The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-13 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings appo-inted in Middlesex and London, before the Right
Hon. Sir IVllliarn Draper Best. Knight, Lotd Chief Justice of his
Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, at Westminster, in and after
Hilary Term, 1826. _ _

/N. TERM.

rue! ly Jan. 24
Ttiesday Jan 31

London.
Wednesday
%Vednesday
IVednesday
TERM. _ •

Wednesday

Feb. 81
♦TTRR
Tueeday Feb. 141
To eft at twelve o'clock,
February let; and at half-put
days.

Jan. 25
Feb. 1
Feb. 8

eduesday - Feb. 15
J. nary 24th, 25th, 313 t, and
nine %melody on each of the other

LAW INTELLIGEA'CS.
COURT Ol KINCITMESICH.WsiTanprtaa,

THURSDAY, JAN. 12.

Sittings before the Loan CHM!' Jnactei and COMMIS Juries.
LITTLE V. SYMM.
This was an action for the recovery of the excess of a distraint
for rent, levied on the plaintiff by the defendant, who is an auc-
tioneer and appraiser, residing In Newcastle-street. Strand. The
seizure took place at the instance of the plaintiff's landlord, to
whom he owed a sum of 10/. His. being the amount of a garter's
rent. The plaintiff is a coach-maker, and lives in Eagle-street,
Red Lion-square, and on the Gth April, 1825, a distress was sent
in, acting under which the defendant seized every thing on
the premises. The present action wes brought to recover damages
for the value of the surplus gomis seized and sold above the amount
due for rent at the time of the seizure.
Mr. CAMPBELL stated the case to the Jury for the plaintiff.
The defendant in this action had seized all the property con-
tained in the plaintiff's premises. including the tools and imple-
ments with which he carried on his trade.. lie had done so not-
withstanding there were goods more than sufficient to satisfy the
distress exclusive of them, and this lie did well knowing that tools
and implements of the nature described were privileged and ex-
cepted from sale, unless there should not be enough of other goods
to discharge the amount of the claim. The next point which made
against the defendant was, that of the goods sold there were some
not described in the auctioneer's catalogue, aceonling to the sta-
tute in that case provided. The warrant and inventory were both
of a very singular description. In the one it was directed to sell
" a hackney coach, cushions, Ace. a chaise body, and all the pre-
mises contained to the amount of the rent then due," and in the other
the articles were very strangely and irregularly classed. What
would the Jury say to lot 1131, which contained " an iron stove
anti other articles." But that was nothing to 182 comprehend-
ing, as it did, within its miscellaneous and multifarious classifica-
tion, no fewer than " a dictionary, a tool chest, with sundry tools,
a bible. and a pair of breeches.' Lot 183, was more moderaq, it
merely comprised " a tool chest, and a stuffed bird, in a glass
case.' Now, was it to be endured that such a catalogue should be
made, and articles of such a dissimilar kind, and so unlikely to
suit the same purchaser, classed together ? It was under those cir-
cumetances the present action was brought ; it would be seen that
in many of its principal features the case resembled one which had
occnpied the attention of the Court on the preceding day, and he
sincerely hoped the result might be the same.
The plaintiff's son, a lad of 13, or 14, was called to prove the
seizure, and the circumstance% attendant on it, when—
Mr. ABRAHAM, who was for the defendant, said he had an ob-
jection to make, which he humbly submitted must be considered
fatal to the present case. In two counts of the declaration, the
plaintiff's premises were described as being situate " in the Parish
of St. George the Martyr, Red Lion-square." Now, he contended,
there existed no parish to which that description could apply.
31r. CAMPBELL—The expression " lied Lion-square" can
be construed not only to signify the square itself, but also the
streets adjacent, which together may make up " the Parish of St.
George the Martyr." Besides the venue not being a local one in
the present action, the Court might consider the term " Red Lion-
square," as mere surplusage, or the plaintiff' could proceed In
his action for trove?, in spite of the objection taken to the descrip-
tion of the parish.
• The LORD Came Juscics.—l will take the opinion of my
brother Judges, now sitting in Banco in the adjoining Chamber, on
the point.
After a short absence his LORl:omit. returned, and having re-
sumed his seat on the bench, expressed it as his opinion that it
would be better if the parties would consent to a reference reepect-
ing the matters in dispute between them.
A verdict for the plaintiff, with nominal damages, was then
taken, subject to a reference.
