The National Register. — London, England, 1822-12-01 00:00:00

the name of the owner of the carriage. Mr. Wpyte then de clared if he could not get the name of the owner front the ser ♦ants, he should apply to the ladies. The plaintiff' finally laid hold of the carriage door, on which Mr. Pereeval exclaimed, Sir, Sir! The plaintiff appeared very much agitated, but after Mr. Perceval gave his name he went away. The repair of the chaise coat 221. aid the apothecary's bill was 31. Itia. After the above fasts had been proved, Mr. Scarlett address id th e Jury for the defendant, and contended that the accident was anavoidable—no blame could else!' to the defendant's servants. The Learned Counsel called the coachman, the foot man And Mr. Perceval, who described the gig as emniog upon the carriage unperceived, and that the very act of pulling op the horses in the carriage, to avoid tho 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 fault on either side, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover. The Jury retired. and on their retina to Court, pronounced a verdict for the defendant. Their Foreman at thy same time stated, that the Jury were of opinion the injury was occasionetl by inert accident, without fault on either side. COURT OF CO3IIION PLEAS. MoSDAY, Nov. 2.k. Ciotti' , v. simiras. Sergeant Lena moved for a rule to 'drew cause why an arbi tration made by Doctor Lushington should not he set aside, on the wound of its being against the law. The learned Sergeant elated, that the mutter referred to Dr. Lushingtou was, whether the plaintiff, who was rector of a parish, was entitled to recover back from the defendant, who was vicar of the same parish, certain fees that had been paid fur 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 tuken place—that fees had been paid to the vicar, 6:C.—and that they mutually agreed to refer the whole matter to Doctor Lushingion, 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 dia.. sntislied ; and he wished to have a line drawn by a decision of the court that wuuld prevent any future differences on the subject. The C Justice said, the parties had mutually agreed to the cause oat of court, and to refer it to another decision ; and when that decision is wade by a perfectly competent arbitrator of their own appointment, one of them being diasatiaGed, calls upon the court to set it aside ; and it was a case in which the court could not 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 Burroughs coucurred in this opinion.—Rule refused. TUESDAY, Nov. 26. IN RE. ISAACSON, CLARKE, AND BROOKES. This was an application to strike the two first named persons off the rolls of the court, and to call upon the third to answer for certain matters alleged in the affidavit. Sergeant Pell was heard to-day against the rule. Sergeant Vaughan was iu part heard in support of ita being made absolute.' The farther bow leg of the case was postponed till to-morrow. e forbear noticing the ease further, until the argourems on both sides are concluded, and the judgment given. tt LONESDAY, Nov. 27. IN THE MATTER OF - Is%AcsoN, THOMAS CLARK, AND J. D. nitooka. In the course of the last tern, Mr. Sergeant Vaughan otr• twined a rule to chew cause why Isaacson and Clarke, attornies of this court, should not be struck oir the rolls, for improper conduct in having permitted a person named John Benjamin Brooks to act as an attorney in their names ; and ally the said Brooks should nut be committed to the Plea prison for having se acted ; and further, why the said parties should not answer certain other matters contained in the ellidavita 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 following circumstances : —ln the course of the month of June last, a per son Named Witham Clarke instituted an action against Brooks, for the recovery of a SUM of money, w Lich it was alleged he (Brooks) had received un Clarke's account, from a person named Seeger. The plaintilf in that case proved that he called on Brooks, at his office, in Broad-ccurt, Drury-lane, and employed him as his attorney, to proceed in an action against Seeger, from whom lie (Brooks) subsequently received the money. The defence set up by Brooks was, that lie received the money as the chalk of Isaacson, in whose name the cause had proceeded, and to whom be 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 as the attorney of Clarke, and had, without any just preterisious, assessed that character. They therefore found a verdict fur the plaietill; and they added the worth, tt with all costs." It having appeared on that trial that Brooks had practised as an attorney without being duly qualified, the present error in was made, and affidavits tiled from several persons to show that