The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-05-14 00:00:00

I

• ..

TELLIGBNCS.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, Fitiver, MAT 11.
THI 1 IKO IP, RIDDLE%
The Delendaut smo I convitted at the last Devon-
shire Assizes, of as,atilting John Staples, a builder
and tat-gathi.ver. By the allidavit of the Prosecutor
it appeared, that he went to the house of di2 1)e.
fendaut for the purpose of colle)iug hilt a year's
tales, when a dispute awe about taking a stamp
receipt. It ended by the Defendant taking the
Prosecutor by the collar, and shaking him most
Tioleialy, and at hut threw Wm down the stairs, by
whit., his head was cut in a very dangerous rn.tnner
near the temporal aitery.
Tic Deforlant in his affidavit described, himself
as a 1 .I.:Utrnalit. Coirmel in the East India Company's
Service. and steed in mitigation that it was a sea.
fie, and that they both tell down stairs together.
The aiidaviti of other persons were also read, by
which it appeared that the parties had been under
terms of compromise.
Lord ELI. ss 1141u.ounn asked. if there was any
objeetion to the parties both i'oing before the
Master, for him to settle betwixt them.
Mr. Essaver replied, none.
His Lordship said, he Should trot have proposed
this, but that it appeared the parties themselves
had once thought that a pmper mode of ending
the matter. It was accordingly reterred to the
Master to say what was fit to be done. 't he other
business of the day was extremely uninteresting.

COURT ()V coNtsiiis 11.rAs. •
Siniogr Lfcre Lord Ai. v ANL
CROOKE r. OCTCH:NS.
This was an action to recover a sum of money
for the repairs of a house, which the Defendant WAS
lay agreement to pay for. •
It appeared that the Plaintiff had received the
lease of a house at Sutton, in Surrey, from the De-
fendant, in which the latter had bound himself to
.make good all necessary repairs that might he want
in within a certain time after the premises were
occupied. '1 he Plaintiff, on taking possession, found
the roof in a had condition, and that the rain came
through into his apartments. A fence was also
found necessary to part a field attached to the house
from an orchard close by; application was there-
fore made to the Defendant, to make good what
was wanting. No notice was hOwever taken for a
long time; at last Mr. Hutchins said he would not
repair any part of the premises, and if the Plaintiff
did not thiok proper to do what was necessary to the
house at his own erpence, he might rink it.
Mr. Cooke, on !lading his landlord depart from
the agreement entered upon in the lease, iitimedi-
ately sent for a Surveyor, who examined the sitea-
tion of the premises, and calculated the amount of
the repairs at 701. The present action was then
brought to recover that sum.
It was contended on behalf of the Defendant, that
the repairs done to the house had not exceeded the
value of 51. ; a verdict was, however, given for the
Plaintiff for 701. subject to arbitration.
HtQIiLM •p, ToOstY.
This was an motion brought to recover a sum of
money for work done by the Plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant BEST 'stated, that *lie Plaintiff was a
bricklayer, who had brought this action to obtain
his wages for work done for the Defendant at a
house in Bond-street, the tvhole of which amounted
to 1231.-1001. of which had been paid ; the remain-
der was refused, on pretence that more had been
demanded than was stipulated for by an agreement,
Mr. Serjeant BAILEY called a witness named
Egan, who produced a WO signed by the Plaintiff,
wherein he had contractelt to perform certain work ,
belonging to a }ionic in Bond-street, at a price con-
siderably under the present demand. The witness
said he was present when the engagement was
entered into by • the parties ; and that the terms'
stipulated for each part of the svork, was *a fair
trade price.
Lord Atv au Y direaed• the ,Mry to give their
verdict, observing that the contract which had been
produced was signed by the Plaintiff in the presence
of a witness—it was therefore'binding.
Verdict for the Defendant.