The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-23 00:00:00

MAIM V. BALL.

This watt an action against the defendant as a common carrier.
aid was brought to recover compensation for the loss on two boxes
a. silk good., valued at t 621. At the trial, the delivery and book-
ing of the boxes at the defendant's office. Cross Keys, Wood-street,
Cheapside, and of their nen.arrival at their destination, were
proved. For the defendant a notice was proved, by which he dis-
claimed his 'tabs:ley for all packages above the value of 31. The
Lord Chief Justice, at the trial, thought the case of so much am.
patience, that he wmte out four questions for the Jury. The facts
they !mind on three questions were framed into a speciel verdict,
which was called on toe argument this day.
Mr. BAILEY, for the plaintiff, said, that the special verdict
band that the plaintiff' had published • general notice that he
weald not be liable above M. ; tltat these boxes of silk had been
delivered to the defendant, to be " safely and securely" conveyed
to Seth, :recording :o their directions , and that the defendant had
received the goods for this purpose, knowing the value of them.
rho futesticin tor the consideration of the Court oar them facts was, I
whack? the defendant. necking these boxes with • knowledge of
I..eir value, did thereby, in effect, rescind his general notice of non-
: s'emit,•?
The'Loaln Ceara' JUSTICE thought that the introduction of the
rpressios safely &oda/cur.:4" would Iced to some embarrassment
hireafter, -and might prevent the real question from being raised.
The insertion of these words, in fact, assumed the very point which
.res vow to be argued; they were an inference from facts, instead of
Lel)* merely facts.
air. SC•IILETT, who was on the other side, pairLithat there was
ro dhow rude of law than that in a special verdict it is not stiffi-
canoe to lind the evidence of theta, but the facts themselves ; not in-
fetncei front Nets, but simply the facts. He would suggest that
if/esecial verdict in this case s tould be wended. He thought it
;otter! simply state the occupation, then the notice of tion.liebtiity,
thee the dmti'very of the goods, and the acceptance of them by the
msfecda at, witit a knowledge of their value. With thin statement
col:.-al point could come in to disturb the judgment of the
Court on the real queouon at issue, whim he apprehended was
this,—whether the defendant, receiving thee; goods with a
knowledge of their value, mild thereby, notwithstanding hits notice,
undertake for their safe delivery.
gr • BAILEY cool:, not see any necessity for amending the ver-
/AI. He Cotdi car perceive how the introduction or the words
•• safely and securely" could lead to any difficulty, or prevent the
real question from being raised.
Mt. Justice BATLEY—In point of fact, Mr. Bailey, you want
is to take for granted the very point which is to be argued.
The LORD CHttr-JcsTicL said that the case had better stand
over, to have the special verdict amended, which was acceded to,
though somewhat reluctantly, by Mr. Bailey.

BULIINOHIM V. B/NIES.

Mr. GURNEY said. that on a former day the Court had ordered
this cause to arm on for trial at the sittings after the present term,
Let by a mistake in drawing up the rule, as it now stood, the trial
vas ordered to come on ■t the sittings after Trinity term. He,
Lac-efore, moved the Court to gram a rule to show cauve why it
sheuld not be amended, and why the Master should not ascertain
the expenses of the defendant's witntsses, in order that they might
be paid by the plaintiff, in pursuance to the former rule.
Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. w ESTMINSTZR,
TvzsoAr. soy. n

