The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-23 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

LAW NOTICBS.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
BOITAII vics-ctitoscin.i.ok, TTTI*I LAY, AT HAL? PAIS
tine o'rint a.
CAUIIIII.

itllforti
Part heard
Cavelaud v. &ride
iten,lev v. Iturdod
itabbeth v. Diner
The Lord

Replay v. Algar
Blackstone v. Lloyd
Rhodes V. Cook
SykrA v. Lockhart
Smith v. King
Cham.ellor does out I%

rolling v. &Milli
Fell v. Crippv
Ttalcor v. Fell

liklu.ds v. Ditratt.

OP KING'S BENI
UAt AT MALT-PAST XI
.oNDON C0N51611.101411.1
Feeley v. Spring
Goom v. MAIM
T,irllnre v. Boater
/•:dwards v. Testes
Blockburst v. Pry
Beckley T. Collins
Miinton v. Jones
Fogley v. Corrigan
14'311 v. Poter
Jeffery+ v. liennlson
Brown v. Todd
Still v. Wood

Gordon v. Rate
Ludy Turner v. Jones
Enotty v. Houldit.h
Hamilton v. Donlan
!lender...in v. Ledden
Posey v. Rowers
Hell v. Luutlev
liconi. v. Pigeon
Pritchard v. Mama
?domino r v. Rowe
Meiotic v. Coate,.
Gould v. Crea►cr

-morrow.

linsrerotl v. Crompton
Tobin v. Trimmer
Morns v. Pointer
Payn v. Gurney
Maxima v. Brindieg
Jenkins v. Atkinson
Norton V. Wright
Webb v. Cooke
Young v. Olsen
Heard v. Mountain
Nuad r. Bremer

'MT OF COMMON PLEAS,

LONDON SPECIAL JUNI.
TRIM DAT, AT TIIN tect,toc.
Cournber v. Follower.
LONDON COMMON JUNIN',
Burn and another ♦. Frieuur v. llevelde Rim tr, Cove
!iltrota itodford v. Thompson laws v. Claridge
Cook v. Mach Cultou v. Buttaid I Sander' v. /tippet'
Ilia v. Blows

COURT OF F.XCREQUFR.
(./11•4y4 THIS ILLY, AT TICK O'CLOCK.
Att.-Gen. v. litlibeek and others I Attorney-General v. Robertson
Att.•iltil. v. Itulbeek and other , Attorney-General v. Reynolds
The Chief Litron, at the sitting of do Court on Saturday next, the 25th
In tnnt, will give judgment on Pvtitlitt, DonTer v. Bright, after which
Slot into., and then judgment In the (Mowing, els. •
Petre v. Larnshaw ; Titre v. Wall.; Hass v. Thmptcn ; Field= v.
Meynell.
The Chief Raton will take Petitions sfterwardt.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, WLDNESDAT, Fin. 22.

ToWNsEND v. TOWNS END.
The Lon!) CtrANGELron stated that he had read all the affi-
davits in this rase, aid uid nut know what was to be done. With
regard to the thinning of the woods, the weight of the evidence was
against the injunction prayed for; but It was not so clear as to
enable him to nay that the thinning was strictly necessary. With
respect to sending the inquiry to the Blaster, it was of no use, as
it would only conic back again. 111 would look over the affidavits
once niore, m enable him to say whether he could decide the point
himself, or whether it would be necessary to make any further
Inquiry. Ills I,milship did not receive the affidavits till he was
just leaving the House of horde.
111 r. Haar suggested thst an Inquiry should be added to the
order, with regard to the thinning of the woods, and cutting the
ornamental timber.

The LORD CHANCELLOR Said it rested on him mind, after run-
ning over the affidavits, that it would be doing a prejudice to the
estate (if the surveyors are right) to let the tirchcr stand any
longer.

Mr. HART observed, that surveyoes had flexible judgments, and
dist the surveyor, who had given his testimony. evidently did not
understand the rule of the Court respecting the cutting down of
ornamental timber.

