The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-02-14 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. FRIDAY, FE1.13.

Sittings np..r Tema, before Lord Od' Justire (hallow.
SY StS:ti V. ant:Farr OF SURREY AND OTIIENA.
This was a:1 action brought against the Shereei' of Surrey,
for recompense for having levied upon the pods of the plaintiff.
In consequence at which the pyaintiff had lost her business,
she being a teeeher and seller of music. A great number of
wine:meg was examined on die part of the plaintiff, whose
taupe NM very strongly supported by Mr. Sergeant Vaughan
Ile was oppcsctl by Mr. Sergeant Pell, for the defendants,
who. in his altres to the Jury, directed their attention to the
Manner in which plaiutiff's mother hail given her testimony,
and particularly that pint where she stated her husband bad
fiething to do with the taking of the house ; and when he
(Seneerant Pell) had put a paper into her hand (which was an agree-
(: cat bets err the husband and the landlord), asking her if the Nig-
eeture was the handwriting of her husband, she had hesitated a
deal before she could or would give an answer ; and she then
t:i2. she coehl not say whether it was ,us writing or not, but at the
mine time acknowl*ed having seen him write perhaps one hue-
ted times euring the period site bud been married (viz. twenty.
(Ire years). And again, when he put another paper, bearing the
eignature of her daughter, the plaintiff, into her hand, she said at
firs: she did not believe it to be her daughter's writing ; and when
be asked a second time, she immediately answered that she recol-
feted having seen her daughter write it. The Learned Sergeant
hoped the Gentlemen of the Jury would think with bine that very
little reliance ought to be placed on the evidence of this witness:
he whited to ask the Jury whether they thought it probable. This
witness had also stated that the house anti the property in it be-
longed to the plaintiff; and to prove the contrary of the first &Re-
plier. the defeeelant produced the agreement, which declared that
the house was taken be the father of the plaintiff', and it was most
likely that the property also was his. The plaintiff' had not even
Celled her father into the box to give his testimony; and he (Ser-
geant Pell) would not give his opinion, but would leave the Jury
to form their own ideas of it. He then proceeded to call the follow.
lag IritnelSett
Ann Carter keeps a stationer's shop in Burton-crescent; kw*
Mr. and Mrs. Symes and daughter when they lived at Fir tree
Cottage: they owed witness between three and tour pounds; asked
?/ainuff to speak to her father about it; plaintiff said elle was very
she would pay it herself; had an ear-drop mended for
Xi or
e.tiff, it cost sixpence; she never paid witness; never asked her
.or payment; has not been paid yet, but Yas given beret hint.
Caner—The signature, as witness to the agreement, is my
hand-writing.
The agreement was here put in and read. It stated that G. R.
Symes agreed to take the house in question, at a rent of 60L per
annum. to the term of twenty-one years, free of all taxes.
Rice knows plaintiff, and the house at Camberwell ; lived
teeee himself; left last September twelve months; saw plaintiff'
welt her father once; sold the fixtures in the house to her father,
but when the father came to settle for them he had the receipts
wntten out in his daughter's name; they came to about 601
tiyires was a stranger to witness before this occurrence; went into
the house alter plaintiff was in it; it had the appearance of being
a music-shop; does not know where the father lives: witness had
no tease of the house, but referred the tither to Brown.
Thomas Class is son of one the defendants, who is an auctioneer;
assisted in removing the goods; they were taken to No. !0, Mich-
street, Bmough ; they were sold at their tale value; the whole sold
Tor 901. 13a. l d. ; the music fetched 71. 3s. 6d. ; generally knocked
down to the highest bidder, at a sheriff's sale; has assisted his fa.
bier about three years. Lot 71 consisted of sundry pieces of music;
elms was an error in the taking of the goods at first, but it was ex-
eilsineel at the time of the sale; it fetched about 21. Lot 72, the
same error happened with this lot; music does not sell very well at
an auction ; the lets were not knocked down in a hurry; thinks the,
sale was most fairly conducted ; did not prepare the music part of
the catalogue himself; compared the catalogue with the quantity
of music after it was pnnted ; can't say what quantity was deff-
cited ; all the music taken front Camberwell was sold ; was present
at the removal ; is quite sure it was all sold at this auction.
Mr. Sergeant VAUaliAx replied At great length, and dwelt upon
the aspersions thrown out by his Learned opponent against the elm.
recur of the mother of the plaintiff; who is the wife of • gentleman
who lied been an officer in his Majesty's service, and unfortu.
randy had for some time been embarrassed in his circumstances, and
whose daughter having had an education by which she had made
bseself mistress of several accomplishments, and amongst them
that of music, had endeavoured to support her father, mother,
teed herself by teaching red belling music; in consequence of the
proceeding resorted to by defendants, sue was now unable to con-
Alma those exertions ; and it was for some recompense for the logs,
that this action was resorted to. The Learned Sergeant then pro-
ceeded to direct the attention of the Jury to the evidence of the son
of the auctioneer, and to his improper and irregular conduct with
respect to the drawing up; of the catalogue—and that he did not
call for unwarrantable damages, but merely for a fair indemnity
for the property loot, and for a sufficient recompense for the conse-
quent injury the plaintiff' had received from the loss of this pro-
wety, whereby she was disubled front prosecuting her endeavours
to obtain a respectable livelihood, and he (Sergeant Vaughan) con.
ceived it would not be requesting too much were he to ask for
grime remuneration for the aspersions thrown out against the plain.
Oland her family.
The Loan Ciller JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and
called the observation of 1112 Joey to the main points adduced in
the emerge of the investigation, and that the first point for their
conviieration was, as to whose property this is, and it has been
proved that she paid for some of it, and the roe was bought in her
name, or whether they thought the property belonged to the fa-
ther, and that it was purchased by the daughter for the purpose
of giving a colour to the affair, and for the security of the property
born any of the father's creditors ; and if the Jury considered that
the goods in question had cost the plaintiff the sum of 631. and
were her property, of course they would give her a verdict to that
amouut ; the goods had been taken in execution for a debt owing
by the father, and it theeir2 were of opinion, that sleay were as
wally the property of th stiff, they (dm Jury) would give her
the benefit of that opinion y returning a verdict in her favour.
The Jury, after nonsulting a short time, requested leave to with-
draw, and after an absence of 23 minutes, they returned a verdict
for the plaintiffe_Demages, 401.

