The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-16 00:00:00

11IDDIANIZI COMMOX JVIII7E9 THIS. DATIT ait.r.rist

Bon • Jones
Penn •Lewer

NIWt.
White ♦ Pocock
Detey • Henley
Lake v Penning
Tomlin. ♦ French
Greathead t May
The King, William
Brown
Ives • Madman
Davies V Anderson
Woodman r Hender-
son

Low ♦ SitonnCr
Sinlinen v Punter
Same • Same_

Davies ♦ Beekau
Ponson v Morrii
Leak v Leak
Cosgrove v Brestoi
flanks r Rdthwell
Same v Same
Cole ♦ Cunninghard
flildyard v Jaeksost
Kemp t Mills

The King . Jahn
Brown
Stockdale r Turley
Same r Same
Burnett v Farren
llenty r Mercer

COURT Ul' COMMON PLEAS.
MIDDLESEX ADJOURNMENT srrnma THIS DAY AT it*:
REMANCJIT.
WhityVlSlk V Oke and
another

Mx v Dyball
Davits v Strutherd
stair i:si:ses.
Giles • Powell Wilson and another Corbould v Field
Inderwlck v Grant • l.nvick Rawlinson • ABM
Tattle v Grim wood Brix r Furth Crisp v Allatt
Ashby and another vi
Oy

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Excrst: CAUSES FOR TOMORROW AT TIR.
Attorney-general v Prince I Attorney-General v Briekfotd
Attorney-General v Giles I A ttorney-Oeneral v Steel

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wznxtsto,ty, FEN. IS.

[Before the Ldun Crum. JUSTICE and Middlesex Coma
Juries.]

MOllitll V. BROADTOOT.
This was an action brought by Mr. Morris, a tailor Of getwiele.
street, Soho, to recover RI. IN., the amount of a bill of exchanges;
purporting to be drawn ley Mrs. Ann Broadfoot, residing in the
same street, and accepted by C. %V. Hutchins.
Mr. DOWLING opened the pleadings, and Mr. SCARLI:I4
stated the ease to the Jury. He said the circumstances under
which this bill was given were these: Mr. Hutchins. who was se
accountant, being in the employ of Mrs. Broadfont, had °ces-
sion for a suit of clothes, which he procured from the plaintiff,
this bill being drawn by the defendant as a exurity for the amounti
Mr. Hutchins accepted it, and handed it to Mr. Morris. It wart
true the bill, though purporting to be (haven by Mrs. Broadfocits
was not actually signed by her, hue was signed with her name 14
one of her sons, who was in tf.e habit of doing so with her privity
and consent. It was, therefore, for all legal purposes, strewn by
her.

