The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-07-26 00:00:00

LAW LVTELLicrAfp

ciwitT OF ( 11.1:k (THY, -t; It DAY. JULY 2L

HARI 111.11 I. MIL
It wall le. rercilicied that sonic ecciss pew. tiiis case, in which a
.piewtion of pilary with reve..t to r. nlloi the rrhitec.
t oral IhttionAri," hivolvell, I-. arA.:..t: hcfo:et..t. Lord Chan.

tow mentioned the cave to his Lord.shiit. and shil
that his chenty rare iitovt aor!on• fin. a d in order that at.
••t•tion at Itiw ;Light he hrongtv, it his Loril,,hip was otopanioo that
that would ht• t•r !Rsin-
The I,mtli prdait.ttl to give judga:Lnt on
llooday (1111, day).

:01tDON V. win titiN.
The ?map Eit Le. L 4 in, at Am:, ra:rd the plead-
, inc.. but Wive 110 final judgment. V.:14 a very importara
affidavit filed by the deft,thrin, which lie Y.D.lied Mr. Ileald to set!
before he finally derided th.• east.
Mr. HEALII intimated that an alli.l.,va Lad hero: prepared by
his client. which via. also iimioriant, 1,4 it proved tOe
cation of•an instrument, upon which the den:mien: Lad confidently
relied.

The Loan CliA tit 1: isms' mated, that nu 3lonJay he sliLould be
ready to give the ht.:A opinion oa the pies:ion.

UAL/An:lt v. Et.t.ts.
Counsel were helm] at much length in this case, which has been
so frequently discusses:. The questioa relates to cermin e►tates in
the West Indies, upon a hich there are ,nnuinerable ineunibrances.
The defendant now claims a considerable sum or money for ad-
vances made ; and the plaintiff seek. for an K.:count of the monies
which hare already been received. .Ifter a considerable discussion,
it was ultin:ately directed by the Court, that 31r. Ellis should
file an affidavit to the effect desired.
The remainder of the day was occupied with Bankrupt petitions,
alto public interest.

COURT OF KlNti's ItENITh WEsTmixsTelt,
SATURDAY. JULY 23.

The LORD CHIEr Jr/TICE au occupied for a eunaidera'ole
part of the day in hearing undefended 4,41111,1.

THE As'4lllKLEal OF KAU AGA:::AT nuwsr.
This was an action brought for the recovery of fit. Ifk. the
amount of an Auctioneer's bill for appraising some tuntature, and
putting op for sale an estate which was bnaght in.
The defence was, that the auctioneer had not rehtilar authovil
for offering the property for sale, and ought not to receive payment
for his trouble ; that the est Ste was timely mentioned in his gene-
ral bill of panieulars to swell the appesratice, arid nut to furnish a
source of profit.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of rd. lOs.
the amount of his bin.

BANY•1111 V. now.
This Wag an action of trover by the assignees of Thomas Thur-
tell, a bankrupt, to recover the value of a horse alleged to have
been convened by the defendant to his own use.
31r.litrawEY and Mr. STEENS conducted the plaintiff's case,
and llr 31 and Mr. Con Tx the defendant's.
The plaintiff was declared as assignee of the estate and effects
of Thomas Thurtell, a person of some notoriety. It was stated
Plat the hone in question had been purchased last summer by the
bankrupt of a person named John Cooper, and left by hint in the
care of the defendant. who is a livery stable keeper. Whilst the
horse was in the defendant's cure, Coopso, the original owner,
claimed it as his property, and took it away. It did not appear
that the animal was taken away with the defendant's pnsity,
upon which Mr. MAaIYAT illbliiitled th/t as there was no con-
version of the property by the defsndant, the action (maid not be
maintained.

3lr. t:uax►> contended, that if the horse was takint away by
Cooper with the privity of the dtfendant's servants, he you'd be
answerable for their act.

The Curer Joss rut: thought there was no conversion made
out to sustain the action of trove,. If the ddendaut had ntg-
ligently suffered Cooper to take the hone sway, that would be
cause for an action oR the case, hut not for novo% His
Lordship, however, asked if there was any other defence to the
action.

Mr. M said, he had • complete answer to the action
I upon another ground, namely, that l'hurtell, the bankrupt, had
swindled Mr. Cooper out of the hone, and, therefore, having nu
I title to it, the real owner had a right to follow 1411.1 repmtea him-
'elf of tht; aninnL

