The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-10-28 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.,

COURT OP KING'S BENCH.
TUN DAILT.-TO DI? A? lIALP-PAST SUM
London Special Juries.
Lloyd v. Freshetld, Ist I The King tr. E. Shack- The King T. D. Prince
at oil events ell Minty v. Thrones
Brook v. Hudegon H'lltie v. Clarke Lloyd v. Johnson.
Thomp-ron v. Franc
N.n. No Common Jorle•.
Mr. Justice Llttledale will attend taing:rem this day (Saturday', at 11
o'clock lu the forenoon.

NJ Special Juries will be tried in Middlesex before Term.
Monday, October 30, 1826.
Middlesex Common Juries. _

31111er ♦. Scotts

William+ v. Tomlloson
Harrl+on v. Crowder
1...;0k v. 11111

Horton v. Parks
Christy v. Gibbs
Same v. Seine
Same. v. Seine
Harrison v. Jones
Davis v. hrl.anghlin
Herron v. Choice
Freeman v. Davis
Gel Ham v. Jones
Hoe, &c. v. Medcraft
Pertington v. West
Mitchell v. Cook
Turner v. Crowder
Hraitbwaite v.
Churchill

floe. &c. V. Piggott
The King v. Ryland
Anderton v. hisli)A
Hendry v. Collier
White v. Hall
Roe, dm v. Chalmers
Spedding v. Glover
tiptop v. Pointer
Smith v. Davies
Doe. kc. v. Reid
Chum v. Ventura
Same v. Same
Renblen v. Brickley
Gouldsberough v.
Nelson.

Hrenninz v. Stevens
Pemberton v. Young
Doe. &e. v. 07le
Edward* v. Evered
Hatfield v. /Cater

Benthri v. Walker
Saone v. C. Walker
Same V. W. Walker
Waters ♦. Weldon
Richardson v. Bickford
Carroll v. Meredyth
Wales v. 'Burton

'RT OF COMMON PLE
THIS HAY, AT Tay.
Lundaa Special Juries,
I Irian T. Mactibie I

Airqs and uthers v.
rawly'
%Voc!taztoa v. True-

Hardens v. Chatfield
Taniln v. Atty
Ward v. Didier
Itemaining Cnmmon Ji
Mat•lenn v. Greece I Smith v. Esteonrt
Bets% 01 th and anor. v. Bryson v. I,loyd
Tuoinh• and asotber Carr and others v.
Cotter and uthers v. I Browne
Sangster
The Chief Justices Chambers open from el
to eight.

Clark and another V.
Gibbs
Bauk of England V.
Legh.

Coiangev. Holden
Hu,band v. Laac
Schilling V. Wolf
Couthorne v. Taylor

toibree, and from six

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. TytrasDAY, Ocr• 27.

-.-
London Rommel Sillings. befun• tot LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
and Special Juries.

THE CITY NEW COURTS.

OIIIFFITS THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF THE CITY

OF LONDON.

This WAS an action brought by ihepinintiff against the defend-
ants, to recover from them the balance of an account stated fur
work and labour done, money expended, and materials found in the
erection or the new Courts of King's Bench anti Common Picas,
adjacent to Guildhall.
Alr. SCAR LETT. .Mr. GURNEY, Mr. BROUGHAM, and 31r.
RYLAND, appeared for the plainta
The defendants were represented by the SOLICITOR GENERAL,
the RECORDER of LONDON, and 31r. HOLLAND.

Mr. RYLAND opened the pleadings.
Mr. SCARLETT commenced stating the ease on the part of the
plaintiff'. If this case had been ripe for investigation at an earlier
petiod, it ought to have taken precedence of all the others which
were in his Lordship's list, and formed a sort of prologue to the
presmt Sittings, for it was a claim arising upon the construction of
that very Court in which the Learned Counsel had now the honour
of addressing his Lordship and the Jury.
The Loan CIIIEF JUSTICE—Then probably we shall not be a
proper tribunal for deriding suck a cue, Nlr. Scarlett.
Mr. SCARLETT—Why, perhaps no', my Lord; and If it be true
that tnuri Itabrot ann.:, this is not the place in which this cue ought
to be discussed.

The Loan Cult' JuSTICE—Can it not be referred to abetter
tribunal titan any of ua assembled here? You and I, Mr. Sennett,
have seen a good deal of this Cour:, and probably the Jury also
know something of it.
111 r. SCARLETT expressed thereadiness of his client to accede to
any suggestion which fell from his Lordship.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated, on the part of the City of
London, that they were perfectly ready to accede to this suggestion.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE observed that, in cases of this kind,
he always thought it right to suggest that an investigation should
take place before a tribunal where there could be more inquiry into
minute articles than could take place in open Court.
The case was then referred to a Gentleman at the Bar.
MESSRS. HAWES ". CROW AND OTHERS.

