrageous assault on Vaughan Griffiths, in Paternoster-row. The parties are next door neigh bours, living in Paternoster.row, the former a printer, the latter a bookseller; and some dispute having arisen as to their mutual right to a cellar, the defendant caught the finger of the prosecntor in his mouth and nearly bit it off: added to which, he beat him most unmercifully.—Guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of 101. ADMIRALTY SESSIONS. The Admiralty. Sessions were opened on. Tuesday at the Old Bailey, before Sir Wm. Scott, and Mr. Justice Heath. I. suyijpey, alias Swinnev, was indicted for piratically , hostilel y , and felonieusly adhering to'the subjects of the Secretary 0:" the 1 -