The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-08 00:00:00

THE EliltiSH


THE REVENUE.
•
No. f.
Abstract of Me 11f4 kriithies of Me Revenue of Great Britain, in the Years ended sth Jaxuary, 1824, and
bth Jimorry, 1825, distinsrafthing the Quarters.

No. 11.

- M!.)l`' '

we.

41,
. •
-
meal

VC7• • . :iLAW INIRLLIGENCE.
. • ..-......-.-
COURT OF KING'S OENCR, FIIDAT, lair. 7.
tSittinp at (luildhall.)
The Loeb fume Juarice this day corarnenitt
%Wail
- - in London, and took Common Jary 4
V. TEMPLAR. . .., .• •
an action brought by the plaintiff itgaitifd the de:.
iisreasiteedureofttiahnielutlttt°lnar)peYa; tdoerebteetbir hthade suberfam eirowtneag"l6
..um one Wee, a client of the defendant, and Me
defendant had given his guarantee. i
SC•RLETT stated the else to the Jury'. The Pletlldk
claim on a 111 r. West for the sum of 1151.95. N. lea
don maine process, for which West "wet tosiew)lib
iyable by instalments, but this the pisinelf seMesi be
Templar (the present defendant) bowies;
.4 the fulfilment of the terms of the cognorit, litlk=
induced to accept it. The terms of it wee, dip
se paid be three equal instalments, and that if W •
to payment of either of those iustelnsects„ then the
to be entitled to eater up judgment for the while el *1 *
41111,2
t should be due at the time of such default. Mt. Teeth
signed a guarantee, to the effect that, in conableration of
, eecrepting West's coporit, and testi* hint out of mu.
fie T.) undertook, and agreed that West %build comply
teems of the co/posit, or in default thereof, end in
platritiffabould not be able to find West, ks as to take
Ain into custody, then he (the defendant) would, upon wn
previous notice being .given to him by the plelot41;
-..e said West to be forthcoming, re rise pay id the
, sums that should be then owing to bun front West.
not pay the first instalment, and plaintiff :could
; application was therefure made to the deem-
payment of the whole debt. Defendant torn.
it was hard to be obliged to pay the whole. ej„.., „--..
proposedto per It fly HlS7iitttehls, as Mentioned in
The plaintaf, however, tearing that this would leave
.4 liberty at any nem hereafter to say to him—" Noir I
...Lind West, therefore you have no further claim en ?he upon
guarantee," refused to agree to this propositintf, unless it were
-'---- prejudice to his right of demanding the remaining
c debt from hint (defendant) at any future time, To
defendant agreed, and after much correspondence, he paid
'le intatmenta. The third flaying become due, application
• to defeniant to pay the same, but he eat haring dote to,
' action was brought to recover it, and the only question
the plaintiff had, by any subseeptent act; exempted
.nt from the teffia of his first agreement ?
cognovit and guaiantee were then put in and proved. .
e writ issued by the plaintiff against West, oh tbli frit instal-
becoming due, and that be could rot tie found, was else
'y the Sheriff's officer ; end various letters between the
attorney and defendant, respecting West's abode any the
payment of the instalments by the defendant, were reed
31r. Gueekr, for the dethndant, 'submitted that the plaintiff
was not entitled to reviver, inlet:inch as that the taut of the gua-
rantee had not been 'complied with, one of the tenets being, that tea
days' cede, should be given to the defendant pteviote to an action
being brought, which had not been done, fed as West was no* in
custode. and notice thereof had been given by the defendant to the
plaintiff, the defendant had discharged himself teem further Ila.
bility on hisguarantee.
11r. SCARLETT requested the letters put fr. to he Vain teed, by
which it appeared that more than ten days' notice had been glean
previous to the payment of the first Ind second Insudtrients
Mr. GURNEY admitted that this was a sufficient answer A he
the two first instalments, but as he contended the teems of the
guarantee required that a notice should be given prior to the 'de-
mand of nen instalment, he again submitted that the anion was
bad, inasmuch as no notice had been given previous to ith being
brought for this thief instalitent, and that therefore the defendant's
notice of West's being in custody wee in time; and a performisee
of his guarantee.
Mr. SCAR L ETT said, that the terms Ofthe guarantee were, that
if West did not pay, then defendant *timid eitner produce his betty
or pay what was their owing to plaint!! Now, the sum Mee owing
was not merely die instalment that had accused due, but the whole
debt, inasmuch as the plaintiff *as entitled to judgment for the
whole, immediately on default of the payment of the first lintel.
menu, and therefore the first notice was oil tint was of to
The Luau CHIEF JUSTICE said, that they might reserve the
point for a case if they pleased, but if they requited his opinion
now, he should say that the defendant was, by the terms of the
guarantee, bound to pay the whole of the debt as soon after the de-
fault of West as the ten days' notice should expire.
1l r. (it'll/o'er begged leave to mention the Feint to the Court
above.
A verdict was therefore taken for the plaintiff; subject to a eases
Two' .c. WALK ER AND °TITERS.
Th'S *ES an action brought by the Master of the skip C.oesech
against the defentliintNyinrteen in number, who were part owners
of that ship', fet wages amounting to 1231. 14s.
Mr. BROUGHAM., in stating the ease to the Jut', (Asserted, that
this action sense out of thedefendants• ownership of the Cossack,
of which the plaintiff was master. In the course of{ the years Ik2l
and 1822, the vessel *ailed to Pert.au-Prissee.sW burto 11/am.. '
burgh, ffir the wages of which the pleiratel bitrught time present
action. The debndants did not dipote his claim in wages at the
rate of M. A moods, bitt he should short that this ine not the hill
stun allowed to masters of vessels sailing to the Welt Indies t they
were allowed what was called halt c,;bin freight, ore: and above
the wages. Now the wages due to the plaintiff, at the rate of '''.
per month; amounted to CUL, and the Amount of the cabin freight
being 127 f. its., the half of which his client was entitled to, made
his claim altogether 1731. 13.., against which he gate credit ft r
about .101. cub received. At a meeting between the agent of the
plaint iffand the agent of the defendants, the latter demanded a fur.
titer set off; which, &allowed, would reduce the clatdi to about ZO.'.
The defendants slid not deny that a considerable balance was due ;
but they, in the first place, sought to set up a claim to deduct, II
way of s!. ff, a aim far damage said to be done by the master to
the vowel, and also for demurrage, which they said the plaintiff
had incurred at one of the ports Al which the vessel had stopped.
Nnw neither of these things were they by law entitled to make the
subjeet.matter of a set-oft'; it was upon an action for negligence
only that they could insist upon such flatten ; bum even it they
had a right to set cif these sums, they badnot done so by dolt
pleas. At the meeting of the two agents to which he had before
alluded, he should prove that no deni.,l was made of the ampubt of
' the cabin freight, the only other objection made by the defendants'
agent being, that plaintiff was not entitled to the half.treightage.
lie should, however, be able to prove that he was entitled to it, and
that the wages of Usk:numb would not be a sufficient remuneration
to masters on such voyages without it.
After the esaminatton of two witnesses, who were called to prove
the ownership of the defendanti at the time the action was
laid—
The LORD CHIEF Jtstricit suggestel, that the cause should
be referred to a tieuuenian at the liar, which was agreed to by the
parties.

