The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1808-05-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT Or XING*. BENCH, Wasemisortm, MAT 5.

TRESPASS.
MARTORD V. GODit IN ax 4 THREE OTHERS.

Mr. JERVIS moved for a rule to shew cause why
the verdict in this cause should not be set aside, on
account of excessive damages. This cause was
tried at Gloucester, before Mr. Justice HEATH.
It was an action of trespass. The circumstances
of the case ware : The Plaintiff, about eight o'clock
en a Sunday evening, was riding tbroiigh the streets
of the parish of C .ippisig Sudbury, apparently in
liquor, making use of very bad cud improper lan-
guage to two men who were walking. The de-
fendant, Godwin, who was Overseer of the Parish,
begged of him to desist, on which the Plaintiff
poured a torrent of abuse on him. Godwin went
for a Constable, but when hr came back with the
Constable, the Plaintiff had gone of and out vit''
the jurisdiction of Godwia's parish. This did not
satisfy Godwin, but he went to the Louse of the
Plaintiff, accompanied by the Constable ; the Plain-
tiff wassittiug at the window, and again began to
abuse Godwin, cud refused to open the door of the
house; on which an Attorney and a Gentleman that
lived in the neighbourhood came ont,being alarmed
at the noise, and after hearing the story, insisted
the Plaintiff ought to he taken into costody, at all
events, auffassisted Godwin and the Constable to
break open the street-door, which they accomplish..
ed, and took the Plaintiff into custody, but after-
wards liberated him. Re brought his action,
which was tried at the last assizes for Gloucester,
and the Jury gave him a verdict for an'.
Lord Ettexaoitourie and the other Judges
were of opinion, that the nature of the case justi-
fied the Jury in giving the damages, and they did
nut think them excessive. Mile refined.

I.4CKSTRAY V. BROOK.
Serjeant I.F.RS moved for a rule to chew can't,
why anew trial should not be granted in this cause.,
it was tried at Salisbury, hefore Mr. Serjeant Maus •
sea Lit.. It appeared on the trial, that the Plain
tiff had purchased a horse from the Defendant, aid
fair, for which lie paid him uol. The Defendant
warranted him sound ; in a fortnight after he was
quite lame.

Mr. Coleman, a farrier, gave evidence, that the
lameness proceeded from a contraction in the hoof,
and the horse must have had it for two months be-
fore.

Several Witnesses on the part of the Defendant
proved there was no appearance of lameness at the
time of the sale; but it adpeared that some time
before the Plaintiff purelnued him, he had a *eat
1114141 in the kuae, and WAS turned to grass for the
purpose of curing it.
The Jury gave a verdict for the Plaintiff.
The COURT were of 0:)1111011, that the eirrion-
stances did ,not authorise a ilea trial.—The rule of
csturse was refused.

Mr. AN DIMS moved, that Mrs. Rachel Peri-
kens might come into Court, and plead gritty to
au iirdivtment against her for an absinth on Mrs.
June Dotson.

The Courr acquiesi ; and she aceordinly
came into Court. sud whir sentenced to pay a flue
of oue shilling and be discharged.

court OF COMMON PLEAS. Warner urecu, MAT 1.
Sittings at Nisi Prima, before Sir JAPES MAN*.
FIELD, Chief Jwatice.
NEWSPAPER-WALE.
PURDY V. POND.
This was an action brought by the Plaintiff,
against the Defendant, for wilfully and fraudu-
!costly mis-stating mid misrepresenting the profits
of a businesa that he had sold to the Plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant SUCPMLRD opened the ease, and
stated, that the Plaintiff was a chair-maker; on
seeing an advertisement io a newspaper, setting
forth that there was a valuable newspaper-walk to
be dispoo d of, at the rate of the amount of one
year is profit, the Plaintiff applied to the De-
fendrint, according to the directions in the adver-
tisement The Defendant was a ,iewsulan, a per-
son that serves the newspapers. He purcliases
from the newspaper-propuetors, and they allow
him a small profit. The Defendant delivered
hmi a statement of the profits, which amounted, ac-
cording to that statement, to 51.13... per week; the
Plaintiff became the purchaser, and paid ,2901. In
the first week the Plaintiff found out the profits
did not amount to more than 31. a week ; he would
produce the statement given at the time of the
sale, and several persons whose names were awn-
tinned in that state:lie-moo paying particular sums,
who would inform the Jury it was a. cumplete ex-
aggemtioa ; that the sums they paid wive touch
less than the Defendant represented ; he would
examine them with the Defendant's statement. ;sod
the Jury would immediately perceive the fraud.
He then called five Witnesses, who deposed they
only paid nine-peace a week for each paper, except
they were dirtied or torn, in which caw they paid
the full value of the papers. It was stated in the
account, that Mr. William Salmon received two
papers each day ; on his examination he said that
Pond served him with a paper Us the morning,
which be took away after three or four hour*, and
iu the evening he sent it to his brother in the coun-
try, they each paid him three pence pet day. Here
closed the Plaintiff'. case.
Mr. Serjeant BssT, beiiig much isidieposedi was
allowed by the Court to sit during the time he was
addressing the Jury ; he said, this was the third
action that had been brought against his client, by
the Plaintiff; it was not the act of the Plaintiff, but
it *use combination of newsmen, who wanted to
ruin his client. He then *hewed to the Jury, that
by the very statement given to the Plaintiff by the
Defendant, the very cireumstances mentioned by
the witnesses w ere set forth under the column of "re-
turn papers." There was not a single charge made
out against the Defendant, except the mistake of
the two papers to Mr. S.luioii.
Sir JAMES Maximus observed, that if he had
looked into the statement at first, he would not
have allowed the action to have stood a aucrient,
for it was altogether an unlawful business ;—the
profits were to arise from hiring newspapers out
to be read ; the law forbad that, and very properly ;
for newspapers were a soarer of revenue; they were
stamped ; and if six people were to be accnatoduted
with one parr, it would be injuring the revenue.
The Jury gave a Verdict for the Defendant