The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-07 00:00:00

Ii 1
1
•
......11-11"' ...-- - ..,-...-- - - .....-...--ffww".www-eteetegonme . !---
LAW NOTICES.
COURT OF CHANCERY. 1 examined the horse's lungs after hit death. and found them a
-..... mare of ulceration. The hone died hi consoquence of this affec-
tioo of the lungs. This disease, I should tWMt, Must hate been a
3 3 Ti.R& Tut LORD C.AiIIaRLLOR THIS entexesta AT TEN. twelvemonth in coming on.
Fithian alta.esne Fowls: v. Early. Jams', Gainer-I:at tended this horse as hostler. This was before
Appeal-Dean v. Watson. last Christmas. I attended him about five weeks. The horse we,
Appeal per OtdeswAtseteney-Onend it. Mason of Ezeter. never well. He ate and drank badly. He did nothing, and got
Appeale-Commeey T. Rade. Four Causes. gradually worse. Shadwell, the defendant's groom, came several
. NETUIBE Tat VILX-MRANCILLOR Tan 1C01113114 AT times, and gave him • ball. .I did not desire him to do this. He
sway-rare TEN. did this several times.
For Judgment-Horn v. Horn. Cross-exeraated by Mr. Otrnatov-The horse did very little
, .
cites,. during these lye peeks. He was not shod every fortnight. 1
Vanning v. Lytle I Foetus m. Smith Cobden v. Daily know he was shod once. 1 will not swear that he was not shod
lliamenery v•Bradlee name v. Cozen I Burnell v. Parsons three times during the five weeks. I will not swear that he was
i -
' ' '
leo v. Yee Same v. Friend. Waist., a. Howard not shod within six days of his death.
cowries tr. Collard %flee-held •. Thorp Richardson v. Wni. Brandram-1 son the brother of the defendant. In Sep-
t ! I ham* v.. Horn Sealy v. Conies/. 'Moder tensber. 1824, I received a sum of money from the plaintiff, on
4srue v. Teddy tun Dant v. Gorges account of this horse.
i Same v. White Datum r. Crofts
Cross-examined by Mr. Gummy-This hone was in my ser-
_ vice fur three years preceding his being sold to the plaintiff. At
• . COURT OF KING'S BENCH. the time of his sale he was in high spirits and fine condition. I
' 1, .itimatesito ceuere oo Dt Tat no cologne 'Rates had ridden him up to the very day of sale; he had been well
THIS 31011111. AT HALE. PAST NINE. grimed, well fed, and every care taken of him; to my know.
• Lbw/ham v. Durham Barris v. Frits Deering ~ Bailey Ledge he had no complaint but the thick wind when he was sold.
6 tiv
. ' asnger v. George Surliest v. W high- Ceckerton v. Ri. Mr. Cook being allied did not answer.
Wood v. Lownfte • ton chardsurt Mr. No Or, upon this, rose and said that this witness was very
tarns v. ITod n Drewitt v. Waren', Woodrow v. Jones material.
-P.
it.. Nelson v. Ward 'Due, &c. v. Breedon Roberts v. Hosted The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE-Then why is he not here ?
i tinny a. Potts Mayhew v. Ashby Leman, v. Brown Mr. Noaew-Call him on his submena.
Ist:
..rice •. Loaner Alvin v. F.dwards Bye v. Scott The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE-Perhaps he will come another
1I • •.l chine v. Edge, Aunts v. Whiten Temkin* v. Bather- time. (A laugh.)
Bsrtley v. It:chard. Thompson v. Tud- silk blr. Notes; said that he must, in consequence of the absence
• 1 1 son. &sham Hume, a. ivjaa„ of this witness, submit to a nonsuit.-Plaintiff nonsuited.
Panne v„ Andrews Chard tr. Tnwin Smith v. Simpson ToWX3ON T. 'LEER! AND OTHERs.
lit Haute v. Doe Boron v. 31•Dou- 51•Laughlin v. The plaintiff is on attorney, on the staff of the trustees of the
roads within the parish of St. George-in-the-East. The action
'l'ownsend v. Carper- gall Fowles
was brought on a contract which the trustees had made with Mr.