lie had acted for them as an attorney, on varhma occasions, lasing at one time used the name of Clarke, and at another that of Isaacson. Orr Monday last, Mr. Sergeant Peel showed cause against the rule, tad produced affidavits from Isaacson and Clarke, iii which they positively swure that they had employed Brooks as their clerk, at are ular salary. The affidavits added, that they Dever, on any occasion; gave hint permission to nee 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 front Brooks, corroborating the statement made by (atm.:sun and Clarke, as to his has iog on all occasions acted as their clerk, and in no other capacity whatsoever. Sergeant k :ragtag° 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. lie contended that they by uu 'meatus gave an answer to the matters charged. Sergeant Onalow followed on the same side. Lord Chief Justice Dallas, after consulting with the other Judges for a short time observed, in the case now before the court, I a ill not any that the statement made by Owe parties is incredible; but it is not going too fir to say that it is impro bable. lam anxious, therefore, IL it the court should hate farther information upon the subject, for it is quite clear that Brooks acted as an attorney, and be should show to the satisfitc- Ilan of the court, that he had so acted merely for the benefit of Clarke mind Isaacson, and not for his oevn advantage. The court in the present case will o,der an attachment to issue against the parties, and that they give hail to answer certain interrogatories which shall be forthwith hied ; and an early day appointed in the nest term for receiving Ike 1111,41\ CT'S Si, them, upon which answers the Prothonotary of the court shall report. The other Judges concurred with his Lordship, arid an at tachment was ordered to he issued, on which the parties were . 1 THE NATIONAL REGISTER required to give bail in the amount of 10,11. and two sureties for 501. for each respectively. The court then ordered that they should atand committed, unless the parties making the application would consent to their undertaking to appear to give hail. Mr. Sergeant Vaughan said lie would not presa their being committed, but he should cupect duo nutlet of bail. , 41111. ~_ Y.CE‘RTL CROOKS, IN RC HILL, AN ATTORNEY. Mr. Sergeant Pell said he bud a motion to submit to the Court in behalf of Brooks, (one of the parties to the case which had been just before under their Lordships considera tion). It was for a rule to slew cause why Mr. Hill, who aria an 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 (Hll's) possession under the following circumstances:—ln the Old Bailey Sessions before the last, Brooks stood indicted fur a felony in having forged the name of a Mr. Clarke to • check, some time before his trial, Clarke called upon him in Cold bath-fields prison, and in the course of conversatio• said that he had no wish to appear against him on the trial, bit that 1116 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,and that the trial should not be proceeded with. Mr. Hanson, Brooks's attorney. was present at a part of this transaction, and he 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 at sating this, Mr. Ilanson went away, and would hear no more on the subject. Brooks, however, gave 1501-501. of which 1 (mind its way int . ) Hill's hand► before the trial, and 901. af terwarda. Brooks in bin altidevit now stated, that he gave the money under an impression that his life was in danger from his knowledge of the parties opposed to him, though he positively swore rthat he was innocent of the crime of which lie then stood accused, Lad of wh eh he was since acquitted—be therefore moved that Hill be compelled to return the 1401. 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 misrieineanmr, and a very high one ; and subjects the party so acting to a 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 otl'enee: This is the find time I ever heard of such an application made in Court ; and if the Court were to interfere in the manner required, they would be sanctioning a very high crime. 1 see no claim whatsoever which Ibis party has to our interference ; and therefore 1 am of opinion that this rule must be refused. Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Justice Burrough expressed their concurrence in the opinion of his Lordship.