The Loan CHAXCELI.OR repeated that that was a very material
part of the Can. Ii they are right as to the necessity of thinning
the woods, it is doing much mischief to postpone this weeding of
the grounds.
Mr. limn. said he would undertake to find taco in Kent. some
of whom would say the, it was absolutely necessary to weed the
grove, and others, that it was very prejudicial.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, if lilr. Hart would undertake
to do this In Kent, he would undertake to do so in any other
county.
Mr. Holum asked if he might be allowed to put his case upon
any other footing.
The LORD CHANCELLo a asked if the parties could concur in
pointing out any single individual to whom the question tni:Tht be
referred. His Lordship said he would take care of that part of the
case which referred to the cutting down of ornamental timber. The
thinning was a question in which delay would affect the interests of
both parties ; but with respect to the individual trees which it was
proposed to cut, it was not of much consequence whether they were
cut now 2 or twelve months hence.

.slr. lIART observed that it would be proper to restrain them
from so doing in the meantime.
Mr. lionez said none of these trees had been cut down. The
defendant had retrained from so doing oot of respect to his Lord.
ship. He might have cut them down, if he chose, a twelvemonth
ago.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Let It be understood that this la to
be mention,d to-morrow I)as-4n/sebum I ..hen I
shall have bad an opportunity of reading the affidavits more ac-
curately than I could do when they were presented to me oncoming
out of the House of Lords.
COURIER.

ntroites v. unmaxt.x.
Mr. RODILT.T observed, that art account bad been published in
the Courier, in which observations had been made which might be
very prejudicial to his client. An insinuation had been thrown
out that his client had been acting improperly, anti this insinuation
was calculated to be particularly injurious, as it was placed in the
mouth of the Lord Chancellor.
The Loan Citawnitt.i.o a—Allow me good-naturedly and re.
spectfully to ask youltuir I can do for you in this case? If a
newspaper publish. thing that amounts to a contempt of Court,
the only thing I can o is, upon a motion to that effect, to treat the
par as guilty of such contempt. If such a motion could not be
made, his Lordship could not permit the Court to be amused from
the newspapers of the day before. If Mr. !tonally would hand up
the slander which hip Lordship was maid to have been guilty of, he
would set it right. One heura of things of this kind frequently, in
awes where the Court has nothing to do with them. (The news-
paper in which the mistatement had been made was here handed
to his Lordship). " You see here," observed the Lord Chancellor,
" bow easy It as for newspapers to he mistaken. The writer sup-
poses 1 said that I have been pelted with letters, and 1 never said
anything of the sort."
Mr. hie aT. in reply to some further observations of 111 f. R oni illy,
observed that he was willing to stead the chance of his affidavits
being correct.
Mr. Illosreson remarked that this Colin was not to be contd.
dered as a lottery, and that his Lordship's time was not to be taken
up by any chance statements that might be made by affidavit.
Mr. Howst.Le complained that the opposite side pressed on this
motion in the absence of both his leaders, wits had taken infinite
Pairs to make themselves complete masters of this complicated ease.
The p eent bill was fled by the representativeordohn Hughes, that
individual himself having recently died. There was a preliminary
objection to this bi 1, on which he would take his Lordship's opinion
in the first instance. This was a bill of reviver. ilia Lordship
bad on the previous occasion refused to direct the gale of a part of
the property, till he should know whet had been done in the ori-
ginal suit ; and an observation had been thrown out to the effect
that Hughes's suit would be abandoned on that account. It had
been moved in Court to dismiss the first bill, which was in the
name of Hughes and the other creditors of the Stockwell Bank, and
the first step of Hughes after this west° throw out all the names of
the plaintiff's except his own. His next step was to %snore the bill
and answers from the file, no sale being allowed to take place while
they were in existence. The present hill states the fact of the te.
moval of the original bill from the Me. The Learnedßentleman
submitted that at was not competent for Hughes to revive a bill
which must have been dismissed by himself ; for the only con-
clusion that could be drawn from the circumstances was, that he
must have obtained an order for that purpose from the Court. He
wished therefore to take his Lordship's opinion on that objection.
Mr. MON TAO u acid it was certain that there was no bill on the
file. He had not sufficient experience in the case to say how it had
been taken off. He did not conceive that it could have got off with-
out an order from the Court. Comma charity must lead us to
presume that it was done regularly, and there was some room to
think that it was so from the foots which Mr. Rornilly her stated.
His Lordship had amid' aced that they would tbandoa their suit,
and there was a statement in the hill and sewer which made it
quite plain that it was so.
The Loan Cnawcru.oa eared irony inquiry had been made
how it had been taken talks file ?