__ tor Hooman v. Danks
Weems v. Audi*, Hoene e.Breedes Myer' whereby, in consideration of paying them 4501. a-year, he
was to lave the
exclusive privilege of cleaning and dusting all the
1 LONDu X mew. JURY APPOIE4I3Ir3I7II FOR FRIDAY,
larmall, roads, Inn, and squares of that part of the parish of
ifith Decsitnut.
he Meru, Ste. of Hoke v. Lauri* Von Capelon v. COr-
St. George which lies without the limits of the lower of
n.
La/3W Y. Hunt Ripley v. &idle potattonotTnnity. Lapdo
O
Mall and another v. Buckumhain v. house Mr. UR NET and Mr. RlCHARconducted DS the case that the
pla..intiff ; Mr. SCAIILETT and Mr. Hoer that of the defendants.
Edmunds Bertes. Esq. Shears v. the Mayer
• Mr. Duel= said that this action was brought under the Act
of London
. 10 B.oxam v. Taverner Cross v. Wharton
.i&IIM ii- Weed Lighting v. Clarke Doe, demise of Her. of the 46th of the late King,
.which empowered 'the trustees of this
Same v. French Cross v.Wharroti nine, v. Lawrence parish to contract for cleansing the streets. The. defeirdent had
1 . name v. Gmeowood Sanderson y. Nestor Franklin y. Ashby entered into a bond with Mr. Myers, and his sureties, Mr. Green
;roster v. Badding- Drew v. Kerr Allan o. Fisher and Mr. Davis, to grant him the exclusive privilege, on condition
4 ton Melhuish v. Pearson Pngh v. Clark of his paying annually 450!. The contract in question wan dated
2edden v. Alexander the 18th July, 1823. The three first instalments had been duly
paid; the fourth payment had been reaisted by Mr. Myers, on
• t Lotions erEetsa. 31/ItY APPOINTMENTS TOR SATURDAY, :the ground that be had been deprived of the privilege of cleaning a
17th Dec ElariEß. -very small and inconsiderable part of the parish situated in the
It'eriwich v. Thornton Horner v. Cottam The Klieg v 'Pearce. t'n'tuerci. °l'm"'
One of the attesting witnesses was then called to prove the ear. Dewey v. Whittaker Sawyer v. IVhittaker Same v. Hall
1t • Rswsoa v. Lloyd Dempsey v. Robins Manic v. Southen ninon of. the contract end bond. Also a witness, from whose ten-
',' tae v. Same Quinn v. Collier same v. Newman moony it appeared, that the whole number of houses in the Com-
nercishroad is about 5,800, anti that the number within the parish
ti nate, v. Docker Clark v. King Same v. &neaten
raked v. Cresoicke The King v. Pearce Bradford v. Levy. of St. Othrgetn the East is only l3d.
this
, .., Mr. SCARLETT rose, and said that i case involved rather a
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. question for his Lordship than for the Jury. There were indeed
Tier next Middlesex Sluing will be to-asenow (Thursday ). no facts for the Jury, and the case must turn on the construction
. of certain Acts Of Parliament under which Abe parties to this suit
i COURT OF EXCHEQUER. claimed their authority. His Learned Frienff relied on the 46th of
•
George 111, from which the trustees ofSt. George's derived their
ii t:Vcise CAUSES TO NeTRIED THIS HORNING AT TEN.
authorityG lito.grant be exclusive Privilege.oh cleansing the streets of
) hammy-General v. Robertson I Attorney-General v. Martini
Same v. St ring I Same v. Wm. Stevens. this permwas, 'in There t however,W a
previous Act to which, he would
Crew the attention of his Lordship, passed in the 42d of the same
v
- reign, which, stating in the preamble the necessity of a free inter-
L.f W. INI'ELLIGENCE. course with the London and other Docks, gave the trustees of these
-.....1.11...- docks the right of contracting for cleansing the Commercial-road,
COURT OF CHANCERY, TUESDAY, DEC. G. The provisions of this Act were not st all affected by those of the
aucceeding statute of the 46th. In consequence of disputes which
' The Court was occupied the mike of the day in going through
I :arise of no public interest. had arisen on the construction of them, another Act was passed in
the sth year of the present reign, to explain these Acts, and con-
( -.......___
firming the right of the trustees of the Luttion Docks to contract
. VICE-EHANUELLOR'S COURT, TUESDAY, Dec. 6.
' for the cleansing of the Commercial-road. On this Act the defend-
ant had relied for nos defence.
