The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-10 00:00:00

CIVIL. SIDE.

kOlittßTll;: CIIIAMTION.
This was an action of agiumpit, directed by the Lord Chancel-
lor to be tried at these Assiies. The action was brought to recover
124/. 12s. 34.. being the amount of the produce of the plaintifrs
go:ids, sold by auction by the defendant in April hot. The de-
fendant was an appraiser and eintioneer, and wan only nomin Ally
interested. The real defendant in the case was rile. P. Simmons,
of Read ng, and the qiiestions for trial were. first, whether then.
wan a good petitioning creditor's debt ; and secondly, whether
there was an actual act of bankruptcy committed by the plaintiff.
The facts of the case were simply these. A person named James
Mosey rented a public-house under rile. Simmons, who curied on
the business of a brewer. The public-house wan sitoated at
Nettlebed in this county, and was called the Red line. Ilissey was
desirous of quitting this house in January last, and the plaintiff,
who wanted to take the house, harieg been introduced to Mr.
Simmons, and approved of by him, it wan agreed between Ilissey
and the plaintiff that a valuation should be made of the out-going
tenant's property, to be paid for by the plain.iff: This was accord-
ingly done in the presence of all parties, and before a clerk of Sim-
oleos's. among others. The amimnt of the appraisement was
3471 towards which the plaintif paidHisseyin cash 1301.,
and the clerk of 3lr. Simmons wrote nut a cheque (payable If Mr.
Simmons alone) for 2171. Iffs. 3d. which wee given to 'limey, and
possession of the house and property were thereopertsiven to the
plaintiff: The day site: the plaintiff took possession, he well
served with a declaration in ejectment by the superioi lend-
lord of Mr. Simmna. The plaintiff give notice to Mr. SM.
mow; that he had been serves with such declsriPil a, and
Mr. Simmons promised to defend the action. About the end of
February following the Sheriffcante with a writ of posses:flan, and
turned the plaintiffout of the house, whereupon the plaintiffattomed
tenant to the superior landlord. On the Ist of April the plaintiff
left Nettlebed, where he was absent upwards of a fortnight, during
which tone Mr. Simmons's clerk called at the house of the plain.
tiff. but (lid lint see the plaintiff, and was totd by his wife that
she did not know where lie was, or where to write to him. On
the 11111 of April the plaintiff's roods were ariverrsed for sale by
auction by the defendant on the Ilith and 17th of April. On the
second day of the sale 3lr. Simmons gave notice t r the defendant
not to pay over the produce of the sale to the plaintiff, nod there-
upon sued out a commission of bankruptcy against the plaintiff.
The Jury found that there was a good petitioning creditor's debt,
and a valid act of bankruptcy.

LEA V. I. EAKE.

These parties arc both—attorneys at—law, in this county, and
the action wax for a libel, contained in a letter written by the
defendant. When the came watt cilled on. . .

Mr. Jenvts, the defendant's C row and shortly observed,
that he had long known both plaintifEand defendant, and hail in-
terested himself to compose the differences that had unfortunately
arisen between them, and had succeeded to compromise this
action by submitting to a verdict for the plaintiff.
Alr. PHILLIPS, the plaintiff's Counsel, then said, that his client
had felt himself called upon to bring this action iton Court, to
afford to the defendant as opportunity of justifying, if he could,
w'tat he had written ; and that as he had not atte•::pted to do so,
and submitted to a verdict against him, the plainttfr was satisfied
with this implied negative of the truth to' the lib lions mater, and
was content to take nominal damages, his only object having been
to clear his character._

Verdict for plaintiff—Damages I. carrying costs.
SAIIIN V. STEVENSON. _

The parties in this cause live at or near Hounslow, and it ap.
peared that in October, 11124, defendant purchased a horse which
was stolen from him very soon afterwards, and that the plaintiff
bought a horse the latter end or the same October, and kept it till
April last, when defendant having seen the horse, claimed it as his
property, and with the assistance of a constable got the horse out of
the poviession of the plaintiff. The horse was subsequently de-
mantled back of the defendant, who refused to return it back to
the plaintiff, and therefore this action was brought to recover it ;
and the only question in the cause was as to the identity of the
hors; whether it belonged to plaintiff or defendant. The horse
was proved not to have beon worth W., to have had greasy heels
fur some years, to be blind of both eyes, and to be the ugliest
animal in the world. There was an extraordinary deal of contra-
dictory evidence in this CUM', the witnesses on one side contra-
dicting the testimony of those on the other, in the most positive
manner. Verdict for the plaintiff.

WILKINS 1) 1111X014.

Th;s action was brought to recover damages for a breach of pro-
mise of marriage, and being a case of no very ordinary nature, ex-
cited sonic interest, which was increased by a very eloquent
speech delivered by Mr. Jervis, on the part of the plaintiff, who,
at the time the courtship began, lived with her father, a farmer at
Milton, near Burford, and in circumstances in life somewhat
similar to her intended husband, the defendant, who resides at lb-
stone, near Henley. It appears that the parties first saw each other
at a friend's house in Stoketichurch, in the year 1819, when de.
fondant being pleased with plaintiff, asked permission to pay his
addresses to her, which was refused by plaintiff, without the pre-
vious consent of parents. Defendant afterwards saw the plain.
tiff's father, and obtained permission to visit his daughter, and the
courtship was carried on, though not very ardently (as it was
proved that a twelvemonth had more than once into evened without
the parties writing to or seeing each other) till the latter end of the
year 11125, when the defendant married a widow named Mead,
having previously promised plaintiff to marry her and no one else.
Mr. Talfurd made a very able speech for the defendant, in mid.'
gation of damages. Verdict for plaintiff—Damages 501.

DOE ON DEMISE OF STONE v. STONE..
This was an action of ejectment, to recover posseisinn of a
messuage, cottages, and garden, situate at euddesden in this
county. The plaintiff's father being possessed of four cottages,
sold two of them to his youngest son, who is plaintiff, whizlt two,
however, were taken possession of by the plaintiff's elder brother,
who was heir-at-law to his father, who died about a year ago.
The conveyance of the two cottages being put in and pawed, a
verdict was found fur the plaintiff.

RAMSAY V. EA LET.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff. the atsignee of
Ealey, an insolvent debtor, against the defrnd&nt. who is a brother
of the insolvent, who, since his brother's discharge, order the In-
solvent Act, had received two several sums of money on account
of the Insolvent, amounting to 171. which he refused to deliver up,
anti therefore it became necessary to compel hint.
Verdict for plaintiti--Thimages 171.
BAKER V. WAt.KLETT.

Thin was an actionCOreco;t4leVenguineas. the balance of an
account upon the sale of twelve sheep to the defer dant. for fifteen
guineas, in the year 1824. The defence was that the defendant
bought the sheep as agent of his mother, and not on his own ac-
count. But being unable to establish this defence to the satisfac-
tion of the Jury, they found a verdict for the plaintiff, for the
damages in the declaration.