CONTEMPT OF COURT.
On a former day of this Term, Mr. Sergeant Witog obtained a
rule Calling upon John Hunter, Esq. of Cambridgeshire, to show
cause why an attachment should not issue against him for a con.
tereist of this Court, in not obeying a subverts which had been
serval upon him, requiring him to attend as a witness in • cause
between Thorpe, Esq. v. Gisbome, for the keep of some race-
t;aries, which war tried betore the Lord Chief Justice of Ibis Court,
at Westminster, in last Easter Term.
The rule was obtained upon the affidavits of the attorney in the
mini, and Oa person named Stasilog, who was employed to servo
tae subpcena.
It appeared by the affidavit of Starling, that a person of the'
huge of Jones had given him a copy of a subpcena on the Epsom
law-course, on the 17th of May last, requesting him to go and
Alitt it on Capt. John Hunter, who then attended those races.
:Aiding accordirgly went to serve him with the copy. At first
Copt. hunter refuse) to take it, but a gentleman who was with
him took the paper, and observed, " why this is a sublicena for
ybo to attend on the 19th, which is the great Derby day." SJar.
:tag then tendered to the Captain a guines, as conduct money,
artless the Captain said, "d
—n your money, I would not attend on
that day for 100 guineas." and taking the copy of the stamen',
:rum his friend, desired Starling to take it back again, but the de.
potent refused to do so. upon which the Captain threw the copy
tin him, and offered Starling money if he would go away, and
say that he could not find him.
•The affidavit of the attorney in the cause stated, that be had
caused the subperna to be duly served on the Captain.
31v. Sergeant VAUGHAN now showed cause against the rule. He
coetencied that upon the affidavits which were read by his Learned
Bother Wilde, in applying for the Hula, it was obvious that no
proper service had been made of the subjacea ; and until that was
•:orrti it was impossible the conduct of Captain Hunter, who was
a gentleman of great respectability, and who would not wantonly
mem: the displeasure of any Court of Justice, could be construed
icto a contempt of this Court, by treatirg with disrespect its pro.:
resit It did not at all appear by the 2tE.::‘t it of Starling, that the
ortOnal writ had ever been produced to Captain Hunter, or indeed
met it ever was in the hands of Starling himself. It was absolutely
teetotal to the very existence of a contempt of the process of the
t-oner, that the party accused should be fully aware at the One he
we, eflegfrd to hare committed it, that the process had real;y issued
f torn that Cosa ; but to this case there was no proof that Captain
Hunter had ever been informed out of what Court the writ issued,
le indeed that the piece of paper was a copy of any original writ at
41 Betides. Captain Hunter bad in his affidavit denied the facts
sgeeti to by bta.ling. He stated, that a shabby loose character, a
sort of idle intruder at race courses, came up to him and gave him
a per, but 'thigh the respondent returned to him without reading
I asee:tafning Its nature. Ile denied that this person ever
or Or
ow
him any terairry, or that be (the respondent) used the offen-
ell* lrestuage inipoted to him, or any langtastre of that nature.
TIM hie Lensed ff•rgrant contended was a sufficient answer to the'
wallbsestalhei: i.t the affidavits on the other sole ; and would
riiiteeel eatial the Court that no contempt had beet, committed.
the I.Urtsrt wand bear is mind that the parties applying
fir
1: rule would not be left without a remedy, even If the rule
be dlsettergra, as they would still have their action at law,_
leg Wad the whet? tneritt c• the cast might be gone into, and the