7

f ~1

~~

rL:

DUCHY COURT OF LANCASTER, FRIDAY. Fi1.13.

IUORT OF PUBLISHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN A

THE KING V. WILLIAM CLEMENT.

This is a proceeding by wa of petition, for the remission of a
fine of 8001. intr.:mai on the defendant, on the Vith of April, IWO,
for •• unlawfully and contemptuously printing and publishing, in
ths newspaper called the Observer, the trials of Arthur Thistle.
wood and James Inge, for high treason, pending the proceedings
against John Thomas Brunt and others, included in the same in.
dictment, for the sante high treason, connury to the orders of the
Csurt, and to the obstruction of public justice." The tine was
nitrated into this Court by order of the Court of Exchequer, and
vas levied by the Sheriff of Middlesex, by process under the seal
of this Court, dated the 10th of June last. On the IPA Ja.
nuary the defendant petitioned this Court for a remission of the
line. It was ordered that the petition should be taken into consi-
Aeration on the 30th of January, when, in consequence of the ab-
sence of Mr. ficarku, the Court adjourned until this day.
At eleven o'clock Lord BEALL:v. the Chancellor of the
Duchy, Sir. Justice BAYLEY, AM Mr. Justice HOLIWYD, the
Judges now in the Commission for the county palatine of Lan.
caster, and Mr. WLLTON, the Attorney-General of the Duchy,
took their seats on the Bench.
$ The ATTOINLY-ISENERAL, the SOLICTTOR-GENERAL, MT.
4111111 IL E, King's Counsel for the county palatine, and Mr. LI T-
TL EDALt, appeareclon behalf of the Crown ; Mr.SCARLET T. the
Co Knott SEIIGEANT, Mr. BILOUGHAM, and MT. PLATT, fin the