Mr. HART said he had jubt been infonned of a mein which
some clerks were prosecuted for selling an immense number of
bills as old parchment for awns of several hundreds of pounds.
The Coati CH/kw:m.l.oz observed that the biz Clerks have a
register of all those bills which are ago of !Tally. if it has been
taken off surreptitiously, the circumstance could be known to a ea.
tainty. The tact must be certified by the 81: Clerks. Let diem
state whether the bill was now on the Ale et not ; if not, whether
there was any order fur taking it off. and what they can state about
the eireumistanee of its being taken olf—whetber they are of apt.
nion that it has been surreptitiously taken elf.
Alr. Italic asked 'bet probability there was that the solicitor
would have caused it to be taken elimerely for the purpose of bay.
ing it revived on the same terms.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wznyzeovr, Frs. ft

[Before the Lotti) Clint JUSTICE and Common JUT/411.1
HUI/1411: 1. SINCLAIN.

This wan an action I;;;lantiortiaial;stflia tenant for removing
from a demised garden several truit-trees, rose-trues, sad various
shrubs.

On the part of the plaintiff it was ern" that when the defendant
took the premises there were four apple and pear trees standing in
the garden, and when lie went away he removed these, and
also about a hundred other trees, consisting of espaliers, goose.
berry and currant (bushes, rose-trees, Ac., which he had planted
during the tenancy.
On the part of the defendant it was sworn that when the garden
was taken, there were no standards in it whatever, and that the
plaintiff gave a distinct permission to the defendant to remove all
trees that he should plant during his tenancy.
The LOaD tratkr JUSTICE, in charging the Jury, laid it down
as the law, that no tenant had a right to inure any trees, shrubs, or
even strawberry plants, which he had set during his tenancy; but
was bound to leave them all on the premises l'or the benefit of his
landlord. In this ease, however, it was said that a permission had
been given to the defendant to remove all trees that he had planted.

With respect to that, and the other conflicting testimony, the Jury
would deride for themselves.
The Jury found for the pleintiff--vismages IL
KENT t•. CURTIS.
This was an action to recover 450 guineas, the price of three
horses.