JOSEPH r. %CALTON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, keeper of the Im-
perial Hotel at Cheltenham, against the defendant, to recover the
amount of his bill for board and lodging furnished to her son, who
is a minor.
Mr. SCARLETT stated the plaintiff's case to the Jury. His
client, Mr. Joseph, was the master of the Imperial Hotel.
teaham, and the defendant was a lady of fortune, residing in
Gower-street, Bedford-square. Mrs. Walton's son put up at the
plaintiff's house in the course of the year 1323, end remained some
time. The young man had been but a few days in Cheltenham on
that occasion when the plaintiff received a letter from Mrs. Walton,
informing him she understood her son was stopping at his house,
land promising to be accountable for his expenses. Under those
circumstances Mr. Joseph, having first made the necessary in-
quiries as to the solvency and respectability of the parties, and
being satisfied by the result, continued to credit the young gentle.
man. Subsequently Mr. Joseph's brother applied to the defendant,
and was by her paid the amount of the plainttff 's hill. So far that
transaction was concluded ; and it was only to show the circurn-
stances under which the debt now at issue was contracted, and to
prove that the client looked justly for its liquidation to Mrs. Wal-
ton, who had discharged the pre' us demand, that it was necessary
to advert to it. On the 23.: of May following the period of ins
first visit, young Mr. Walton again put up at Mr. Joseph's house,
and remained there till the Ist of July. On that day the plaintiff
receie- t a letter from Mrs. Walton, addressed " To the Landlord
of the imperial Hotel, Cheltenham," and stating that " she did
loot approve of her son's being at his (the plaintiff's) house, and
would not, therefore, hold herself accountable for his expenses, he
being a minor." The present action was brought for the recovery
of the expenses then incurred, which amounted to about 421.;
payment of which the defendant sought to evade, under a pretence
which he trusted his Lordship would tell the Jury was equally dis-
respectable and unavailing.
Richard Joseph-1 am brother to Mr. Joseph, who keeps the
Imperial hotel in Cheltenham. I saw Mrs. Walton, the de-
fendant, in a house in Gower-street, Bedford.square, in the month
of November, 1823. I waited on her at the instance of my brother.
I presented our bill, and her son. who was with her, said to his
mother. " Oh, you had better take off two or three pounds," and
laughed. She paid me the amount by a check; that was
the amount of the first bill—young Mr. Walton was at the hotel
after.
[A letter from the defendant was put in and read ; it was ad-
dressed to the landlord of the Imperial Hotel, Cheltenham, and
contained a promise to pay her son's bill at the hotell
Cress-examined by Mr. Goa WEV—MrS. Walton did not tell
me on paying the first bill that she would not be accountable for
any future ones.
A waiter at the plaintiff's hotel deposed that he recollected
young Mr. Walton coming to the house on two occasion, the
second was on the 2&I of May. 1821. Ile came in a carriage and
four, and remained about six weeks ; the weekly charge for board
and lodging was 31. exclusive of wine, &c.
Cross-examined by Mr. Of:RORY-31r. Walton had friends se
dine with him occasionally ; one day there was a charge for three,
bottles of champaign, and five of claret ; these were of camel
among the extras.
A second letter from the defendant was now put in, and read by
the officer of the Court. It was dated July I, and addressed to the
plaintiff. The purport of it was as follows :—" Understanding toy
son, Mr. John Walton, is et your house, and not approving of his
being there, I give you notice that it is not my intention to pry any
part of the expenses he may incur, so yen will use your own discre-
don in crediting him, he being under age."
This was signed by the defendant.
The plaintiffs case having been closed,
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury for the defendant, and con-
tended that his client was not liable in law, and could not be com-
pelled discharge her son's bill to the plaintit. It wail assumed
on the other side, that because Mre. Walton paid a previous bill
she was liable to this ; but he thought the Jury would decide dif-
ferently, and not encourage keepers of " imperial hotels" to credit
„young men rashly and imprudently, and by these means lead them
into the commission of every species of extravagance. Was it to
be endured that because Mrs. Walton, on a former occasion, had
paid what might be considered the moderate and reasonable ex-
peaces of her son, she was in this instance to be called upon to sle-
ds] an gnomons and extravagnot bill, and that biter having