ROBBERY OF THE NEWBURY BANK. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE-When was this agreement
, LAU?EAI .. VIWCZNT AND ovitras. made?
. i This was a bill died by the plaintiff for en account of the deal-
Mr. GURNEY-On the 18th of July, and both the contract pad
, • istre, profits, and transactions of the Newbury Bank, carried on the treat% had occurred before the passing of the last Act.
; i ....Flee the Linn of Vincent, Tanner, Barnes, and Hancock. Mr. SCARLET T-Well, that dote not affect my case. I shall
, ,
The_ defends:oa in this chtse are the parties who suffered sO ime
1 Irely on the Act of the 42d George 111. He then went on to state,
i I a loss by the robbery of their banking-house in 1815, and
e bankrupt!' shortly afterwards, in consequence of that occur. that Mr. Myers had been interrupted in his operations by persons
who had cootracted with the trustees of the commercial docks. On
It appeared that the shop in which the patties carried en his taking them up before a Magistrate, his complaint was die.
) t * me:: business as bankers in Newbury consisted two rooms under missed lied he was told that he ought to hate been brought up
t i . tae White B that
Bart Inn in town. The premises had been care- waved.
iii fady dosed and secured at four o'clock of the evening of Saturday,
the 4th of December, and between that time and the following teativrea. 6°6,2111,00,E5.'e said, that be bed no objection to let this me be
person, to see what allowance should be made
• t. . i Maeday they were broken open and plundered of property, includ.
t mug bills, note", and cash, to an immense extent. The robbery with.
to the defendant in consequence of the interruption Ire had met
• i Laving been discovered at ten o'clock (the usual hour for cont. ula r..-a MmItLILTT at first objected to this • but on the suggestion
4 menace. bedews) of Monday. the 6th of December, the bank
•be a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1121., to be reduced to such
'.f 4 •
stopped payment, and the premises were shut up. and never after.
wants re-opened for the purpose of transacting the business of the
of their duties on the premises, which, it is observable, were merely
speirate residence. It did not appear that the parties were sought of the Lord Chief Justice, it was finally ;greed that there 'boatel
a sum as should appear proper on reference to an arbitrator.
firm. The partners were not to be found in the ordinary discharge
i , .--essmie—__
'. I AIWA for mercantile pusposes, and corr.ateed no accommodations far COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY, Dec. 6.
,
i Been strielreent•derelling-houses in thene=teell. Z., Lohion Sittiniss apes Michaelmas Terme. before Lord Chic/
time to be nosidered was, whether or net of ' . , JeetwAJJEct IME E.:apatite% Juries.
from their nun place of business, and the shutting up the shop,
constkosedati act of Mularoptey under the statute of 1 James I. Several causes were tried to-day, most of which were unde-
cap. la, see. L fended ; but there were none possessed of the least general
._ intetest.
* 'Mr. Beene (for the plaintiff) argued that the absence Of tne
--- - -- -
parties from their countiag-house, for the purpo pay-
se of avoiding
WINTER HOME CIRCUIT.
1 ' . meet of their crediueri, amounted to an art of bankruptcy. He re. --...••••••.-
Lod upon the we of any individual who followed the business of a ESSEX ASSIZES, CitilLuaronto, Diu. 6.
nowsvender, at the Royal Exchange. In that can, the circumstance
1 . I' ' •of
the peen selling hie newspapers at the Exchange occasioned
Befo
onat place to been sidered his chop ; andit had been determined re Mr. Baron HULLOCX and Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.
• f s . that the tact of Ma hosing absented himself from thence with the John Pearce was indicted for burglariously breaking and enter-
that the parish church of Haling, and sacrilegiously stealing ti
'new of avoiding his creditors came under the meaning of the sta. prayer-hank, the property of Elisabeth Bury.