Mr. Deirstaw stated the plaintiff", rate. He said that the
plaintiff and defendant had been schoolfellows in earlier life, and
having renewed their friendship about the end of 1824, or January
1825, the traneaction which gave rise to the present action took
place. Mr. Kent being in possessien of three most excellent horses,
Mr. Canis agreed to purchase them at 450 guineas; and he took
them to Paris with him, but had never paid for them. The Learn-
ed Counsel, after entering into various particulars of theme, called
the following witnesses :
Richard Tapping Claridge—l know the plaintiff and the de.
fondant. I introduced them to each other in October 1824, and
they immediately recognised each other as old schoolfellows. In
January 1825 I was present when the defendant purchased from the
plaintiff* dark chestnut horse, a chestnut mare, and a black horse,
for 450 guineas. They were to be paid for immediately. Mr.
Curtis wanted to take them to Paris. I went with Mr. Kent, Mr.
Curtis, and Mr. Curtis's groom, to Dover in Alt. Curtis'e phaeton
that night. The horses were sent on. and he said he would pay
for them when we got to Dover. When we arrived at Dover, Dlr.
Curtis immediately ordered a steam-vessel to go across to Calais.
He said he could not pay for them then, as his money wag locked
up in the phaeton ; but he would pay for them as soon as he got to
Calais. When we got to Calais, he said he must go on to Paris
directly, and if Mr. Kent's brother went on with the horses, he
would not let him leave Paris without the money. I saw.the de-
fendant in London in the April following. Ile then mild he came
over to pay Kent's demand among others; and he had been offered
300 guineas for the chestnut horse, but would not take it. He also
said he had void the black horse fur 200 guineas in Paris, to Lord
Seymour or Lord Somerset.
Cmss.examined by Mr. SCARLETT—I am a wine-merchant in
Wigmore.atteet. I have been so about two years. I lived with
my uncle until I was about one or two and twenty. I recollect I
was a boot-maker in Bond-street for about three ur four years. I
supplied Mr. Curtis with boots at one time.
William Kent stated that he was brother to the Vaintilf and
proved that he had conveyed the horses in question to Patio. He
stayed there about a fortnight, and the defendant then tell him
that he had received a letter from the plaintiff; stating that the wit.
ness need not remain in Paris He said this letter was in answer
CO one. be (the defendant) had written to the rleintiff, saying that
the defendant's solicitor would Kettle the demard.
Robert Bush said he had been in the service cc Mr. Curtis as
interpreter, and he proved the conveyance of the horses in question
to Paris in the manner described by the other witnesses. Ile added
that when Mr. Curtis had sent back the last witness from Paris,
and saw him safe into the diligence, he said, rut bing his hands,
" Demme, I have slutnntorlc•fd him as well rs the rest." Witness
then said " Really, Sir. I never heard that word before in company,
what is the meaning of It ?" On whieh Mr. Ctirtis said, " Why
damn it. don't you know ? done him, to be sure."
Mr. SCARLETT—I'Iiu were the intrepreter to this gentleman's
establishment, were you ?
Witness—Yes, I :erre, Sir.
Mr. SCARLET T hy you were an odd sort of an interpreter,
when you don't understand his language, you see.
Witness—Why that rt c an't gen4.l4/6 r.or yet no hofher language.
Mr. Sys ItLF.r7. now addressed the Jury tor the defendant, re-
marking that his client. who was a young and inexperienced man,
had been practised upon in a fraudulent wanner by a set of know.
ing persons, who knew how to take advantage of him, because he
was a gentleman with large expe. tatians. The Learned fiounsel
then prodoced a receipt for 2811., signed by the plaintiff in Ja-
nuary, 1824, which, he contended, was tor the amentit of the
horses in question.
The Loan Cuter JUstring then charged the Jury, and they
found a verdict for the plaintiff tat the amount of the damages in
the declaration.

THE SA3IE e. TILE SAME.
This was an action brought by the Panie plaintiff against the
same defendant, to recovor the value of a dian:ond ring and a gold
watch chain, borrowed from the plaintiff by the defendant, and
never returned.

The witness Claridge In the former case proved the borrowing of
these articles by the defendant, on an excursion into Bedfordshire
to see the Marquis of flute's house ; and the interpreter, Mr. Ttio.
mas Bush, swore that he taw his master wear them, and give the
chain to his wile in France.
Mr. SCAR LETT, tor the defence, said his client, Mr. Curtis,
was now in France, and therefore he had no opportunity of con.
suiting with him. The Learned Counsel, however, had been in.
structed by the triends of this young man, who s. pposed that he
had `vett duped by a set of swindlers and 'harpers whe had
beset him. The Jury must see by the sort of witnesses that
had been produced, that this young gentleman had been duping all
them worthy, honest men, who had no eye whatever after his ex-
pectations. The swearing was so hard, that he could give no an-
ewer to it, and therefore he must leave it to the common sense and
plain understanding of the Jury to guess the real foundation of
these meet extraordmary transactions.
The Jury found fur the plainuff—damagos, 101.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WEEtirzonal, FEB. 22.
(Before the Loan Cater
ORIPYIN V. TiIINS.
This was cc action M assault, brought by the plaintiff, principal
book.k'eper at the White Hone, Fetter lane, against the defend-
ant. The following are the facts as they transpired in the course of
the examination of the several witnesses:—
Mr. TebbP, who is a gentleman of fortune, bad occasion. about
six months since, to go a considerable distance into the country upon
some law business. He booked his place at the White
Fetter-lane, and was to have gone off on a particular day. The
defendant's trunks and etceteras were at the booking office, the
morning of the intended departure arrived, but the gentleman hap-
pened to be too late for the coach, which had started some minutes
before he made his appearance. After this disappointment the de-
fendant stood in need of w pocket handkerchief, and went into the
booking office fot the purpose of finding his trunk that he might
open it and. pit one out. This was considered out of order, and
objected to by some of the underlings of the office, who seemed to
consider that a man was not, under all circumstances, entitled even
no his own. The defendant, however, persisted, anti much abusive
language ensued. The plaintiff happened to walk in while the
dispute ran high, and it was alleged against the defendant, that
without any sufficient provocation, he struck the plaintiff several
times across the face with an umbrella. On the part of the de.
!ts dent it was proved that a porter, who was one of the party, had
been very insolent, that be first attempted to push the defendant out
of the office, and dist he subsequently dragged the defendant by
his arm towards tha counter, and there pulled his nose. In the
confusion the defendant did not know exactly who had so insulted
him, and, as the plaintiff took a part in the offensive proceedings, he
might have struck him in mistake. There was much contradictory
evidence both as to the general facts and as to whether the defend-
ant struck the plaintiff before or after the indignity before men.
tioned.

