The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-17 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

BOMB CIRCUIT.—MAIndineII, M•TION 5..
CIVIL SlDe.—Before Urea isemsa mil • epeeist Jury.
Iit:MCKIM V. Mitt:MALL. —A DILNIIST'S IsiIACTICM.-
The plaintiff, a surgeon-deutist in Conduit-street, being de-
sirous in 1846 to dispose of his business, applied to an agent
in etch matters, who caused an advertisement to be inserted
in the Glasgow Adrertimr newspaper, in which a glowing
dem iption of the busineu that was to be disposed of was given,
which represented the profits to be very large. The adver-
tisement was answered by the defendant, a medical man
at Olugow, and eventually the arraegement was made,
out of which the prevent action arose. Mr. Mitchell was
quite unacquainted with the science of dental surgery, and
it was considered advisable that he amidst take some instruc-
tion under the plaintiff before he was installed in his prac-
tice. The defendant, therefore, was to pay down • sum of one
thousaud pounds, and to give a bill of eaohange far fifths.
handred pounds, at twelve months date,. es the price of the
business, and he was then to be introduced into the content
as a partner, but was to be paid 1501. for his services foe the
first year, and as his capabilities and knowledge of the art
increased he was to be " graduaTy but sesurely" intro-
duced, to all the patients. Ultimately the plaintiff
wee to retire altogether, and leave Mr. Mitchell in
the undisturbed possession of the Winne. A deed
was drawn up, ley which the plaintiff undertook to
put the defendant into p,sseeition of all his instruments,
which were of a peculiar character, and also to iustruet him
in his eyetem, which was likewise desereibed as being peculiar
to himself acid unknown to any other person. The plaintiff
also wee to have handed over to him medal of ths mouths
of most of the patients, the posemaios of which, it was
said, would assure him their future oustom.
The plaintiff's evidence went to show that the extent of
the business bad not been exaggerated, for it appeared to be
admitted that the praise of each year on an average
amounted to more teas 1,7001. The defendant's plea, one
of " fraud and eosin," principally rested upon the fact those
the pleintirs system was not net peculiar to himself nor
unknown en any otne- person,
that he hail not h
over the models and other matters connected with the pie-
famion, which he had undertaken to do.
A person named Reyes was the principal witness for the
defendant, and the evidence given by him caused a good,
deal of merriment in the court. Ile said that he was assist-
ant to Dr. Ko.eckw in 1838, and remained with him is that
capacity for more than seven years. Diming that time he
became acquainted with the use of all his instruments, and
also made up Itie tooth powders and articles of that descrip-
tion; and they were sold to the patient. to the amount of
several fiundreds of pounds a year. When be left the service
of the plaintiff he set up fur himself in Brook-street, Grieve-
nor-Keane, and afterwards in Conduit-street, and he made use
,if sir dew tesszemente and practised the same .r.tun ,s the
plain tiff,and obtained a ecoel deal otitis practice. The pi aintid i
had frequently suggested to him to parchain: his basilic se, I
ant', told him that it wou.it be useless to any one else, but
tb et it would suit him as he was acquainted with his miesde
e f practice, and with all the patients. The plaintiff at this
time wasted 3,0001. for his business; but he would not
have given him 1,0001. for it.-14 Serjeant Shea: The
practice of the plaintiff was very select, and he was vi-
sited by bodies and gentlemen, and persons of die-
tinctioa. Ris fee was one guinea. The pt
gaves
him s recipe for making tooth powder, but thn tincture
he .old were the sole invention of witness. (A laugh.)
Ths plaintiff was entirely ignorant of the ingredients ot his
tincture at that time. When. he first went to the plain-
tiff, he used to send to a chemist's and pay Its. Gd. for a
bottle of tincture, and witness then suggested his tincture,
and told him he would make several hundreds a year by itr,
and after this he wed to make it, but never allowed tb 0
plaintiff to know the secret of the composition, althoug'ne
tried to smuggle it from him. (Laughter ) hewse
' living with the plaintiff, he used to open the door and led in
patients, and sometimes he waded at table. (Laughter.)—
&taint Shea : And I believe you used to dine in the kit-
chen with the cook ? (Roars of laughter.)—Witness : I did
sometimes. (Renewed laughter.)--Serjeazt Shea: Well,
there's no harm in it. 1 dare say she was a very respectable
person. Pray, did you ever by chance ciesn the boots and
shoes?—Witness : Oh, certainly not.--Serjtunt Sheet May
I I ask what salary— I euppne I mutt not say wages—
I you received ?—Witnere : lily salary was thirty-eight
I pounds a year; but 1 wish you to understand, that in
addition to this, I was allowed to wait upon as
many patients of my
__ own as I pleased. (Renewed laughter.)
—Serjeunt Shee : Were you never sent to fetch a cab when
it rained ? Witness : 1 was never sent out fora cab, but I
may have stood at the door and called for one.—lte-exa-
mined : Notwithstanding the nature of the duties he had to
perierm while he was in the plaintiff's service, be was quite
certain that he now used the same articles, and made them
up in the same manner, as those sold by the plaintiff, and
that after he had been with him seven years he wanted him
to purchase his business.
Witnesses were called to answer the. 'evidence adduced
on the part of the defendant, and fromtheir testimony
it appeared that the business bad realised as much as
1,8001. in one year, sad that (lame had been no exag-
geration of the amount of the profits. It was itleo stated
that shortly tefore the will became due, the defendant ex-
pensed hithewllPaffett!,p satisfied with the conduct of the 1
plaintiff in the tranY•ction, and said that he considered him
a man of honour and integrity.—Serjeant Shoe replied.— '1
The Lord Chief Justice summed up, and the jury almost ,
immediately 'returned a verdict for the plaintff for the
amount alarmed.
01,3thers.t o. Ten Source-BABISSIX RLILWAY COcoMn-
PANY.... -This caw', which was an action upon.certain -
tracts 'for the erection of one of the railway stations, was re-
foTrAl to arbitration.
MARCH 16.
mown Elma.—Before MaJastioe Coleridge.
Steed-
, ALLIOND CMILDMVIDIML—DMITMESII.—Mary
km 37, married woman, was indicted for the murder of I
her infant. The prisoner WY the wife of a baker at Sand-'
with, and had five children, the Teeniest of whom was the
I Inhjeet al the rim; impaiy. Tbil win id WI bid 'it-
-