The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-09-21 00:00:00

ISTRRINOTON V. EARLE.
Mr. SCARLYTT moved to suspend theajudgment of" Nontult."
A repo of the trial of this case has aim y appeared is the public
journals, which was an action [Wanner fee the recovers of a copy
" of a copy" of a will, where the original had not been peeved so
exist in any of the Ecclesiastical Courts ; and the Judge ruled
there had been shewn "no conversion," and that the espy
"of a copy" of a will could be of no use whatever Ist
plaintiff's title.
The Learned B.taow said, on this application being made—
Mr. Searlett, take until the tenth day of next Term, and then W
no rule be made, let judgment of r.ousuit be entered apinat the
JONES V. WRIGHT AND ANOTHER.
Mr. SCARLETT, in this shipping cause, appeared (or the plat a.
tiff, which was en action brought by hint us the owner of the
sloop Edward, for a compensation in damages against the defend.
ant. for running down his vessel off Liverpool.
Mr. Sergeant Caoss conducted the defence, and contended that
the accident arose solely front the effects of a storm at sea, which had
been described by the witnesses on the part of the defendant, and
which he could not control.
Mr. SCARLETT in his reply. after some preliminary observe-
tons, said " that his Learned Friend had contended that the plain.
tiff's vessel had been wrecked by the effects of a storm, but it was
no such thing, and he would tell the Gentlemen of the'lury it was
no more a storm than the storm of a chamber-pot !" (Loud bursts
of laughter followed this simile;) on its ceasing the Learned Oen-
demon evidently entharrassed--(seeing some ladies in the Court
blushing) said, Gentlemen of the Jury, you know, u I told
you before, Gentlemen of the Jury, I have proved that It did rot
arise from the storm." It was with difficulty the laughter was sup.
pressed so as to enable the Learned Gentleman to finish his reply.
The Jury found for the plaintiff--llamages MIL costs 40a.
HUGHES V. ST•THAM, TOWN came or LIVERPOOL.
Mr. SCARLSTT. Mr. Serpent Caoss, and Mr Pal- meow,
were for the plaintiff; and r. Bacstronast, Mr. STATUE, and
Mr. Ataeasott, for the defendant.
The damages were laid in the pleadings at 6,000 L The defend.
ant pleaded eon asnonpsit.
r. ScaaLETT stated the nature of the action, which was
brought against the defi.utlant as Clerk of the Peace for the
Borough of Liverpool, to recover one.fourdi part of certain fees
paid to hint, arising front the prosecution against felons, by virtue
of the office which he held as such Clerk, front which he was en-
titled to receive four shillings or every count in the indictment, and
which the defendant was liable to pay a division of to the plaintiff,
' as a partnership claim, tinder an agreement dated the 211th of Fe-
bruary, 11110. A dissolution of pannership of the let of March
appeared to have been contemplated, but had never been Garetted.
Mr. Sergeant CROSS contended, that under the Act of Perlis.
met of 2•Jd George 11. the plaintiff could not recover in this
action, as he could not act in a twofold capacity as Tows Clerk awl
Solicitor in the prosecutions for felonies nines either in the
Borough, County, or Quarter Sessions.
Mr. S T said, Mr. Statham had filed &bill in equity
against Mr. Hughes.
Mr. ALDERSON said, there had been an award made between
the parties, winch recited that the plaintiff should be entitled to
ono-fourth pert of the profits that might arise from all prosecutions
for felonies in the borough of Liverpool, &c. ; and that the plain-
, tiff had said, Mr. Alderson toads no claim until the latter end of
the last year, for which he had brought his action, awl at all events
he was concluded by the award.
Mr. Scaaxxve said, that the word " arise" might as well have
Mss fuller.
Mr. A tettesow—My Learned Friend knows a joke is no
argument.
A Gentleman proved thet Mr. Statham had requested him to
associate with Mr. Slashes, and that he signed the agreement.
Mr. Scast ETT suggested a reference.
J U DOR-11241CM I think it will be best for all parties.
A verdict was then nominally taken for the plaintiff—Damesse
6,00 M, costs 40s. subjest to the bill in equity, in which all parties
were to enter into a rule of Court.