1. i t.te. and constituted an act of bankruptcy. Mr. Kwox conducted the prmecution. Mr. PARKER followed on the same side, and cited the case of a On the morning of the 14th August last, it was discovered that
men who lied been in the habit of carrying on business and trans- the parish church of Nazing Ind been entered by a window and
acting his affairs at a coffee-house, and who, having ceased P • !tient. robbed of several prayer-books. Suspicion falling on the prisoner,
eag hta keep out of die way of his creditors, was held to hare tom. he was apprehended, and, on being charged with the robbery, con-
tent:ad an act of btu-An: sere. tented that he had stolen the prayer-book ; having entered the win-
- :./r. HART (for the defendants) contended that the occurrence in
I. -question dui not amount to an act of bankruptcy. The facts were- dew with the intention of stealing the communion plate, but find.
ing himself disappointed in that object, he had broken open a box,
• i
I itanattbr andki"ga-bs iithitieerehwadereb ;cent oral:sten yof assetsalithien property
t
peeymiceonn.tathineeede
mould not liars been the slightest use, or necessity, in keeping them in the organ loft, and subtracted the book in question. His confes-
non did not go teethe extent that the brooking had been effected in
the night time. and therefore the Jury, under the direction of the
. open, as the partners were disabled from continuing to transact bu-
s, Learned Judge, acquitted him of the capital part of the charge, but
...mese as formerly. The entire absence of the parties had not been found him Guilty of the larceny.
' proved-It was indeed sworn, that ncr.e of them were there present We ai. borne and Henry Hunter were indicted for stealing, at
L i to carry on their business as usual ; but non constat, the partners
'wale there, though not transacting their ordinary business: It Barlow, on the 2d September, a mare, the property of IV illiam
Blencuwe.
• -did not appear on the evidence that any inquiry was made at the Mr. Kwox conducted the prosecution, and Mr. JES9oP and
, • .
private residence& of the bankers, or that they were denied, or an.
seated themselves therefrom. Mr. TWEE the defence.
i The VICE-CHANCELLoR The weeds of the statute are " and It appeared in evidence that the prosecutor, who is a tradesman
litany person shall depart the realm, or kecp his or her house, or residing at Beaconsfield, in Buckinghamshire, Imo the mare in
I aunt Mai or herself from his or her place of business, for the pur- question, which was worth 351. from a field in his occupation,
it pass of delving his or her aeditors-that shall be considered an
between seven and sine o'clock in the evening of the Ist Sept.
act of bankruptcy." lam of !minion here. that the circumstance
At the last Harlow Bush Fair, the prisoner Hunter was taken in
of those two rooms under the White Han Inn haying been used asked 'how he became pos.
the act of selling the mare. He was .
it
i sewed of the animal, and he said. he was selling for the other
.as the banking-shop of the parties, constitutes them their place of
business ; and further, that these rooms being shut up, and the prisoner, Osborne, who immediately came forward, and claimed
partners having absented themselves therefrom. is an set of bank. the mare as his property. They were both taken into custody.
. 0
r otey within the meaning of the statute ; with this proviso, that at gate
seen lurking the of
Proof was given that the prisoner was
at be so considered, subject to an explanation (if the parties can the prosecutor's field on the evening of the lit of September, about
/pre any) of the cause of their absence. seven o'clock.
--etenowe-- The defence set up was, that the prisoner Osborne had purchased
I ROLLS COURT, TuxaDAY, Due. G. market she mare at Smithfield on the 2d September, but there was
no satisfactory proof of this fact.
. --e
• The Learned JUDGE charged the Jury that there was no en-
.. LORD DARLINGTON t. CODIINGTON.
it Tina long-litigated cause, which. after having gore through the dencweitiCitlaitter.ectliet
yhew prisoner
tats Hunter;
fied t lepfetieethneeem. to
t-Jurts below, Ina taken to the House of Lords, on an appeal as of the bas[
tdosf the otherhii
tow. the decree of Sir Witliem Gant. Master of the Rolls, who /The Jury acquitted Hunter, but found Osborne Guilty-Death.
deelded that the representatives of the late Lady Bath were sewed .- .. -
se fee ell certain estate situate in Stoke Newington. was aftain MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. TUESDAY, Dec. 6.
brought ender ensuleration. The House of Lords having decided • _.............._.. .
that Latly„ Rath was the absolute owner of the property, and that At the last Sessions Mr. Remshaw, Mr. Grey, and another per-
t/be/ La.i) -hip had redeemed the land-tax in her own proper person, son were indicted for an assault, by two watchmen named Leonard
mast for for Own use- ari benefit, a question was rose by Sir and Johnson. They were acquitted, and Renshaw had filed a
i Thomas r onus, whether the was more than a cripy-hoider ? On ernes indnement against their former prosecutors, Leonard and
the gne side it was gontsuded, that the redemption was made for Johnson.