Mr. Justice BATLEY-1 have not heard your other two propo-
sitions ; but as to those I have heard, if you mean to say that the
foundation on which we are to hear your arguments is to be the
face of the estrest, I must tell you that that foundation will not at
all give a fair scope to the objectionson which you rely.
Mr. SCARLETT—If your Lordship refers to the schedule of
fines, you will find the matter set out more fully.
Mr. Justice BATLEY having read it over, said, it did not even
wpairfsma that deconeat hoeube defendant had been convictad.
We might have been Indicted and tried by sjury secordlng to that
the Learned Counsel termed the constitutional mode, fix aught that
appeared on the face of that record.
The ATTORNEYA/ENERAL said, that he was not desirous of
throwing any obstacle in his Learned friend's way, and the best
course he could suggest would be, to record a plea, and give the
Crown an opportunity of traversing the facts, or of demurring to
the arguments.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—If I were inclined to have recourse to
the argatnentssm at I,o»tiNitkl' I should express my surprise at
your passing over the Court of Exchequer, who have as yet given
no opinion on the question, and preferring to appeal to the dud
merit of his Honour, assisted by my brother Holroyd and myself,
who have expressed our opinions before, when we were bound to
do so in another case. It would he more satisfactory to all parties
to put a plea on record.
The ATTORWrir•GENENAL repeated, that he would raise TM
obstruction to that course. It was desirable that an opportunity
should be afforded of traversing the facts or demurring to the law
on the other side, and then if either party was not satisfied, as it
was a question of great importance, it might be carried by appeal
to the Court of the last resort.
Mr. SCARLETT said, his Learned friend the Attorney-General
knew before that it was intended to apply to the Duchy Court for
a :minion of the fine.
The ATTORNET-GENERAL said, he understood that some ap-
lication was to be made, but of what nature be knew not. If be
I
had been aware that an appeal was intended, he would haveallowed
the defendant to have pleaded to the estreat in the Court of Ex-
cheitner.
Mr. SCAILETS said, that this Court had entertained applica-
tions to remit tines imposed by the Lord Chancellor. It had ad-
mitted the parties to plead, and on their plea had reversed the order.
As to the last suggestion from the Bench, he would entirely waive
the objection which his Lordship conceived likely to arise from
the circumstance of the argument being heard before the same
Court, which is exceedingly small and moon- Judges who had already given their opinion on the questiod. On
d with *odium. attracted, we presume, by the the contrary, he should be better satisfied that the argument should
of the argument expected to have been debated. be heard before their Lordships, as he knew that if it had weight
Court was assembled, Mr. SCASILETT rose, and with them, any preconception in their minds would prove as light
-h. He appeared , he said, on behalf of the pe- ass feather.
bad been sated under a primate of the Court, Mr. Justice BATLEY—I am perfectly satisfied that the course

'which the Attorney-General suggests, to which, indeed, he lays
he will lend his assistance, will be the most desirable for all panies.
Mr. ScAutEvi—As an humble individual. perhaps your Lord-
ship will allow me to suggest, that there are two mcdes in which
the levy may be made, either by extent or by process. If it »made
by extent, the party may plead to it, and that would bring the
question in a move convenient form before the Court.
Thy ATTORNEY.GENERAL—Can an extent issue in this ease ?

Mr. SCAIILETT—An extent may issue for any debt due to the
Crown. _ . _

31r. Weturow (the Attorney-General of the Duchy Court)
stated, that by • statute of Henry VIII. this Court had the same
power as the Court of Exchequer. He was apprehensive, that if
the consideration of the question were refereed from Court to Court,
the line would be utterly exhausted.
Mr. Justice BAYLE'r suggested whether any harm could accrue
from following this course: either to take the judgment of this
Court on the argument, or to take it pro firma, and go at once to
the House of Lords. .

3lr. SCARLET T said, if any difficulty should occur in setting
aside the process in point of form, the appellant had a fair right to
be heard on the merits. He should therefore prefer to plead there,
and put the plea on record in that Court.
The ATTORN ET-GENERAL said, it wan a matter of indif-
ference. It was competent for the defendant to have pleaded in the
Court of Exchequer when the matter was there.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY observed, that they might be met by this
difficulty in the House of Lords. It might be said it was too
late to plead after the case had passed the Court of Exchequer.
Mr. ‘l'az.vost said, that in Ifigil there was a precedent of a
motion, in which the question was the legality of a fine. The
course would be for the appellant to file his exceptions before a
given day. The words of the statute are, "by exception, plea, nr
answer.' The Duchy Court proceeded par/ posse with the Court
of Exchequer, and had the same power in all respects an to the
business before it. The exceptions of the appellant must be sup-.
ported by proper proof. lie would of course file only what was
the real truth. The Attorney-fieneral could then demur, and
judgment might be given on the demurrer. The Court of Ex-
chequer could do ncrmore,-and perhaps, if it went back there, that
Court might refuse to hear the case again, as it had been before the
Duchy Court of Lancaster.
Mr. SCARLETT remarked, that it required some consideration to'
know how to make an application to this Court. It was nut a
matter of every day practice.
The ATTOILYEY.-GENERAL said, it was possible the Court of
Exchequer might object to take cognizance of the question. It'
would, therefore, be much better to argue it in the Duchy Court,
or to go at once to the Houle of Lords.
Mr. SCARLETT aid, he would proceed to state leis third pro.,
position, if the Court would allow him.
The AvvortivET-Ox NE tut. said he had some doubt whether an
appeal to the House of Lords would answer the purpose they had
in view. if the appellant desired it, be, as the officer of the Crown,
would do all in his power to facilitate the attainment of the discus-
sion in the Court of Exchequer; but he had some doubt whether
that court would entertain it.

IS petitioner.
The body of the Ca
t •miens, was filled wi
4;
pest importance of th
As son as the Coin
addressed the Bench.
I ,
widows, whose seeds 1
•