The Lonb CHrar /orrice said that these book-keepers, as
servants of the public, were entitled to prirection, but it was for the
Jury to decide whether, according to the evidence, they had not on
the present occasion acted with impropriety}. It they considered
the grois affront which the defendant had sulfired they would return
a verdict in his favour.--Verdict 1m the defendant.

. -
/1 /G II COURT OP ADMIRALTY, WED/11/DAT, Ewa. 22
Lord STOWELL this day gave judgment in the case of John
dower, a mariner, who instituted a suit to recover wages from the
master and owners of the Lady Campbell, East Indianian, which(
was defended on the ground that from habitual drunkenness the
claimant was incapable of performing the duties of his situation,
I and therefore that the contract made with him was null and void.
In pronoun:ring the judgment of the Court, his Lordship entered
very minutely into the facts of the case. Eh said that the claim
for wages was founded upon the alleged services performed by the
claimant during a voyage from London to Calcutta. At Madeira
the claimant was preferred to the situation of steward ; and at Cal-
cutta, when the vessel was about to return homewards, hie wages
were increased. At Calcutta the mariner was charged by tb• Cap.
tain with neglect, but there was no charge of drunkenness made
against him, nor was there any thing before the Court to prove
that he was a fair subject for a reprimand upon the ground of ha.
bitual drunkenness. it was in evidence that the mariner was in.
toxicated once or twice during the outward voyage. Now the
Court was not by any means disposed to encourage habits of excess
in drinking, but it could not shut its eves upon the ordinary habits
of seamen, and it did not appear that the claimant's conduct was
more reprehensible on that point than that of seamen usually is.
The conduct of the Captain proved that there was rat serious cause
of reprehension. If the claimant was unable or unwilling to per-
form his duty, the Captain might have provided a substitute in
Calcutta for the homeward voyage. Ile had a number 111 passen-
gers on board his own ship, some of whom were of that description
that they might easily have performed the duties of a steward. It
did not appear, however, that any endeavour was made to procure
a substitute at any of the stations at which the ship had calieJ, and
he was not deposed from his situation until after the arrival of the
weasel at Blackwell. It was in evidence that the claimant got a
tumour on his neck at Citcutta. which obliged him to be particu.
!arty abstemious in the use of liquors. By the time the vessel ar.
rived at the Cape of Good Hope, it anpeared that tlower'e bodily
diwinier had increased rapidly, and occasioned great weakness, yet
.h-!Captain made no effort to provide himself with another steward,
although he might easily have provided himself with a much more
efficient one, if the character assigned to Gower was hot over-
charged. From whet came before the Court it seemed that any '
negligence of which Gower was guilty arose rather from the effects
of disease tan from gross and debasing intemperance. If he
was incapable of performing his duty from weakness, which was
the consequence of his malady, it was not sufficient to invalidate i
his claim founded upon a legal contract. Under all the circum.l
stances, the Court considered the claimant the victim of disease
more than of moral criminality, and therefore pronounced that he
was entitled to his wages, with the deduction of the advances made
to him. The wages claimed amounted to 1111, the advances
amounted to 261. ; the Court therefore pronounced the mariner en.
tided to 64 1.

En RAT A.—Special Bonds cancelled of the Prussian Loan
contracted in 1822 by Mr. N. M. liotlischild--No. 4,693
should be Sib!? 0 ; ..149. 6,007 should be 5,907; and 6,4u1
was omitted.