—Rule refused. The affidavit of Brooks was ordered to he filed. Thesing notice appeared yesterday in this Court:— " TO bGLICITuRS, PRACTISING IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, •sn TO ••L " Take Notice—That after tl.e present Michaelmas Term, the evening attendance of a Judge hi Chambers in Term lime will be discontinued ; and that, io all future terms, the attend ance will be every day, from half as hour alter three till live o'clock." COURT OF EXCHEQUER: On Thursday the Lord Mayer, attended by the Recorder and the City Solicitor, went before the Barons of the Exchequer, to lender an recount of his Mayoralty. . . The Recorder, in presenting the issues of the Mayoralty, addressed the court upon the 'subject of Cie merits of the late Lord Mayor. That meritorious individual had, he said, exerted himself upon every occasion to preserve the tranquillity of filo Metropolis and to render the ntm. et 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 Causer% ator of the River Thames to the limits of the City jurisdiction, when the King went to visit his Northern dominions, and also to re ceive his Majesty on his return. Upon those occasions the directions issued by the late Lord Mayor, for providing lo calities 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 Ilwrons having bowed to the late Lord Mayor, his Lordship left the court. This was the second instance within a century of a Lord Mayor having rendered up his accounts on auy other day than that preceding the 9th of November. LLOYD v. N El.:1)1,1 M. Mr. Jervais stated the case. 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 in the grave. The plaintiff's husband was formerly an extensive silk mercer in Cranbourn-eourt, but being reduced in his cireutitstances, it became necessary for the plaintiff to as- Slat in their mutual aupport, by berown personal exertions. On the evening of the 12th of August, the plaintiff and her husband went out to take' walk in the Regent's Park, and as they were crossing the road in front of the park -gate, the defendant in his gig drove fut . ly over them both, by which they were so grievously ininred that the plaintid''s husband died within the hour ; and the plaintiff bersele, although she escaped with life, had suffered long and painfully, before she rout(' leave her bed, having lost the use of her right arm. A coroner's inquest bad been held on the body of the plaintiff'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. But the acquittal on that trial was no answer to the present action, which was brought for compensation for the ifijitry sustained by the plaintiff Prow the defendant's negligence. —They could not take into their consideration the loss of her husband , but they would consider the pain she had suffered, ulll WAS likely Still to sull'er, the expense she was at, and the great and lasting injury she austa....d in the loss of her arm, and consequen inability to procure her future support. Witnesses proved the case as stated by the counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. A lolphus addressed the Jury for the defendant at great lengto. Ise had at once (arrest to pay all ihe expences arising from him ; hut he was not the opulent man lie was re presented, and had a family of tea children to support, which put it out of his power to offer more. 'rite Chief Baron charged the Jury, that whether the defen dant was drunk or sober, made no ditterence is the ease, if they believed the accident had been caused by his itnproper driving. It could be no justification of the defendant to pull up ins korai: just heaire the accident happened, if by his own improper cuu duct he hail tivfie it imp arsible then to stop hi it and it was agreed by all the witnesses that jam before he bad been driving furious' v. The ittry,after a short eotisoltation, returned a vedict fee the plainf.ff—Dantaces 2351. They mentioned it was their wish to lease this defendant 2091. after psym;nt of the surgeon's bills, which were stated at 351. -~• -•. 379 FRIDAY, hue. 29. THE AITORMEY GENERAL v. LITTLE. This was a proceeding instituted for the condemnation of three bale, of silk, charged to have been smuggled. The Attorney General stated the Cale, which was afterwards more fully detailed In evidence. Mr. Beckwith, of the firm of Beckwith, Bamford, ned Var nish, silk-mervets, in Maiden lane, neat Cheapsnle, deposed to the elTeet, that in the latter end of August, Ih2l, the defendant, Little, called at their warehouse, and asked fur Mr. Bamford. The latter was not in the way, and the defendant introduced himself by saying that his name was Little, and that lie had known Mr. Bamford before. Ile desired that the foreman, Avery, and the shopboy, who were present, might retire.— They did so, and lie then told the witness in the presence of him partner, Mr. % enlist', who remained, that he Gould sell them any quantity of silk they might want at a price the amount of the duty below the price in the market. •' Then the duly could not have been paid," the witness observed.