•
party against whom the'aeplication was now made woffidiiiiithl
olppurtunity to enter into a full explanation of the circumeteners,
and the 'muter be finally decided. There was, however, another
circumstance which he would submit to the Court, as being suffi-
Ment to enttite lion to have this rule discharged ; and that was the
length of time which boil been suffered to eleueebetore the rule was
moved for. had been decided in the Bench that the
party who seuetit a summary punialtment to be indicted on a per-
• son, t.icilaut the intervention of a Jury, ought to du at, in the nest
Tenn a(iPe the Flt:nee conioleinteluf wueconotatted. The Leirned
sergeanrieise about to quote the case in ahleii On decision oc.
mitred.. but was stopped by the Coutt, who desired Mr. Sergeant
W title :o proceed in solvent of dot. rule.
Mr. Sergeant Wiene said, notwithstanding the arguments of
his Learned Brother, lie should conical that this was a case that
called fur the most :nicked reprobation on the part of the Curt.
The conduct of the respondent was, hi would submit, a gross con.
tentPt of the Court in two points et view. First, there was a gross
want of obeilieoce to the process of the Court, and in the second
place a gyms attempt had Lien made to bribe a person while in the
act of serving that pracess. Whether the service was technically
consist ft not he submitted there was reationoble evidence to satisfy
the Court that the pirty had full notice that die individual, who
handed him the paper oft the race-courem.came to ecru him with a
proems of thia Cueit. The respondent had, it was true, denied
wising the language imeuted to hint, and had alto denied that Star-
ling had offered Min intone", but lie dig nut they that lie knew the
(thine et the stamens was to require his auendauer in the Court of
' Common Pleas. or that he bail oared money to Starling with a
view to suppress the service of the sulipmnu, and to induce that
person to say, that he had not seen the respondent They was a
most material deleet in this gentleman's effulasit,and one which he
thought would induce the Court to make the rule abothite.
The Logo CHIMP JUSTICE said he wan exceedingly sorry
that this case was drought before the Court in so imperfect a man-
ner, tor if the affidavits had been sufficient to make out the cane,
one of grosser contempt had never occurred; and undoubtedly die
punishment which would have fallen upon this gentleman would
have taught him in future not to tamper with soy man who was
deputed to serve him with a Knees+ of this or any other Court. or
with the process itself. But unfortunately there was not autficient
proof of any conteamt against any process Liming from this Court.
No person could be guilty of a contempt by rejecting the service of
soy paper, unless the party was informed that lieu caper was a true
copy of the original imbpoina proceeding from this Court. All that
appeared by the affidavit of the attorney was, that he had caused n
espy of the subpoena to be served upon Captain Hunter, but he did
nut state how he had caused it to he Ammo. Cm: it app.,ered that
tie attorney was not the putters who dclierred the subeena to Star.
ling. The Court, however, was left to infer (for that had not been
sworn) that the attorney delivered it to a man of the name ofJenee,
and that Jones gave it to Starling. All that Starling said was, that
he Ilad received paper from Junes, who desired Witten serve it on
Captain Hunter. It nowhere, immured that Jones hatui,d over the
original subpoena to Starling; acd if not, it could not be good set.
vice by Starling, who ought to have had the eriginal its his pos.
session. Ott the contrary. it appeared by Starlit g's own eflidavit
that be gave the Captain a piece at paper which had been given to
him by Jones; this was MA enough to bane a person into cot.
tempt., Besides, it din not at ail nepear that the writ came front
!ie Court- It was therefore impossible to get on with this case
Without an affidavit front Jones. If that person bad sworn that he
took the subpuut from the attorney. aril gave it to Starling, and
then if the attorney came and said he saw Sterling serve a copy of it
en Captain Hunter there would have been evidence of the con
tempt. Hut owing to this defect, for aught that apeoarea, the
writ might have nsued (pout any other Court. flip Lordship
was in hopes they should have got at this fact in another
way. Sometimes parties were disposed to say mere than wis
convenient to them in their affidavit.. If it had been ad-
mitted by the respondent that he knew he was to appear on
a trial in the Common Flee% that would hare been sufficient ; but
all that he swore was, that he was supposed to attend on tha day of
the Derby stakes. but rehere he did not say, whether in the King's
Bench, in the Common Pleas, or in the Exchequer. This was
theretore ineuffirient to sustain a rule of this nature. It was per.
fectly tree that this gentleman had not denied one tact, which, as
far as histnoral character was concerned, was most important. It
had been sworn that he said to the person who went to serve him
with the piper, .• I will give you some money, if you will say you
could not tied me." It would have been well for the character of
this gentleman if he had been able to have denied this tact, or had
called the person who was in his cnmpany to have sworn that no
such words were used by him. Be had certainly denied saying
that he would not appear on the Derby day for lOU guineas. If the
proof had been properly afforded to the Court, his Lordship thought
they should have taught this gentleman that 10th guineas, and hie
staying at the Derby would not have indemnified him for the pun.
ishment which this Court would have visited upon him. But as
that proof was defective, the rule, he thought, must be discharged,
lint as his Lordship certainly considered the conduct of the respond-
ent such as could not be approved of, it must be without costs.
Mr. Justice PARK agreed with his Lordship that the role must
be discharged. The doubt that he had at first felt was, not that
the party had been guilty of a contempt of Court in not attending
to the subpcena, bat by therms language that he had used towards
the Court. That a gentlerni.n, who, as the Learned Sergeant had
stated, held the rank of Captain in the army, should have used
such languege, was conduct that ought to have received every re.
probation of the Court towards which it war addressed. His Lord.
ship did not wonder that his Learned Brother Vaughan was wil.
ling to withhold the affidavit ; he produced it with great reluc-
tance ; because in that affidavit it was not attempted to be denied
that the party had offered a bribe to the person who went to serve
the process of the Court. His Lordship therefore thought, that
though the Court was compelled, tor the reasons stated by the Lord
Chief Justice, to discharge the rule, yet it must be without costs.
Mr. Justice Bun/meow said, that the first question to be
considered was whether the respondent had disobeyed the pro.
eels of the Court. It was clear that he could not have disobeyed
it, because it did not appear that the writ was ever shown to him.
Every body knew that the disobedience was to the writ, and not
to the copy ; and the usual course was to al:ow the writ at the
same time that the service of the copy was made. This tint
having been done, he thought the rule must ha discharged, but,
under the circumstances, without costs.