C. NV. Hutchins was then called, and deposed as follows :--1111i.
the acceptor of the bill in question ; that bill was drawn on me by
the direction of Mrs. Ann Broadtoot, and was signed with het
name by ‘Vm. Broadfoot, her son, in her presence, and with be
authority.
Cross-examined by the Cosrmort.SxaGE•NT.—Mrs. Broad.
foot told me to go down into the yard. and fetch up her son We,.
to s!gtl the bill, which I did, and he signed it in her presence. I
never admitted to Mr. M`Ghiet, the Attorney for the plaintiff; that
this bill was signed by the boy, her son, without her privity. I
never exclaimed to the boy, on such an occasion, with an oath.--
" What, would your mother hang a man for the sake of 8/.2"
Mr. Dowtaxo then called Wm. Henry Sitop ion. who proved
that be presented the bill in question at Mrs. Broadfoot'a house,
on the day it became due, and it was not paid.
Mr. DewSIAN addressed the Jury for the defendant, and exc.
tended that the witness Hutchins was wholly unworthy of credit..
He came into Court with an excellent suit of clothes on his back,
which were not paid for, to cut a respectable figure, and to fix ad
unfortunate widow with his debt in a most dishonest manner. He
had accepted this bill for a suit of clothes which he himself had
worn, and It *as his duty to hare paid it, instead of attempting to
make int pay it. But what he had sworn was utterly false, as the
Learned Counsel would call the little boy who had accepted this
bill, who would not only prove that he bad s:gned his mother's
name at the solicitation of Hutchins without her consent, but also
that Hutchins had made use of that expression which he had
positively denied.
Alexander Young Broadfoot. a boy cf fifteen years of age, was
then called. lam the son of Mrs. Broadfoot. On the 3d of S.ep-
tember, the day on which the bill bears date, my mother was not at
home. She went out at ten o'clock in the morning, and did not re-
' turn until the evening. I went with her. We went to Mt.
Eltiston's, the Manager of Drury.lane Theatre, and after that into
the City.
Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT. Mr. Hutchins lodged at
my father's house during my father's life time. I cannot say how
long. Ile has lodged with my mother since. but not long. El is
bad my mother's books to make out accounts. I have heard Mr.
Morris apply to my mother to sign a bill for Hutchins, but she po-
sitively refused. She said she would not sign a bill for anybody,
but she believed Hutchins would pay. Hutchins never passed the
evening at my mother's house. My mother never gave him a
watch, not V. to buy one. He esme to my mother for assistance
in a wretched state. The day on which I went with my molter so
Mr. Elliston's was the 6th of September. lam sure it was the 6th,
We went out at 10 o'clook in the morning, and came back in Ma
evening. I never signed my mother's name ; that I swear.
(Here Mr. Scarlet put Into the witness's hands some paters
which he admitted were signed by him with his mother's name.l
When you asked me whether I ever signed tiny mother's name, I
thought you meant to bills or receipts.
' The LORD CHIEF Jusxrcx—You said before that you bed
never signed your mother's name.
Witness, I meant to bills. The other papers put into my hand/
are my brother William's writing.
William David Broadfoot, an interesting dapper little fellow,
dressed in a military frock coat, was next examined.-1 am the sow
ot' the defendant, lam twelve years old. I signed this bill od
which the present action is brought, with my mother's name, by
the desire of Hutchins. My mother never authorised me to write
her name to it, nor did she krow of it. Afterwards Mr. Hutchins
took me to Mr. 111.01iie, the attornenfor the plaintiff, to settle the
matter as he said. 11'hen we got there, Mr. 111`lihie asked me if
my mother had authorised roe to sign this bill, and I said she did
not. Mr. Hutchins then said, " Lord Jesus Christ ! what a false.
hood ! Did not your mother authorise you to sign it ?" I said
she did not, and then he said. " What, would your mother hang a
man for the sake of 81. ?" That was all that passed.
Cross-examined by Mr. SCAILETT—I do not know whose writ.
big these papers are (the papers described by the last witness at
written by his brother IVilliam). They are not my writing.
Hutchins never had my mother's books, nor saw them.
Mr. SCARLETT then called David Bettie, formerly foreman to
Mrs. Broadfoot, who proved that one of the papers which the last
witness denied to be his livid-writing, was written by him.
Mr. DENMAN again addressed the Jury on this contradiction,
and put it to them whether, if the little boy who had been so se-
verely cross-examined by Mr. Scsrlett, had sworn falsely, he would
not have called Mr. M`Ohie to contradict him ?
Mr. SCARLETT then replied generally,upon the whole fait, Di.
marking on the various contradictions of the two boys, which went
not only to charge Mr. Hutchins with forgery, but also with per.
jury. Moreover, it was evident that these precocious children weft
well schooled in their evidence; and no man who had stood by and
heard them give their testimony would believe that a boy so cool,
so collected, and so sensible as the younger one, would ever have
been guilty of the moral fraud imputed to him, by signing this bilL
without his mother's authority.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the whole of the eel.
dence at length, and left it to the Jury to decide on which aide the
truth lay.
The Jury After a short deliberation found for the plaintiff--da.
mages, 111. 10s.

LBefore Mr. Justice Ltvrt.tpal.E.l
SLANDER.
MILLER V. OSRORNt.
This was an action for words alleged to be spoken by the de.
fendant to one Clarke, of and concerning the plaintiff in his bust.
ness as a tailor. The words set out in the declaration were that
Miller was a dishonest person, and was unable and unwilling to
pay his just debts; in consequence a hereof, I:larke refused to trust
31 iller, as he had been accustomed to do.
Mr. EOMYN opened the pleadings, and Mr. MAaltlf AT stated
the cage to the Jury.
Mr. Miller was a respectable tailor, residing at St. Mary's Cray,
in the county of Kent, where the defendant had come and set up in
the same hosineas as his rival. In consequence of this alone, and
without any provocation, he had gone to • Mr. Clarke, a woolen.
draper residing in the Borough, who was in the habit of supplying
the phintiff with goods in his line of business, and there he thought
fit to slander the plaintiff in themanner stated in the declaration.
Under these circumstances, the Learned Counsel submitted that
the Jury ought to give such exemplary damages as would suffici-
ently punish the defendant for reviling his neighbour.
John Clarke was then called, and deposed as follows :—I am a
ri*n's mercer, residing in the High-street, Southwark. The plain.
tiff is • tailor residing at St. Mary's Cray, in the County of Kent,
and dealt with the for between nine and twelve months. I was in
the habit of giving him credit for woollen-drapery. The defendant
mcaell.ed
laht
admynsehtokpnohl.nNohrinemi
belierrorell.324H,
eacomnd
minentrocdeducedthe byname:m.lf to.
don first by telling me that he was sutler it St. Mary'a Cray, and
then he talked about business. He said he knew Miller, who was
a but character, and not fit to bs trusted. In about two months he
called again, and then he used nearly the same elPreaoooll. but I
do not recollect the exact words. lo ecouttquatoe of what dm do.