we benefit of the estate, and the defendants having admitted that It appeared by the evidence that Mr. Grey and another gentle-
. Lady Bath was the sole and absolute owner of the property, those man were returning, at about half-mwt twelve at night, from seeing
who took urns her Ladyship mast necessarily have an equal some tire-works at the Rosemary Branch, and that passing through
ulatin. Os the ether side it was enntended, that the only question Plumber-street they stopped to listen to a dispute that was going
ter esneidenstion was, whether thia I/.14 real or personal estate? on between some men and a woman of the to'sn ; whilst halite act
Tibet Lady Bath having died without children, Sir Thomas' Sot- of doing an the defendant Leonard came up and desired them to
NM became entitled ; and that Lady Bath was only a tenant for wait on, which they dirt, and, followed by defendant, gent down a
ills, as. In (Le event sd bee 'meta; had children, they would have coert, at the end of which Me Remshnw was waiting for them.
ashes the property as customary heirs. After considerable dints. The watchman, upon seeing him, desired him to move on, when
Me., the prosecutor said he had an good a eight to lii there as he.
The MTaa of the ROLLS said, as the Learned Counsel foe The defendant Leonard told him that if lie did not move on he
1 /101 the defendants contended that ropyholden did not come within would spring his rattle, end then, without wafting a moment,
. ton Act of Parliament foe the redemption of the land-tax, and as sprung his rattle, and seeing the defendant Johnson coining up to
14 bad or' an i'mDedia's inc°lle"" of the ease, he would read bisawaletance, he seized the prosecutor by the collar, and made a
uvet the hli and anew, and refer to the settlements as they sp. blow at him with his bludgeon. The two watchmen then dragged ,
pined before the Hone of Lords. His present opinion was in him to the watehhouse, and gave him in charge is disorderly.
4 • • t*eesir of i
h.^ deer
es ofthe b lab! of er the lolle, sanctioned by the The Jury found
that however
it
.' .() F autishor. ,or 'be House Of Lords, but if be should alter that ornnum, h. T e CH•la HAW, in passing sentence.()f
observed,
1 • mild i. re.ftest i thou to re-argue It
.eass. the Court might wish to pre .act officers every desc. riptiun, but
-....in0nn.--
COURT OF
KING'S BENCH, WRITMIX•TER, duty, et
Y the abuse of the power intrusted to them foe the due per,
TuiIIIDAY, DEL. 6. feeniatice of that duty must 11 guar be outfit yguarded against. The
sentence of the Court was, that Leonard should be imptisoned two
A' .
sews e Ariel Pries iSihes that LORD CH/Er JusTzLE and a mouths aod Johnson one month.
CalittiMa Jew,.
c . UR REY SESSIONS, TUESDAY, Dec. G.
.--we5e.,.....-
BAILEY V. aII•NDRAIi•
Tiu .S was as anion of deceit, to recover 'utages against the de- W:,I. Ida' beat, a young man of very respectable appearance,
f !Vaunt for having sold the plaintiff a horse for 30L, which was stood indicted feat feloniously stealing various tunas of money, the
of George Sine.
teontel to be sound is all respects except having th;cl: wind, property
elute'. as, is v Jim of fact, the horse was at the Lime labouring under be prosecutor stated that he was a lacernaa, carrying On busi-
es* at Nimington-causeway. Having repeatedly niisreel silver
r durum of the locos, and died a.lew mamba after the plaintiff had n
perdition him. from the till, be determined to adopt some measures to discover tbe.
I lie.Not.AN and lOLA melt uut.n conducted the plaintiff's case; offender, and by theadviee of his friends. on the evening of tine
Mr. Gnaw CT and Mr. HoLT that of the defendant.
Wm. Pettigrew examined ty Mr. AecnaohD-I remember a oftremi
elasthtemotath hoeemarkel several pieces of coin, and deposited
the following morning he discovered that
• 1 convasation with Shadwell, the defendant's groom, about this two of the shillings so marked were pme. Witnesatinbetn4/apeir-
, hew .i.ell: ilfisseamitedeelattimi to bebs;teidagi:Lall)4ettapisa,bbouutt:hcahalianth!ek lian a faidei is
i.;ctitlYselwthueeeprilsO;n:er customer
there theft.
ibtere e,lhildvdieve:iaroft:entitida declald
/
.. ,
N .
•