—" The d—l 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 hitu a variety of questions as to his mode of dealing, and with whom he dealt. The ;defen dant said he supplied persons in the trade with silk to the amount of 20,0001. par annum, and that be supplied one-third of the cambrick to the amount or about 90,9001. per annum. fie mentioned the names of houses at Turin, Leghorn, and Valetta ciennes, from whirls lie bought his silk. lie offered the witness three bales of silk et 42s a pound, at the usual credit. The silk of the description which the itel,ndent offered was at that time worth 465. It was subsequently agreed opon 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 iu such a trans action. The defendant wished to send it neat morning. The witness in the mean time went to the committee of the silk trade, and informed them who bad been with him, and what had beendone. As it was arranged, he gave information at the custom-house, and Lawrence Russ, the °facer, 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 lie seized the three bales of silk, and that he went to the house of the defendant, where he found only 17 pieces of cambric, which were afterwards reword, as it was proved that She 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 W.ll 4Ss. The Jury said they would not trrunle the Attorney General to go any further iuto the case, and they immediately returned a verdict fur the Crown. FROM TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. .....m..-- CROWN OFFICE, Nov. 2S. Days and Places appointed for holding the IVinter Home Cir cuit, I Sl2, via. : HOME CIRCUIT.—Mr. Baron Graham ; Mr. Justice Bayley. Hertfordshire—Monday, Dec. 9, at Hertford. Essex—Wednesday, Dc:. It, at Chelmsford. Kent—Monday, Dec. 16, at Maidstone. Sussex—Monday, Dec. 23, at Lewes. Surrey—Monday, Dec.. 30, at St. Mary. Newington. .SKRUPTCY SUPERSED" - .J. S. and A. E. Fowler, Liverpool, merchants. BANKRUPTS. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. it. Beams, Lordship Lane, Surrey, stock broker. Solicitors, Messrs. Fisher, Aldersgate Street. J. Pasonan, Old Street Road, merchant. Sol. Mr. Hodgson, Salisbury Street, Strand. T. Fontlough, Liverpool, slater. Solt,. Messrs. Blackstock and Co. Temple. A. Jardine. senior, Lentherhend, Surrey, draper. Sol. Mr. Lister, New Court, Ctutchenfriars. R. Sowter, Water Street, Itiackfriars, merchant. SoL Mr. Hodgson, Sslisbury Stteet, Strand. T. Bailer, Shoreditch, seedsman. Sol. Mr. Hodgson, Salis bury Street, Stroud. DIVIDENDS. Dec. 30. J. Sanders, Coventry, auctioneer-20, C. Codicil, Bury St. Edmund's, carpenter—l 7, T. Parlet, Bath, mat.on 17, J. Dabell, Cranhrook, Kent...currier-IA, E. Andrews. Worcester, bookseller-21, W. I.nogliurst, Totihridge. Kent, ironmonger -21. G. M. Morgan, giteenhithe, wholesale sta tioner-20, J. Cawson, Liverpool, broker-17. J. Bland, Fen Court, insurance broker-19. 11. `searight. Liverpool, merchaut -19, T. Parry. It. Seaton, and J. Armitage, Manchester, cotton spinners—fs, J. Welch, Ainsworth, Lancashire, cotton cloth manufacturers-19, W. Bickerton. O,we.try, Salop. druggist. CERTIFICATES to be granted Dec. 17. W. Creser, Boldwyn Street. City Itoad, gr icer—.l. Barker, Great Titctilield Street, upholsterer—H. R. Abbott, Throgmor. ton Street, stock broker—S. Porter, London, stationer—R. Lacey, Lyncombe and Widcomise. Soinersets!)ire builder—lt. S. °lnfield. Kingston upon Hull, merchant—l. Bulmer, jun., South Shield*, snip builder—G. Spence, Leicester. draper. ASSIZES. SPECIAL GAOL DELIVERY-0d Gee. IV. 1t22.) HOME CI noutT—Before Si► R. Graham and Sir doliti 19.1yley. itertfur&hire—Monday, December 9, at Hertford. Essex—Wolne , 4l, Dee. I I. at Cbel.nsib•d. Kent—Monday, December 16. at MiiitlAone. Soma—Monday, December 23, at Lewes. Surrey—Monday, Dec. 30. at St. Ntary, Newington. rhe above is experimental, with a view to the general introduction of Q.larterly Assizes, for the purpose of lessening the county expenc:s for sup porttng the prisoners, and to diminish as much as possibie the ituprisuummt, anterior to the trial, uf hose committed. Recent letters from Hasannalt mention the sail ing of two vessels, having five transports with troops under convoy for Porto Rico, for the protec tion of the island, which was mensied by a party of adventurers from St. Bartholomew's. The expedi tion we have already noticed us having's:Ailed n,c,.tinst the pirates, consisted of the Spanish schoohers of war Clarita and Superior, tour launches with can non, and two armed boati under the command of Lieut. D. Alvaro Las..erna A letter from Constantinop'e. (ltted die 25. h of October, state::—" The Government, on the 21st instant, ordered an augmentation of JO per cent. on the value of the new coins, so that the 10 piastre pieces are now c..rreat at 14 piastws." •1 MP) y ~_