John Cooper deposed, that the horse in question had been his.
Ile sold it to Thomas Thurtell, the bankrupt, fur isa guineas, and
took his acceptance at one month. The bill was drawn by Probert.
Hefo;e the bill became due he saw Thomas and John Thurtell to.
gethn at the ('sick, in the Haymarket. They were sitting in a'
little parlour. The moment John Thurtell saw witness, he burst
out laughing and said, " I thought you had been long enough on
the town to know Letter than to let my brother Thomas do you out'
of your horse." The bankrupt, Thomas, also burst but laughing,
sour asked witness to take wine with him, and told hint not to mind
what his brother John said, for that the bill would be honourably'
taken up when due. Withers waited till the hill was due; and
when it was due it was dishonoured. Witness afterwardsum the
Thurtells, and John said he was a fool to let his horse go. Thomas
then told him he would pay the bill, if he would bold the bill over
a little whlle longs. He held it a week longer but it was not
paid. Witticism saw both brothers again repeatedly, and Thomas
told Whn candidly that he did not mean to pay him far the border
and that lie might do his best or his worst. Wimese then arrested
Thomas, who being admitted to bail, sent for him, and reproached
him for haring put him to so much expense, for that he meant to.
give him his horse again. He then fetched up a bottle of wine, and
said, " bet us be frin.ds, not fuca; I mean you to have yuur horse '
after all ; if you go and stay lour law pmcedings, and pay your
own expenses, I shall pay mine, and you shall have ybur horse.
back, provided you give me a good character to anybody that in-
quires about awls laugh'. 1 limn, however, have him a week or
ten days to make use of him, and then you shall have him back."
Witness paid all his own law expences, which amounted to fi or 7/.„
and the proceedings in the action were stayed. Ins week or ten
day% afterwards the bankrupt gave him up the hone. Thurtell had
told him where the animal vas, and at the end of the time stipu.
Mted, riven weet to the defendant's stables, saddled the horse,
and rode away with it. The horse had been dreadfully used, and
'cut in the legs. The bankrupt had told witness, half a score times,
teat be never meant to pay him far the hose, and told him that he
was a fool for letting him go, for he did not mean to pay for
that, nor 100 more horses he had hail. Witness received his horse
hack about the ;rah of August last. Ile was enabled to fix the day
in comequence uf a billof IW. delivered to him by Thurtell, in
which lie charged him fur every time he Waked him to take a glass
of wine with biro,—This was the defendant's caw.
The Lotto CHIEF Jusrict: thought it was a complete answer
to the action, and therefore directed a 'sunsuit.

COURT OF COMMOSPLEAS, (IvILDnALL,
SAT CADA/ u Li' 24.

Brfiore the CulEy JunTie.E and a Special Jmry.

CO.NDER v. CIIAI.I.ENEII.
Mr. Sergeant PELL stated, that this was an action brought to
recover compensation for a malicious prosecution instituted by the
defendant against the plaintiff, on a charge of perjury, ill gail to
have been committed in an answer put in by Mr. (kinder to a hal
cled against him in the Court of Exchequer. The circumstances
out of which the case had mina% were briefly these :—The plaintifl;
in the year 1818, was In partnenthip with a person named Evans,
and they together carried on the business of tea dealers and grOCe"‘
The defendant was engaged in the same business, and eatsM
trans;.c!ions took place between them, in consequence of which
they claimed from him a sum of Zfit. 3s. kid. as lot goods sold to
him by them through the meslium Of a third person, of the name
of Freeman. The defendant resisted the demand, and an action
for that sum )race commenced agamst kim, which wan tried before
Lard Chief Justice Dallas in 111111, and in which the plaintiff and
Mr. Evans his then partner, recovered a viglici to the full amount
of their claim. A motion was made in the Court of f.'ommon
Pleas to set aside that verdict, but the result being unfavourable to
the defendant, he brought a writ of error, which, experiencing the
same fate, he filed a bill in the Exchequer, on the Equity aide of
that Court, fur a discovery and to stay proceedings. To that bill the
plaintiff put in an answer, and it was dismbisal. . The defendant "
then filed an amended bill, which was dispuied of in the same
manner. Defeated thus in every (breeder, the defendant Then
preferred an indictment against the plaintiff at the Sessions for
perjury committed in his answer to the original bill. That indict-
ment, bentevey, was not pressed, on which the plaintiff unload it
by certiorari into the Court of King's Bench, and the record being
then taken down for trial, it was discovered, that there were such
fariances between the allegations in the indictment and the state-
ments in the answer, that the indictment could not he supported,
and the plaintiff was at once a:quitted. lie should here obeerve,,
that the acquittal, though procured on legal 'Objections, equally
gave the plaintiff a right of action • but he should be able to show,
by the most incontrovertible proofs, namely, by the defendant's
own books, that at least one part of the answer alleged to be false,
was, in fact, literally true. And he should also prove the same in
another manner, with respect to the remainticr of the answer. The
Learni-d Sergeant concluded by observing, that ahen he had made
out his case jn the manner he hail stated, he should have entitled
himself to • verdict, and he should call on the Jury, in order fully
to exculpate the plaintiff, whose grand object was the vindication
of his character, to give such damages as they thought would an-
swer that purpose. and be an adequate compensation tea an injury
like that of which he complained.
Some witnesses were then called to substantiate the case; but
before they had proceeded far, a consultation was held among the
defendant s Counsel, when it was finally arranged that the cause
I should be terminated on the folloaing couditions:—A verdict had
formerly passed, in this Court, against the present defendant, in a
rause similar to this. when the Jury gave 14101. damages. Those
damages the plaintiff now consented to velinquish,ori the defendant's
undertaking to pay the costs of all the indictments which had been
preferred, in consequence of time trahsactions, and other expenses,
111110Unting to about 18101.
The (*rimy Jai NT icr thought, that as the plaintifrs object was
the vindication of his character, that object had been fully attained !
by this arrangement.—A Juror, who had sat on both the furrier
trials, concurred with his Lordship in the propriety of the course
now adopted.