Mr. Justice GASI:LEE said, that as the rest of the Court had
expressed their opinion that the rule ought to be discharged, it
was not necessary for hint to enter at length into his reasons
for thinking that there was sufficient evidence to warrant them
in making the rule absolute. If the question had been left to a
Jury upon this evidence, whether the party had or had not
notice that he was to attend in the Common Pleas, on the day
mentioned in the writ. he thought there would have been no hesi-
tation in coming to the conclusion that he had. It slid appear to
him, upon the whole, that this gentleman knew he was to at-
tend in the Common Pleas. With respect to the service of the
subpana itself, it had been expressly decided that the party was
cot bound to rho. the original. If the person on whom service
was made demanded to have the original produced, then the
01fifer, or pe-son making the !service. was certainly required to
produce it, but not otherwise. In this case there was no proof
that the party required to see the original subperna; and his
Lordship thought there was quite sufficient hete, on the affida-
vits, to have waved the showing of the original writ. There
was, in his opinion, enoug., in the applicant's 'Minhs not an-
swered by the respondent to show a contempt of the Court.
There was so much misconduct shown on the part of this gentle-
man that bin Lordship would have made him a subject of Ml-
le min. However, he felt extreme diffidence in stating his opinion
after what had fallen front his Lordship (the Chief Justice) atoV
his Learned Brothers; at all events, if the rule should be dia.
charged, it certainly ought to be so without car',.
Mr. Sergeant Vauc.ttsst said, the case to which lie wan about
to refer was to be found in 2 Tidd'a, Pear. 857, w'.ere the
Court refused an attachment because the party slid rut apply for
it in the next tarn slier the contempt was alleged to have been
done.
The LORD CittEr JUSTICE—That ought to be considered
the practice of this Court.
.111 r. Justice GASILEE—I don't differ remit that.
The rule for an attachment was then discharged, without costs.

LAKE v. SILK.
This was a rule obtained by 111 r. Sergeant Bettaweitrae., to get
aside the bail bonds that had been git en for the defendant, and
for him to be admitted to enter coininon appearance, upon the
around that the defendant had been arrested by a wmng name. He
was arte.ted by the name of Stephen I'. Silk, whereas his real
name as. Thomas Stephen Silk.
On a subsequent day, /lir. Sergeant VAUGHAN showed cause
against the rule, and contended that as the defendant was usually
known by the name of Stephen T. Silk, and his cards being en-
graved i t that name, the arrest was strictly correct, and the rule
ought to be diseltsrgrd.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that their Lordships had
been mirdi entangled while looking Into the eases; but in the pre-
sent instance they felt themselves bound to say, that thr.e buil
bonds must be set aside, but it must be upon terms, via. that the
defendant should enter common appearance. give an undertaking,
not to bring any aetion for a false arrest, and that the rule be niada
absolute withoni costs. His Lordship added. that tor the fwure,
where a party should be sued in this way, the Count would nut
give any relief on an application beingsmide„ similar to tbe ;instant ;
as the defendant had clearly nothing like mane to entitle him to
the favour of the Court.

Ruleßlade üb.olute upon te►ms. and without costa.

co--nT OF EXCHEQUER. TUISDAY, Nov. ft
I/Wore Me PAID etitlCT BARON:I
The Court was occupied during the whole of the dny in hearing
the continuation of the arguments of Counsel in the long-pending
tithe case, the Shrewsbury School v. Maddock, which is of no
public importuner.