The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1804-11-26 00:00:00

DEWY V. W4TIITON.

Mr. EnEctioz:Mt.6aii,;..aii,.. Dt LLON, were
heard in support of the deed of trust made by Lord
and Lady Arundel to trustees. Their observations
concluded the aiguliwnts of Counsel.
The Court reserved their judgment till afutureday.
JOYCE v. ♦nl7.

This was a motion for attachment against the
Defendant, who is an Officer of this Court, as Ser.
jeant at Mace, and a Bailiff to the Sheriff of Mid-
dlesex. He had arrested the Plaintiff' on a lutillt
for 131. and, having him in custody, proposed to
procure him bail and liberation for the consideration
of two guineas, which the Plaintiff paid, together
with the costs of bailing. and was enlarged; but, in
a very short time afterwards, was arrested ar:ain by
Anis, who said he did not think the bail surficiimt,
and must therefore have valuable securities in hand.
The Plaintiff deposited with him Bills of Exchange,
value 3001. and was again enlarged ; but the De-
fendant attested him again, saying he must have
actual value in goods. 'the Plaintiff, who is a dealer
in glass, deposited goods in his hands to the value
of 701. but he still refused to enlarge him, unless
he would give him a Warrant of Attorney for the
sale of those goods, which the Plaintiff, extremely
anxious for his liberty, and not suspeding any unfair
advant4ge, gave him ; upon which the Defendant
proceeded to sale of the goods, and disposed of them
greatly under the first cost, whereby the Plaintiff
suffe,ed'conliderable loss : objed, therefore? was
to obtain j tx4ce.—lt ule' to show cause granted.

WATTOM •MP ♦{OTNL[ DLDIOO4I_•ND_

Mr. Patti moved the Court, that the Sheriff of
Surrey might be ordered to detain the hotly of the
Defcnaant Franklini, who had been arrested, and
set at large on a false superferfras.
He stated, that this was an imposition and forgery
upon the Court. In June last, a copies was issued
to arrest the Defendants, who were Spaniards, for a
sum of 5221. Frankhui was arrested ; but no Rule

whatever was served upon Mr. Win le, the Min-
titrs Attorney, or upon any of his clerks. U{•-tn
making search at the proper ofli:e, a Rule was f0n...1
to have been obtained in a e.tuse entitled Watton
v. Franklin and another; but no will in ilia real
cause.

On further search, an affidavit was found, pu•
porting to be thy •aiTi ; vit of Henry ifertin;
service of notice of 114.1, and of justification thereof.
But upon making the striaest inquiry, no such per-
son as Henry fiartin was to be found, and the per.
sons mentioned as hail were also fielitiotis.

Upon examinin4 the vipertedras, the w.irds
'amoi/wr wore inse-ted in a different hand-writin,...; and
ink, and the letter i added to the name of Franklin.
Under all these circumstances, it appeared to be a
gross fraud ; and the Court accordingly granted a
rule to spew cause.

CONIM.IN PLC S.

SLNIS.

Serjeant &tan( moved, that the Rule obtained
in this cause should be made a'isolute. It was as
action brought by the ofsl'gor in a bond whic:. had
been executed by the i:le:11:int the purpose of
securing a separate maim- ,ance to his wife, having
parted from her, when t!:e adion was broight. The
Defendant had. through mistake, put in the plea of
non eat fafium, now moved the Court for leave
to withdraw that pli:a, and plead de n0.,0 specially
that the Defendant's wife had committed adultery
with the Plaintiff before the bond was executed, and
that she continued to live in adultery with him, and
that he grounded this application on not be-mg ac-
quainted with the fad at the time he executed the
bond.

Serjeant Ossi.ow opposed it, on the grounds that
it was merely for the purpose of casting slander nn
the woman, and that there were lache on the part of
the Defendant, the Plaintiff having :dread), given
notice of trial : he then cited a case fi ion Pere
hams, to prove that, even if she had committed
adultery, it would not forfeit the bond for mainte-
nance, though it wc•uld in case of dower. lie there.
lore hoped the Court would discharge the Rule.
Serjeant llastsy, on the other side, argued that
the Court should not li.ok into the validity of a plea
on a motion; that the case cited by his Brother was
before marriage, but here it was after marriage, the
woman having committed adultery at the very time
the bond was executed, though the Defendant did
not know► it—and. a.: to the Lykes, that arose fr-im
the penning of the Special Plead. .
Sir JA stes iti,o said, he dij not think it
was the intent of the law, that a woman should
starve, because :,he had committed adultery—that
this did not apear to by a proper plea, but merely a
plea of experiment ; and that, as the time of plead-
ing had gone by, the C.iurt most refuse the Rule.
Rule discharged.

BARNARD O. ►AWNER.

Sa•jeant Bxs r moved to make the conditional
Rule to stay proceedings in this case, absolute. It
WAS an affirm en a bail-bond brought against the
Defendant, to recover 601. the amount of the sum
bailed by him. The Defendant refused to pay, on
Account of the bail-bond being fraudulently altered.
Serjeant CLAY rox opposed the Rule being made
ab,olute, on the ground, that there was no appear-
ance of fraud or alteration on the bond, which he
produced.
Serjeant Btsr urged, that this had been altoge-
ther a swindling transadion ; the Plaintiff had given
a hill of exchange to a Mr. Burger to get discount-
ed. Burger applied the mon-y to hi. own use; the
consetvience was, th it he was arrested by Barnard
for the Amount. Paha •r, th I present Defendant,
was then induce: to jnia in a bail-bond, for the pur-
pose of ger' •f; !_lurger out t.l prison. In the mean
time, " was protested for non-payment, and
at. !- was brought against the drawers of the bill,
- amount. Defence was taken ; and, on trial
ti Guildhall, it was clearly proved, that Mr. Bar-
nard had not the smallest right to the bill, having
obtained it, by a swindling trans:l:lion, from a Capt.
liarnaby ; so, having failed in his attion on the bill
of exchange, .because it was obtained by fraud, he
proceeded against Palmer, on the bail-bond given on
the same bill.

The Court at first ordered that the Plaintiff should
make affidavit of the manner in which he got the
bill ; but, upon the representation of Serjeant &sr,
that a man, who could be leagued with a parcel of
swindlers, as it was notorious he WAS, would not
stop at giving a very good account of it, right or
wrong, ordered the Rule to be made absolute.