A. IiARRINCITON r. DRODIt.
This was an action of trover, brought to teener certain title
deeds, which the defendant unlawfully detained from the plaintiff,
and for damages in consequence of such detention.
Mr. SCARLETT stated the facts of the case to the Jury. The
defendant had formerly been owner of a copyhold cottage, orchard,
and garden, situate at Tapsworth, in the county of Hertford. In
1803, he sold this property to Wm. Harrington for 24. At the
time of the sale there were certain quit rents in arrear, which de.
fendant refused to pay, saying, 31r. Wm. llarrington should pay
them : biit this the latter would not do, in consequence of %Odd,
the defendant detained the title deeds. Some tune atter this the
defendant offered the property to a gentleman for sale, and handed
him over the deeds for his inspestlon, who, however. diaonvered
that the defendant had already sokl it. 31r. Harrington applied to
this person for the deeds, but he refused to give them up, and
claimed a lien on them for money which lie had lent to the
defendant t finally, however, the deeds were returned to the de-
fendant. The plaintiff; who in July, 11112, purchased the pro_
pert' from Wm. Harrington, had several times applied to the
defendant for the deeds, hut lie uniformly declined to give them up,
and therefore the present action was brought, not only for the deeds,
but for such damages as the Jury should think We plaintiff retitled
to (Jr their detentiun.

James Harding, one of the attesting witnesses to the erstivryanew
front defendant to Mr. Wm. Harringtou, proved the executton of
that deed, dated May, 1803.
Elizabeth Tornkins proved the signature of her former hosbriud,
Irons, the attesting witness to the deed, dated July, 1312, lir
which the property was conveyed from Win. Hamngwai to Andros,
Harrington, the plainuff.
Bond being sworn, said, that he applied to the defendant
and demanded the deeds for the plaintiff; who relaxed to give then,
up. saying—that he ought to hare been paid 111. more than he L
received ; but that rather than goto law he would take Al. although
he hail beer. advised by his attorney not to give them up.
The witness, on being cross.examined, said he understood the
defendant to mean 141. more beyond the 2AI. mentiosed to bit the
consideration money, and not as being a part of that aunt.
The Loon Vim, JUSTICE asked, whether there WAS any de-
fence to the right of the plaintiff to the title deeds ? and bell
, answered in the negative, he &kilted that the deeds should be --
up, and a verdict of la. damages taken, subject to a reference as t.
the amount to he paid, which was agreed to.
Verdict for the plaintittacconlingly.
LIABILITY OF COACHMEN.
IVATTIINOUSE AN II ANOTHE• V. NOSWOOD.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Waterhouse and Wither_
ton, part proprietors of the Liverpool mail, against Jot n finswoud
a person formerly driver of that mail, to recover the sum of 4001,
which they had paid to a Mr. AMOR, as a ttM/111C144311P11 for in-
juries sustt.ined by that gentleman, in consequence a the overturn-
ing of the mail coach by the defendant.
thiltsfur.tBionnaawzat,:rbrour statgineitythetheee.ptiereseto
iithteptirnyti.irdHweitohbr.vrivel,tothda:
away writ an opinion that had one abroad )sad which opinion re.
suited front the lenient conduct which coach-proprietors had hitherto
shown towards their coachmen ),that the divers of coaches were not
liable to pay damages inctitted by their negligent and careless
ing. This was clearly an erroneous opinion, and there could be
ro doubt as to the law of the case, and that coachmen were liable
to an action file env loas which may aria/ to Omit masters in muse-
quence of their carelessness or neglect. Mr. Waterhouse was We
proprietor of the Swan.with.two.Necke, had-lane, from which
plate it was that the Liverpool mail st-rted, and it wart t!,r
duty of the defendant to drive it from thence to the Pint.
office to take up the mail bags, sod then to proceed as far as
Itechley, where he met another mail, to whte.: the bags w;