This was an action of 'rover brought by 3iesars. Hawes, who are
rellommerchents, carrying on business on the Surrey side of the
Timms, between Waterloo and Blackfriars-bridges, to recover
from the defendants who ase assignees of a banktupt, named
Ramabottom, fifty casks of tallow.
The facts of the case were simply these. Ramabottom was a
tallow-merchant, and on the Bth of March, 1825, he purchased of
the plaintiffs one hundred casks of tallow, to be taken away from the
plaintiff's' premises, after they had given him fourteen days' notice.
Payment wan to be made on the delivery order being presented'
to Itamsbottorn. On the 2d of April, Ramabottom went to plain-
tiffa, after notice given to him, received the delivery order, and
gave them a draft upon the Rank of England for 14001., Pearly
the amount of the tallow, although at that moment he had but a
balance in the Bank between 201. and Kll. He became bankrupt
upon the same day, and returned to the plaintiffs an order for fifty
casks of the tallow. The other fifty, however, which were the sub-
ject of the present action, came to the hands of his assignees, end
they were now called upon to restore them to the plaintiffi.
The Loan Cuter JUSTICE stated that the only question in
the case was, whether Ratr.shottom had any intention or expecta-
tion of being enabled to pay for the tallow at the time he drew on
the Bank of England fur 1400/. knowing well at that time that
he had only a balance in the hands of the Bank to the amount of
211. or 254 ?

... .
The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict for the plaintiffs.
sot aast AND OTHERS v. Si. SI. NOTHSCHTID ESQ.
__ . •

This was an action brought by the assignees of ill,. Alzeida, a
Spanish merchant, to recover from the defendant MAIN. 2s. Ild.
being the amount of certain French Rentes which the defendant had
contrActed to transfer to 51r. Alzeida, for bats of silver and Spanish
dollars of the same value. After the contract was proved, and it
was also established that the silver bars and dollars had reached the
defendant's hands,
Mr. r!,CARLETT stated that his client did not mean to contend
that he had not owed 111 r. Alzeida the amount for which. this action
was brought, but, as Mr. Alzeida had become a bankrupt during
the above transaction, the defendant thought it right to have the
verdict of ■ Jury to aseettain to whom the money ought to be paid.
A verdict was then found for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Gtro.onALL, OCT. 27.
ilkhrt tk LOILD CH Ler JI TICE and a Special Jurp.l

SAVAGE. V. BICH.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 1,0001. which the i
plaintiff had accepted. The evidence on the side of the plaintiff
consisted of accounts which were produced in Court to chow that
value had been given tor the bill to another house, with which they
had transacted much business, and between whom many bills had
passed.

_
This part of the case occupied the Court the whole morning.
The defence was, that about three yews back the defendant,
having occasion to raise money to the amount of 2,5001. he con.
aerated to accept bills to the amount of 15 0001. in I 5 bills of 1.0001.
each. These hills were to be accepted by him for the benefit of a
person named Howe, who resided at Torpoint, in Cornwall, and
this a•commodation was negotiated by a man named Beare, of
London, who was to receive 51. per cent. per annum for his trouble.
This was stated by Beare himself.

The LORD CHITF J ST LC E said, this was a most infamous
transaction. He hoped that Beare had never before or since en-
gaged in such transactions. His Lordship added—" But I believe
the pillory has been abolished."
Beare said he hail never gained auy thing by these bills, bur
on the contrary, had been a loser by them. The defendant ac.
cepted eight only of these bills, and disposed of them with Rowe;
but afterwards sent to get them back again, halting received nothing
for them. Mr. Rowe made every excuse in his power, bet the bills
wereeinally pet in against the defendant. It wooed the bills
then passed through the house of Hobson and Marshall, and frome
them to Messrs. Haggis and Savage. &dere this amino Lod runt.
menced Messrs. Hobson and Marshall failed, and Bog and
Savage had dissolved partnership, and the bill was indorsed by the
partnership of Mr. Savage, who now cleaned be recover on it. It
wu contended, on die part of the defendant, that under these ch.
commences the bill had been obtained fraudellwady, and that Hob.
stn and Marshall ought to have known the hos, and that if the
plaintiff', or the house of which be bad been a partner, did not
know the same circumstances, pt that they ought not to bore
taken a bill to such en amount, without souse inquiry into the air.
cumstances under which it had bees given.
Mr. Serge* BOIANQUIT, lazily. amid, that his dime sod
Ills house led bum ignorant twit asows tof the mars* he
which the W had bow enema& As be *slow be did isattldolt
the pleildf wee Mod le bows imalumed swy lasyst=se
.the
MP ads* of a his hoses bads** is the way et
21mi LOID COM eIIISTICIe MI, the list rut the Jury bad
*decade was, what**. ow tie WNW the pla *UN bmwe he ap-
peased is have Ova asewalindes Ise this bill. I/ they were of
*Rim that sew hid how gloat: their verdict nowt Irk Vat the de-
faming ; het Weiherwles H ova be for the plaintiff, unless they.
= tides
thedefaid
lliagla wed Swap had been acquainted with the fraud
Voss
itileleNeedant.
Vodka he ylehaltlliuWersegas, I,llllot