The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-06-08 00:00:00

4Nriewasties.
cantr.olP. lilolllllll% *Litseat's
Jugs 7.

•
Tie yes the lest Sea rafter Term The 11:446
ClaaCSt.Lot opened it at his beim in Illamities-
Owe his Lordship 'being prevented from sating
6 Cilia; Agog account of bis baying beak sent Int by
*is Illeeente the Vlet-CIMAIICELLItt Ilford
untie.%
CO K 1 011, KING'S BENCH, illerriatstesit,
11.1111MIDAT. Jutia 7.
&fere the LOOM CHIEF JUITICR and Conon*

autos a. iiiisATH.
This was as action by the Plaintiff, an eitkraver,
to recover a compensation for work and labour donne
for the Defendant. also an engraver of eminence,
to whom the Plaintiff had formerly been pupil.
The SoLiciTou-Gicuntat. bladed the Plaintiff's
case to the Jury. The Defendant had entered into
an nigsKetneot with Messrs. Baldwin to repair and
tvitio.eb the whole of the plates of Hogarth, for which
'Wine to receive 1,700/.. or 1101. fur each plate.—.
The Defendant selected Mr. Itivers with whose abi-
litin he was well acqusititeil, from the circumstance
of his having been his pupil, so execute part of the
work. The celebrated palate of the Moreli to Pinch-
ley was confided to him. lie (the Solicitor.Gt-
neral) should be able to prove that the wook.which
his client had undertaken to perform was ably dour,
and in the judgment of the respectable Artists
whom he should call as witnesses, must have occu-
pied at lewd seven months of the time of hissclient.
it was to recover a reasonable remuneration for that
time so occupied that Isis client was compelled to
bring the present action. He had deusauded at
the moderate rate of half a guineas day, and hail
received from she Defendant 441. on account, which
the Defendant pretended to think a sufficient and
full compensation. The Learned Grutlemats then
culled his witnesses.
Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Reimbach, Mr. Englehart,
end other engravers, spoke to the quantity of la-
bour which the Mangle' must have bestowed on the
plate in question, end judger{ Irvin the print taken
from it, they computed that it must have occupied
him 'from seven to nine month..
Mr. ScsaLerr, for the 1).1...Want, said, be con-
ceived he had as good un answer to this case as ever
wee -given in a Court of justice. lle would prove
that fur 50g. his client could have got the plate
'completed fit fur publication, whilst here he had
paid 447. and had been obliged afterwards to em-
ploy }Unwell; es well as soother artist. to Gooses the
palate which the Plaintiff had sent home, before it
could be published.
The Learned Gentleman called
'Allen.—Witness is a -pupil of Mr. Heath,
and lived with him. He saw The plate when the
Plaintiff brought it *csset it required a deal of
work to be done to it. Witness west ever the whole
of the work except the faces, and was occupied a
week about it. • 441. wottld have satisfied him bad
he been engaged to do what Mr. Rivers' had done.
Mr. J. Fox, another pupil or the Defendant,
Mr. T. bury, and Mr. P. lb/dwell, tmeavera,
were sheers the print WI taken from the plate in the
state in which it was left by the Plaintiff, and they
todsidered that 41)gs. weafd have been a Yiberal
colopeniation for whet lota been done.
J. Taylor rzooriteed.—Witneso is an engraVer •
he agreed with Mr. Heath to completely repair the
plate or the North to Fiochley. fit far publication,
for filly guineas ; but he afterwards released Mr.
Heath from that cootrict in favour of Mr. Rivera.
lie considered that Mr. Wren would haie been
liberally paid if lie had received 401. fur what he
bad done.
The Soirerroa-Gatruitat replied.
• The Cutts JUSTItIi summed tip the evidence
to the Jury, who, after a short consideration, found
a verdict for the Plaintiff-.-Damages 96/.

IPIIOIIIZII V. BAYLEY AND GOODirlif.,
The Plaintiff is an srmy-accoutrentent-maker to
the Royal. Family. living at Cliaring•cress. On
the night of the 10th November last the town was
illuminated iu consequence of the Rill against her
Majesty being withdrawn in the House of Lords.
On that occasion the Plaintiff did not illuminate
his house, and in consequence a mob 4.f person., con-
sisting of Upwards of 3,000, amentbied opposite his
honor, and broke the windows by a discharge of stones
mud brickbats. They came on the following night. aud
again attacked the Plaintiff's windows, but were
dispersed by the arrival or the police. The pre-
sent action was brought tinder the statute against
the Defendants. being two of the inhabitants of
the hundred of Ossulstoo, to recover the sues of
17/.. Its. 6d. the issount of the glazier's and carpen-
ter's bills for repaint. it appeared that part of the
carpenter's charge was for nailing boards against
titer windows after the first attack., by way of pre-
venting the ill effects of the second.
'The cue being fully proved—
Mv. Mammary contended that the charge fbr
ariahog op the boards was not within the statute.
Mr. Scsatzre consented to take off 91. 2s. 6d.
au* that account.

The Cater Arnica, in summing up the evi-
dence, regretted that in cases like the p►esent
there was no easier mode of recovery. It was ue-
cessery under the statute for the Defendants to
come before a Jury in order to have their remedy
aver. He hoped that same Learned Gentleman
in the proper place would propose a remedy for
this inconvenience.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff—da-
mages 141. lot.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Theas•Air, Iva* 7.

IMILT V. DUGGAN:
This was an action to recover a compensation in
damages (or a breach of promise of marriage. The
Plaintitf. it a young lady of about 2* years of age,
deaghtcr of the late treasurer of the Richmond
theatre. The Defenehnit became acquainted with
her, and promised her merrier/1819, at which
time he was an apprentice ..to t-cosnufacturer
in Nengste-street. Vet Oict fm let Pktutiff—D.-
tu .gri 10/. . t»11 51,04.