,

y

- •

..'

A .

-.-- -
A---- —.-----j Veit?' end- arlaTthiTsalwna: i:
Quarters ended I Qnarters ended
. ••----", YomeHer end
1181.10Airil, 381 July, 10th Oat.
265. 51 Jan. ed ien.-.6, 6th April, 6441_,,ie1yi1-10t111.n. sth Jan. . 1 edlJan.. 6, fleitiddabneti,ng.htiomi,
--...---
.-••----"- plaintiff' from
A' X A A 4 X 4 •.€ di I .e debt defendant
Customs . &lnk 2.095,4 .3.540.257 2.11•Mqd411 ; 2.167. 1,007,070 ' 3,240,972 2,014,841110,239.719 Mr.
Egon* WS,' 5.610,938 6.104.11 5,647.190 91,066,461 I 5,396,365 5,981,338 7,113,017 6,640,661' 25,113,263 having a cjai
Stamps ~- 1,573, 1,620,011 1„611. ' 1,596.8 &AO 1 1,065,796 1,0111,688 1,760A110 1,636,42 6,763,096 him arrested cm
Taste ender the Ma- . . . . cognorit, 'Fier
anstement et; the • I accept. Mr. '
Commissioners . • - , • to guarantee 0
Tates, hided' • tiff' was isduce
Arrears of ' • should be paid
pert? Tax llBl, • 9,161,41 , -1410,1114 I, 0.1815,877 1113.382 1,918,879 481. 1,988,028. 4,922,070 fail in the payi
Post-Office .
' 3214,• • 333, . . M., •• 301 1,189 396, 017,11000 316,01/0 366,000 1,444,000 117 was to be I
It. ed. and de. ' debt that she
the Potted oat I pin then signs
Pennons
i 4.4 91,01 11,271 14,09 61,274 plaintiff's seer
Hackney , -.
tom y he (Mr. 7
h
and Hawkers ~, ! .
wit the tem
Pedlars - 6.900 -.S. 15, • 27 .9,, 6 , 18,909 18,734 67,716 case the plats
Crown Lands ,. ... 146 him again into
Small branches of t - - .
I days platen).
King's Hehnlitary cause the 1414
Reit eerie
A
Surplus Fees. . • -IVorat slid r
listed Pub& I .•
' . not find him ;
tees, . , •• •' 1331 13,719 18.114 30,717 50111 1611 17, 17,605 30 ,2017 dant for die
' -;.;---! . - ---- plained that
Total Ord. Rev .- 1 I,•.• •• lu es, to. 1 48,461.08 r 70,1416.0.10 11,946,920, 13,690,8716.6a,6124,1111- one dray, and 1
Repapnet. . _ • . -.. .. -'. .. 1 TOAST 1,71111,12111 .. .. .: .. .. .. ' 1,733,333 the rogiorit.
Ineprest and Mire ' i defendant at Ii
Monies • 36:864 70,1901 108,056 33,017 230,147 40,334 42 30;936 fit2,lB3' 176,022 have found ll'
, ! ----.--. i
my guarantee,-
Total Revenue ... - 10,002,290 12.329,500 13.061,550 13.425,051. 40,478,401 11.936.597 11,9861,0* 13,949, 13,571,053' :,0,.516,092 done without ir
I — --1.-I —1 portion of the
Applied as C,onsoli 1 I this the defend
dated Fund ..1.... 9,1238 11,521,821 11,350,640, 13,131,970 45,969,2014 11,735,070 11,017,483 11;201,093. 13,671,013 47,525,260 two of the inst
To psvolf Excheque I . - wan ils..le to d,
Bills charged the present set
the Annual Duties 131,011 115,750' 1,710,710 290,085 3,000,569 1112,437 970,1 1,843,393 42 3,096,019 was, whether t
Applied as part of . the defendant I
-Ways and M . - I 1 The cognovi
of the leer 507.95. 3,983. ... 1 5,009 614, ' o.orr 1,851 3,063 .. .. i 14,890 The writ taw
I
Total 10,692,236 12.389,560113,061.550 13,425,055 49,478,401; 11.936,307111,009,4 13,049,050 13;671,053 50,546,092 proved by the
1 . ! , I
_ _________.
- ---------- _ _
_-----. -- moment of the